The New York herald., 1870-06-02
TIE TRENTON LIBEL SUIT.
Verdict Of Guilty Against Charles w. Jay
Exceptions Taken and the Case 20 be An.
pealed-Chfef Justice Beasley on the Law OF

Verdict Of Guilty Against Charles w. Jay
Exceptions Taken and the Case 70 be An.
pealed--Chfef Justice Beasley on the Law OF
Libel.
The libel suit OF Naar against Jay was resumed
yesterday in the Mercer County Court at Trenton,
N. j., Chief Justice Beasley presiding. AS pre-
vionsly announced IN thes HERALD, the suit
was brought by Judge D. Naar, editor Of
the Trenton True American against the editor
OF the Sentinel Charles W. Jay, because of some
malicious publication thar appeared IN the Sentinel,
CT December 3d. 1869, setting forth that the COM
painant was the leader Of gang OF alleged brokers
who through vile and mercenary motives, were
secretly engaged in procuring the release OF notor
ous criminals out of the State Prison.
The court room was crowded yesterday, il being
generely known that the trial would come off, Mr.
hageman conducted the prosecution and MIR. Green
appeared for the defendant. Only few witnesses
were examined, whose testimony showed that the
issue OF the C,on Sentinel containing the malicious
publication was printed ami circulated in the
city OF Trenton on the 23d OF December 1862 Mr.
Charles W. Jay being the responsible editor OF the
paper at that tlme The defence called forth no
witnesses, but only put forward the plea that the
substance Of the libel had formed the subject Of
CONVEX salon IN barroom at time anterior to the
2Sd of December 1852 and that the writer only sim
ply published the facts, then and there overheard
without any evil intent on his part.
The Court then explained TO the jury the definition
The charge was q gross one. There was an attempt
made TO show that defendant was mlsed by the re-
ports overheard IN barroom. This point only
affected the degree OF crimlnality, but not
the defence. An editor had no higher privileges
than anybody else and unless he proved the truth OF
the libel and showed that In Its publication he was
acttlated by good motives and justifiabe ends the
defendant should be convicted. Malice did not con.
sist III Ill Will or grudge. libel against person
one never saw was possible, and the malicious in
tent In such libel was presumed unless the con-
trary could be proved.
The case was then given to the jury, who retired,
and after q few minutcs' consultation returned with
verdict Of guilty against the defendant.
Exception was raised by the counsel for defendant
on the grounds that the Indictment offered materl-
ally from the printed publication. There less
than thiry.two discrepancies between the two docu-
ments, which discrepancies the counsel pointed out
one by one. In the Indictment some words were
1mperfcctly spelled and others were almost unnel.
nsiole, the writer having used some iourshes that
IL was almost impossible to decipher The counsel
cited various statutes showing that where
the minutest difference existed between the
indictment and the libel the plantil was
invariably nonsuted. The Chief Justice
admitted that the criminal code OF English law now
used IN New Jersey, required perfect similarity be-
tween the Indictment and its publication, and lie
was very sorry to say that the Legislature did not
releve the System OF criminal jurisprudence from
these embarrassing tcchnicalities, which In many
respects were OF distant origin and entirely unsuted
to the present times.
It is probable that the case Will be carried to the
Supreme Court.