Daily national Republican. (Washington City [D.C.]) 1870-1872, 1872-02-21
ALIBEL SUIT.
WIN. PRI'Cv AGAINST rHE EvEuss srlE
a Days work In Coun Over a single Lei.
II ter-wkSt was said and DsHe.

WI" ~ " - 1AAAu huu bNuts
II -
M. Toodlss had an aversion 10 Thompson
with "p," and the same letter In . Newspaper
article, aftsr causing divers distresses, came up
yesterday 10 the Circuit Court as the foundation
Of an action for libel brought BY W. Prince
against the Evening star PubllshluE Company.
The alleged libel was Published on the 10th Of
October, 1870, In an article setting forth that
one p, on y strsst, had accused . lady Of steal.
Ing valuable articles from his store, and that
her husband, while ia pursuit Of his vIfs's 10.
uullor, met the other r., invited him Into eel.
lar, whore, without explain alton, he undertook
70 pouimel him, and after sundry hstlcuas mu.
tuat explanations ensued, aud the affair wound
up with drink. whsreupon Mr.. W. Prince,
Of y street, denying that he had accused any
lady Of kisptomanla, brings suit for 10000.
Messrs. Il. O. Darlington q Bro appeared for
MIR. Prince, and Msssrs. Riddle and Francis
Miller for the defendants.
MR. oARRIrgTor BHotSa.
NJ SSS 70 hat
the statement made By the Star Wa false, bot
that they know 70 was false, aud that u was
dsmSge", hui pet content with this, but out Of
| abu ndant caution, We shSu show that special
damage ensued from The llLel IN c9nsequence
Of this publication he vas for n week. soarsel5
his wife vas Frustrated ~ 5evsre ilsess. NJ
Prince, as many Of you arg9waret 10 epgsSeu N
stampies o. stteOL his business u S'sn'
M. USrrinEton here proceeded to suIogiss the
business Of Mr. Prince, which he contended had
been much injnrsd BY the article 10 question.
poratlon, which has grown rich % the taxpay.
competitor "a Business 70 pueilsh tbs foul ,iau,
orsbis man, was charged with Insulting lady,
and more than that recelying Punishment from
the h,nd' g her husband; they expected TO
the paper, and represented that the article was
| false and was Injurious 10 his business, but
there had been no retraotion and no apology,
and the Injury had been len entirely unre-
M Darlington then proceeded to stats the
NJ @, then proceeded 70 say that II was bad
| enough 10 expose Woo. II was bad enough "
| oritlcise public mon from bad motives, hut to
comment on the oharanteT Of ap iytte citizen
ior luere wasan offence which he called upon the
~ TOMS or rauEDHR,
| and silence d base press that would oppose the
| foiblea o. an humble Individual. Then, they
were bound TO remuncrAte william Prince for
| tho damages he had sustained. FOR the purpose
Of sustaining the few honest mon (uod knows
| there were lew enough In the cJmmunity1 tho
/ Jury should make an example Of the paper that
made circulation by the SANDER Of individuals.
nR- HtDDLH HErLIKs.
| Mr' hlulIe .aiu ~ ,eh .nat ne ousnt 70 say
| breath. He felt that tho Jury ought " have an
opportunity 10 get down safely from the terrible
ne,gnn o. rhetoric ahcre mr.; VarrinEton had
i Princes In this royal hmilyI there IL Mr..
| prinoo who koeps aDfokershop, and there u .
pnaee who 81 stampins, and has not been
transaction with the latter Prince, In which a
| lady OF the htst fosPeetAbillty wis concerned.
| she was not accused OF kleptomanlA, but sue was
| accused OF passing counterfeit ten-ionar bill,
and MT Prince made complaint 70 Jus zee
rianL enatg,nH me i,dS WIZ ie'9niousy Pssst;
did call on another Mr.. Prince, and in sIamin.
Ing this declaration he NJ. Rldilel had for q
long time been unable TO determine whether u
vas The print ieiloH % btokSr chap WIG had
| that went Into the cellar had = better right 70
damages, " not tor libel, AZ least tJt Assault.
Ihe I-s.reet MI. Prince DID complain 70 the
graph should be inserted oIOmptlny ", Piines
from the charge, and such paragraph was pub.
,isssd 70 The Ssy. w, Win .sis he was supposed
THH PRoOI AND ITs BuRUEN.
Mr.. Oarrtngton said the nrst Item Of proof was
nc &c. ol OSnErsss incorporating the Evening
NJ RIJaIn IN, HJ0h ny wg.id yo..,v. .Ii o,,.c.
uona ...,...
The court 70 the objections Dc male nov.
| Mr.. hiddlo eAid that the doolarauJ IN did not
aver the Incorporation.
MT. Oarrington. whats the difhculty
The Court. The diniculty 10 that you have
not declared that tho company is m inoorPO'
Mr.. CArrinEton. That is never done.
The Court. have never known u otherwise
i Mr.. Riddle asked that he do 80 under condi
The Court said that he would allow the amend
%f csafIHs SSRd tnao called tn. following Wit
nssses; -
| ~ t-, tigsin. NlIEhsshs. a,