Knoxville daily chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1882, 1871-10-19
OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT.
In the Case Of Baxter vs.. Saunders, for
'+f9i Libel, i' .fsaa


ville in which John Baxter, the plaintiff in this
action, was the complainant and Joseph A. Ma
/ bry and others, were the defendants and on the
day aforesaid, an article purporting to be a
! speech delivered by Joseph A, Mabry, IN said
! Chancery Court appeared in the columns of
the said Sunday Wing and Register, The arti-
Gle contains an angry and violent defamation OF
| the character of the plaintiff and his family,
! and was introduced to the public,in the words
| following: fsAnett
Knox County Chancery Court. BY permis-
sion of Chancellor Temple, the following is
al. In this case General Mabry arose and spoke
as reported substantially as follows" Then
follows the defamatory article. HRs}
On the 10th day of September next thereafter
the plaintiff brought this action of libel against
the said publishers, Saunders & Clark, in the
Circuit Court of Knox county. The case was
submitted to jury at the February Term, 1871,
and resulted in a verdict and judgment in behalf
of the plaintiff for twenty-seyen thousand dol
lars, from which the defendants have appealed
in error 1t appears in the lproof that at the
| tineof the publication of the article in ques-
ton, the defendants, who had recently bought
the press ofthe Wing and Register from Joseph
A. Mabry, were comparative strangers in the
city of Knoxville; that they had only resided
in said city a few weeks that the defendant
Clark was a stranger TO the plaintiff; and that
the defendant Saunders was at the time of said
nothing. of it; that the defendant Clark caused
said article to be published as an advertisement,
without a knowledge of its contents, and at the
request of Mabry, and believing it to be, as he
states part of the proceedings in the Ghaneery
Court in the case referred to, as Mabry had rep
resented it to be a speech of his in said cause.
He was admonished, however, by the editor,
Col. Rocket, that the article was not a proper
one to be published. 1t is shown, Also that
upon the arrival of Saunders he asked who had
had md
and regret at the publication, stated that he
would not have had the arctile published for
thousands of dollars, and said that he would at
once call upon the plaintiff and explain the
matter. @ -..r sFts
Here follows private letter from Saunders re-
gr citing disqualification and reply from Bax
ter, saying that nothing but public retraction
would satisfy him. EDS.
This correspondence was had on the 9th of
September 1870. 1t appears that no public eX
planation was made, and on the 10th of Septem-
Der, thereafter, this action was commenced. At
ter the beginning of the action and@On the 18th
of Janury, 1871 the following article appeared
in the columns of the defendant newspaper:
rfANoTHERg gBNFoRTUNATE BDIToR.n
From the article we copy below from the
Cincinnati Enquirer, it will be seen another
editor hasput his foot in for S500CC damages,
and the fund will now swell to $500, ,O00' !
The E5sqNirer of Monday says "A Col.
Baxter, of Tennessee, had considerable amount
ofcHaracter to dispose ofand managed to get him
self libelled Hehas brought suit against the
following person and persons:
Nashville Banner, $4,000; Union and Ameri-
cat1, 500 600 ; Athens Post, $4,000; Sweetwa-
| ter Enterprise $4,000 Knoxville IFhig aud
| Register, $4,000 Joseph A. Mabry, 500, 600.
If Col. Baxter gets paid for the amount of
his damages he will have $350O00, a very COM
Portable sum-. But if he has any character left,
he had better keep it, He cannot afford to dis
pose of much more even at the highest market
price, ttar r-sav4sss -rr.sss-ar +
| This latter publication was introduced upon
the trial on behalf fthe plaintiff to indicate the
quo amino and intent of the prior publication of
the 18th of September 1870 upon which the ac-
| ton was brought The defendants objected to
| its introduction as evidence but the objection
was disallowed and the article was submitted
| to the jury The defendants demurred to the
declaration which is in the simple fern pre-
scrlbed by our statutes, upon the ground that
the publication containing the matter alleged to
| be falsely and maliciously published by the
| defendants imports on its face to be matter
| spoken IN the the course of legal argument in
| the Chancery Court at Knoxville in the case of
John Baxter VS.. Jos. A. Mabry, and that the
same was published by permission of the Chan
cellor The demurrer was overruleds and the
| defendants thereupon entered plea of not
guilty, and gave the plaintiff notice of the spe-
! eial defence, that the matter complained of was
a proceeding in a.court of justice and that the
puUliCdIlUU LueTCOI WIS LuduC Jtle OO7tU ItCLC
| discharge of their duty as journalists. The tes-
timony of the Chancellor presiding at the
time this alleged speech was made by Mabry
is taken in this case, and is to the effect, that
Mabry did appear in his Court and ask permis-
sion to reply to some remarks made on a pre-
vious day by the plaintiff, and that holding
manuscript in his hand, he did proceed to make
a speech, but that he, the Chancellor, perceiv-
ing the personal and offensive tendency of his
! remarks, frequently checked him, and finally
/
| Mabry observed that he could publish his
speech, to which the Chancellor replied-"Cer-
fanny, that Is the proper place to discuss per-
| sonar matters and not In this Court" The
| Chancellor states that about the same converse :
ton occurred between himself and Gen. Mabry
afterwards in the street that he did not SUPPOSE
that what he said on either occasion could be
construed into permission, which he had no
rghtto give either as judge oras citizens, that
the speech Wmch Mabry was prevented from
making IN Court might bepublished in q newspa-
per. That his only purpose was to admonish the
party that such remarks would not be tolerated in
! open Court The Chancellor further testifes
that at the time Gen. Mabry attempted to make
| said speech there was no cause on trial and no
motion pending to which he proposed to ad-
dress himself
| In the progress of the trial the defendants
| counsel was proceeding to read to the jury GER
tain letters and articles contributed to the
| CHRONICLE newspaper by the plaintiff, of
| .llhduitlidGOIy ~
sept. a. Mabry and others with fraud and cor
ruption in the management of certain public
moneys, and tending to illustrate the ferocity of
long and angry feud, which for many years
a! naa existed m between said Mabry and the plain
tiff The plaintiff objected to partial extracts
from those articles and insisted upon his right
10 nave the whole submitted to the jury; where
upon II was agreed between the parte; that the
who're shouIa oeconsidered as read and the sub
Jec9 ot co GGm4ent IN In argument. This opened
WIDE held OF argument not germane to the, is
sues involved in this cause But which, So far as
it related to the matter discussed in these seve7
raj publications, was rendered legitimate by the
agreement of the parties that ali the nu6lica-
tionsi should be submitted to the Jury as evil
dence. The discussion which followed inyolv-
ing matters and occurrences with which these
defendants were in no manner Connected was
certainly inappropriate to the issues, and under
the circumstances, perhaps, injurious to the de-
fendants But Sc far as the contents Of the Let
ters were concerned the defendants could NOT
| Ivritb +l,o