Daily national Republican. (Washington City [D.C.]) 1870-1872, 1870-06-24
VIM. BIcGarrahan's Great
Libel Suit.


~ ANMA ~ lInKNu Ill INC MNNlIInN Oh Mnftn
portions had been rad BY plainllffs council
In papers dated March 2oth ard e0th, 1900,
hrd April "a, 50, Bth, 9th, and oth. s.
Mr.. Wilson nod Offered N usideace the rc-
ported ease q United States vs.. Gomez, re
ported N "a Wallace.
Justice l1in. For what purpose 2 A. eyi-
deuce Of tha facts contAlnedin u. VI
y NJ, Wilson. No, air. 81
juslice olln. Or ~ m opinion Of lava
70 9eea nofsesd ~ sslissss 20 on : . S s
M,. lSalvg. ~, nj 90 20, ptepq.e DAT.
showlng tl.at what wa pablilfd was con-
cernlng auli m law IN one Of no courts Of
the United Bates, and tHat The conimeuta
were The comments Of that court
Justice DIN. lido mt thiak that l. evidence
a eli you may md any report Of the United
K NAV contain, bui Z 40 not think any facts
upon which ID n hascd, or The eninm6nta Of
| the judge about The propriety Of q rule Of
| Ian, are any eYiiepeo IN The caAe. 4
Nh Mepso. 4 would Ike 70 call yoyii
Honots mssnton 70 aslngic feature OF y
ger from theye various papers, your HopoF
decided nrf eo we're entitled 70 nc benefit
q , nc wha9 = th9se sticies mat rcAsted 70
Jusiice DIN. / dspass ylis M. Moore
thas sFs,y thinG seninlocd lp those articles
n
complained q might bs taken IN counecton
With v 70 di1V whether II did az dld not
qualify Il That y Al tho evidence theru Is
In these ARTICLES. ~ ft'--- 10 J
NJ. Moore, Your Honor allowed them 70 be
Jsstice DIN. Certainly. wahtSd 70 ,ec.
and i wanted Tie juryto $50 whether they
selected out a few sentences that wcroclnlrnea
" he Offensive. As said on h former occa-
slon--yon may read whatever yuu desire In
that eonnecti0e 70 show that the apparent
Sssn.lyS Is ,ss q shoss sTiisls. va 70.
q dos not mean sbinsthl1E dlffcreht ip6m the
| thing selected and regarded aa Offensive q,
NJ. Moore; u yogr Hopog please, therp 4
not tho slightest u heronco betwoan the Court'
And myselt a. 10 uhat you ruled hut yas.
going 70 suggest a polnt upon which, v my
mind, DC foading Of thia opinion Inaupbri-
dently Of an opinion OF the Court upon a
question Of law.-was perfectly cunipeleiits.
that u bearing upon this very question Of
malice, or this very question Of damAgcs and
ior one or both Of which purposes alone ihpsc
papen that have been road arr not the foAn+
datlon Of tho complaint but TINT hear date
anterior y the bringing o. tiie san, ana aftcr-
Jsstlce DIN, say they can be competent
| for ono o. the other pr 10th pnrpuses. J, ~
Mr. Moore. That u An exception your
Honor haa ncaeryedp They refer 10 this
opinion and make cxitaetffom Il. ~
Justice DIN. just LEI nc seo. may malke
| some Offensive remarks here, a. you NAV I
hs q tudge md you W On ATTORNEY may make
some Offensive remarkA which, In Anouimary
individual, would be libel sill you might lie
honest pursuit Of your busIaeSa, and - tle
judge might be projected; yet II q Howspapcs.
publish n even II he quoted you and me, b
might 10 libel, and he might he proSurutcd
ier libel or Islander, unless he iIraiihcd on The
ground Of the truth Of Il. The point here,
= understand, ls this you wantfc rad the-
reeieai 81 q published case al evidence Of
wh9p OF The faelaor the lawa Now you
need not prove. y. " cia'ias faal ~ T l.
Mr.. Moore. I win answer .l,e question.
whom your Honor Il through. = z
Justice DIN. When get through With DE
inquiry Then you may answer II You won't
70 do whaR Won want 70 reaa q roporthd
case ~ eyidonce u the facts Il contains in mat
case iact fecited In The rcport<-or do you
want 70 read remarks thatthe Judge made 10
deciding The cRsefi Or do you want % cite TO
mo an authority upon the principle Of hwl
t Lhe iaes reclted h ne. case, Or proposed 10,
any more than anewupaper publication would
be. Now you have my ylews Of tho matter.
MI. Moore. Twill keep nlVEef etrfeAy
within the vlcwyof the sAw aa Indicated ~
the Court and With the nlmosa prOpricly
eilleayors 20 get your HONOR 20 comprehend
/ ~ ~ "AAAAN InO hlAtH-
nent wish 70 make as 10 the purposes for
which Wished 20 use This book. !
Justice DIN. No, Mr.. Noon wo wont mia
understand each otller. I made the susr,T-
tlon with view 70 point Yotir Inquiry yoar
Argument WIN boar you with pleasure.
Ne. Moore. IL Una thiss that wehayc a ploa
which your Hopo hns suffered 70 70 in. We
deny That theee vords ~ uttered were pub
nahed malinioilsly. said that yOur Honor
:, a. In. 'kea, nu3 alluded 10 In
the declaration, but which had been publsbod
bcfofo au0efter suit was brought your Honor
.naleaaea that you allowed ihom TO 80 % the
jury eithar Tor the PURPOSE OF cstabIINhiIg
malice or for mereAalne daihagns, or botI. |
Nov, tho 40 laWant 10 make Ia this cornee- |
ton a this opinion Of the Supreme Court anl
OTHER docrunenis referred 10 In these Identical |
communications, uhidh the plaintiff himself |
has lniroduceds 4 ~ show that The owrlfA |
made his declarations upon the very author- |
~ to1yh lch, be refoi1ed, with view 70 rcpdl |
ne implIclllon Of fnAlice.rg - ! a.aa
Jultlce OH, Mr.. McFriel, j win hear yot |
upon that question. suppose nov .ulat tl,t |
writer bad found ina Pablahsa Teport apph-
pretty much ali that 10 ~ 4 law hepI
:. -, Hat eyi dshde 70 show aIrcaIIy h61iid I
not devise tlis nal ~ d his bMn tpT fhoaght \
but thai he had Some nlanallle fflnnd = ian ion
4 do not Know what M oal8 Will show. |
call your Attehtinn 70 that a. a qnostIon |
whcfher b NOT legitimate In reply TO that |
part az the case a. On iexrnse e{tcnuatioA
ury h an aggIasaiien a he claim. / win |
rear ynl upon that paint. I supposed In he /
Inst Instance II was offered 10 prove by thes1 L
-ep0rted caaoa certain fncts contained in theul 1
lP,on which you might addrcss ne jury a
violence m the eaee- That Is not so am
Hear upon thai point because thai must be
1royed as fnctg are proven on the trial. A |
exported case docs mot prove The facts upon /
shlch the opinion L based, but u only proves l
his toA court ~
Contedihg such and Such 70 lsethe factsl
that Z The lsw upon the suBleet, - ~, IT I
Nj, hcrrick. ! viii submit V your Honor!
n reply 70 Che proposIilon q nc gcntlcmah
and IN nnswer 20 your question u single re- /,
mark. The articles which have been read 70 L
Iha Jury are, great portion of them, copled
rom other papers. Where aparty Is accused !
d puhhshing . libel, and the plalntlff offers
proof by way ofespecinl malice and in agRra-
sation Of damages, i am not prepared 10 DENY /
out that the defendant may 0fIer testlmony %
show that he had probable cause that there IA
toexculae and rehut the malice.
Now, india aruclea which have been read
10 the jury BY the defendants counsel, aud
which were, IN part at frst offered by INA. II |
aPpeaTa that he Tepnbllshed what md beenl
pnbllshed elsewhere, and he u entitled 10 thfl
benefit OF The fact IA mitigation az the dam |
ages or 20 Tobut the special mAllce alleged and |
attempted 10 be proved BY the. plaintiff. II Is
only N ARTICLES Nhlch ha PROCESSES v quote
from other papcrs that u.src Is any reference
made 70 The doclsions "a the Supreme Csafrt /
Tic has already, In readling these aTtieleal pro.
.ented 10 the Jury i,he fact that be b not the
originator, and the fahrlcator IN the nrst IN
stance oi rr,ortl0n al thla libel, but that he
ony IeP.aAa what eanlsto him from other
source Whether they arc fetponslble sources |
~ " T. aud the extent Of their responsibility, IA
~ the jury. 100 lFLI
Now, my learned friends upon tho other
side not content with that fact In 90 far a. Il Il
says Yea give thu damages OF robut The /
malice" propose 20 70 on up, 10 the sources l
from which those articles thus publlAhed by
the defendants, and quoted by linn in part /
derived their authority, How faT, then, lhnli
we gOa One or more Of these articles Eaalto
reference to the Supreme Court, 20 which the |
counsel refers.
Tho case In the Supreme Court makes refer
ence 10 other documents and 70 other papers /
How far back shall we 20 II You 90 beyond |
the frst Informant OF Tho defendant back
TO the informant Of thht informant, and so an
through aIisIhe changns OF Information up 10 |
- = - "a. -. Il