Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1872-11-23
Largest Circulation in the District
Reading Matter on Every Page.
WASHINGTON CITY:
sAItRDAY-. November 23. 1872.
Our Libel euit.


case were by no means qualified to
represent the average intelligence of
Washington iO-ymen. At the time that out.
rageous verdict was rendered q new trial was
asked, and was granted by Judge Macarthur
who in allowing IL took occasion 10 speak of the
decoreus character of The STAR and of his sur
Prise that it should have been singled out Tor
such a verdict.
Yes,erd AZ Washington jury, m ade M, as all
will recognize who 60 over the names, of citi-
zens respected alike for their intelligence AMI
integrity, after Protracted hearing of the tey-
tinony and arguments, lasting four DAYS,
brought in verdict for TaE STAR; verdict
that earns for them the com mendatiOn of al
sensible, fair minded men, and shows that they
appreciate the danger to free institutions if the
press is TO be handedOver to the tender mercieso
speculative petifoggers and speculative clients
on the watch for any chance item that can be
tortured into an excuse for libel suit.
In the report of the trial, elsewhere, the
ground for this libel suit Is given in q local
article in which was told the story of an odd
case OF mixed identity, in which a well-known
and much-respected avenue merchant by mis-
take gave a rather rough handling to quite
another party than the one he was looking for
through his bearing the same name. Judge
Cartier, in the course of the trial, very aptIy
described IL as "The Comedy of Errors~ 1t
was shown that, with the exception that the
grievance TO the indignant husband who UNDER
took the chastisement in question was an allie
CATION about a counterfeit note, instead of
kleptOmanis, the main features OF the item
were related. 1t was shown, as heretofore
stated, that the item found its way into the
paper through the ordinary news channels; and
that so far from there being any malice in the
matter, the relations of Prince with the paper
sh.
an advertiser; and that on the attention OF the
editor being called 10 the item he male a cor
TectiOn wordedi in exact accordance with VIVA. he
understood the wishes Of the plaintiff to be.
Prince was not able TO show that he had lost a
penny by the publication OF that he had been
injured in reputation, or in any other way by it.
Yet he seemed to think that something might
be made out of THE SrAE, and entered libel
suit His first counsel, a b gh minded aud much
respected lawyer now deceased, evidently did
not think the suit s creditable one to push for
lie never carried Il TO trial. After his death.
however. snent6rprising lawyer ferreted it OUT.
and, according to the testimony on the trial,
went 70 Prince and volunteered to prosecute the
case on shares, to get half the damages In case
they won, and nothing if they did not. Well,
they got verdict for 5000 on the
first trial TO the surprise of everybody.
a
partnership of lawyer and client to believe that
they could hopefully strike for higher figure
and on this trial they put up their claim u the
modest sum OF $50 coo, an amount that would
divide handsomely without fractions. But alas
for the vanity Of human expectations! The Jury
IN spite Of the frantic appeals of the hungry
practitioners for viHdictIve damages to the
amount OF 500 0C0, OF general damages TO the
amount OF $4,000, or at any rate nominal dam
ages that should cover the fees of counsel, were
unfeelingiy Obdurate and declined to give them
anything at all. Never was so much sweat, ges-
tieulatiOr, and fervid Oratory expended in vain
Particularly concerned were they to check the
RIGHTEOUSNESS of the press, and especially the
Washington press; and referring TO the opinion
CT Judge Macarthur that The STAR is the moss
decorous of the papers here they argued that
that was not saying much, and proceeded to
quote fTOm the columns OF other Washington
PspeTs to show that The STAR should be pun
ished for their sins. But the wen-meant and
disinterested effort failed. They got nothing
Instead CT dividing $4,000 they will be
called upon TO divide costs of court
in the course of their TRADE against the pres.
they had something to say-disclaiming at the
same time any reference to the defendants
about "editors without intelligence or princi-
pies, }" who fill their local columns with Nbelous
matter. Carrying out the same idea, and dis
claimiPg any reference to the counsel for the
plaintiff, We would remark that If there are
any lawyers "without intelligence or princi-
ples' who seek to I'LL their pockets By despoiling
newspaper men, let us hope that such yerdicts
as that Of yesterday may teach them lesson
The verdictts OF course gratifying to US, and
mainly because 1t Is a vindication of the rights
OF the press. In view of the expense, vexation,
Of tirpa
cheaper to have quietly accepted the YER
dict OF the first trial and paid the damages:
but we felt that there were rights and princi.
pies at stake that demanded a fight at our
hands Had We succumbed quietly to that
outrage, II would have been a precedent put
ing the press at the mercy Of every shyster
Spectator. We have fought it out with a IA
kult that we hope will tend in some degree To
establish the nights of publishers on a frmer
roofing than they have held under the narrow
rendeTirgof the onerOus, antique laws Of libel.
We should add, in this connection, that the
rulings OF Judge Cartier, always luminous.
impartial, and characterized by disposition TO
get al tie exact truth in any case before him, in
this trial Presented some points OF no little
interest to journalists generally; and these
giving his construction of the libel law were
embodied in his charge to the jury, as follows
CHARGE OF THE COURT.
Gentle men of the Jury: After q yery patient
investigation, which has been very protracted
we have finally come to the point where we are
10 determine this matter; and that YOU NAV be
In full and connected possession o. the views of
the court in reference TO the law, will read
what you have listened TO in detached parcels,
repeatedly.
II you md in the publication given in evil
dence. ard the facts proved in explanation of
II, a libel. you Will ind for the plsntiff with
one qualification, which will notice in a mo-
ment.
Under the circumstances of the case the
court has seen ut 10 submit the question 10 YOU,
a. 10 whether there -, OF = rot libel. To
stitute IL libel within the meaning %. j!r. itS
You must End that is terms or it, ten t-nci =
are TO make the defendant Infamous oii1us or
contemplate in the esteem OF his fellow-citi-
Zens; q at its natural and prOXimste effect il to
excite agaii Il the de IL ndant public hatred con-
tempt, or ridicule. In estimating the effect of
The article in this respect, You will be careful TO
distinguish between diseased judgment of weak
or wicked opinion, hat may torture what IL
written into the ridicule OF the party. from the
better and well balanced judgment OF RESPONSE
bic public opinion.
A verdict for the plaintiff will entitle him to
damages, in the measure OF which you will be
governed by proper estimate Of the facts. If
you find from the evidence that the public alton
u unattended by express malice, or persona
enmity, and was not instigsted by wantonness.
PERSONAL antipathy, or revenge, your verdict will
Limit the damages to the compensation of the
plaintiff for the injury he has received; and in