The New York herald., 1869-03-03
SUPREME couaT-clRculr.


The Readc-sweetzer Libel suis-Ciosing ot
the Testimony for the Piaintia-A Motion
for Nonsuit-The Rights Of Authors and Of
Critics-Opeuing Of the Defence.
Before Judge Clerke.
CHARLES Hedde %. charles H. SiCeezd ana
Ofhers.-The trial OF this case was resumed and
Join Ross an employe Of the printers and Mr. 8. w.
Green one OF the frm OF the printers OF the Hound
Table, were placed on the stand to show that the
article came regularly from the editors. Mr.. Green
gave the circulation Of the Round Table ut s,726.
Henry d. Palmer was called and testified that he
had been In England in 1855 and 1865; he was &C
ouainted with Mr.. Reade and visited him while In
England; Mr.. Reade was then engaged ON "Grifnth
Gaunt; he witness, saw some Of the manuscript; he
was asked by Mr Reade TO offer the work to Aessrs.
Ticknor Fields, and did 80; he heard from those
gentlemen that they had accepted the proposuon OF
hr. Leade directly.
Messrs. Ticknor 3 Fields was made before he saw
the manuscript.
The plaintln then rested.
Mr. Sewe moved To strike out all the tesumony a.
to the LnglIsh newspapers.
MT. Gerry SAID they had made every effort 10 pro-
cure o. rne ops me ete
Mr. Dll,iock then moved TO dismiss the complaint
on the ground that Mr. Reade had chosen to sue not
ior hIs personal but his professional injuries. The
policy vi The American law however harsh or unjust
denled Mr. keade any standing whatever In this
ing by becoming citizen, but had none now. The
cnnr0es made in the three articles were neither
against Mr. Reade personally nor as an author nm In
charges were against this special book. NOW, u the
SUIT were to be considered Notwithstanding its form.
suit Tor damages to the book, then the plaintiff
must establish special damage. Such suits, though
In l0rm sander or libel, were really special actions
on Ss sas s ana Of he on the
ground that these articles were privileged The law
OF privilege grew ont Of this:-A libel the law pre-
suined out OF the libel itself be malicious; but
the later development OF society cases came up and
multiplied where, from the circumstances connected
presume nance. This law OF privilege was extended
later to the press, Lord Elenborough laying down
clearly and distinctly the limits and extent Of this
privilege on principles OF reason that could not be
attacked. Among The duties Of the press and its
more important duties was the preservation Of the
esty i' i meant @ t. criticism came clearly within
this privilege: the case OF Carr vs Hood,
IN which Lord ~ a,d down % the the rule
yet II was there held that II the defendant had not
travelled out OF criticism ON the book. or Of the
attack on tue author a. o man, or In his domestic
relations he was not LIABLE whether his critQue was
no malice can he presumed from the writing nor
FROM lts asty even. II article were true It needed
no privilege. The privilege was only invoked TO
q case reported IN 10 New York laid down the law
with great clearness. Malice was an essential In
TWAS & uspS Presumed but where from the circumstance
= worthy purpose might be fairy presumed there
malice must be proved Unless these criticisms went
beyond the book and the plaintiff as connected with
the book, into an attack on Mr.. Reade personally
the case must fall for there extraneous proof
Of malice. IL was Tor the Court to decide whether
the occasion Of writing, which makes "privileg ed
comm unlcaton,u had arisen. |, II is then for the
Court TO determine whether there is Affirmative
proof OF malce and II there ID none to dismiss the
NJ Justice Clerke, without requiring an answer
from the plaintIf, overrued the motion. The obec-
ton that as he sues IN his representative capacity
and was not recognized as an author BY the laws OF
the country he mad no standing here was untenable
Sovereign princes had brought such SUITS and In
their rep iesentative capacity--notably the suit
brought BY Bonaparte, during the short peace OF
Amlens against London publisher. The Copy.
authors. But Mr.. Reade does mot sue as an author
only. THE Judge read briefly from the complaint to
show that Mr.. Reade set up injuries to himself per-
sonally.l lie should equally 0verrule the other
points, but should postpone his remarks TIL his
Mr. Robert Sewell opened the case for the defend
ants He spoke Of the charges In form OF the plead
inrs In this case, claiming that the plaintin had
Abandoned the claim for personal Injuries and
eectea 10 MAINTAIN ms action Tor his injuries an
author. In order to raise law point and not TO
nrofuce any prejudice against this usfly celebrated
writer they had proved him an English sabect.
AR. Sewel reviewed at some length the law " nbcl,
claiming that this was privileged communication
and they should 10 SHOW and tnen the q tices would
b. strpied Uf oil The common law iufcrcncef of
malice aud damage. Ioth must bc proved. The gist
oil ti6 csv was, alel AL tle goud ia,th q I've vs.