The New York herald., 1873-01-23
BROOKLYN COURTS.
SUPREME cousT-cIRcUIT.

Lawyer SnndersOE's Great nbel Suit
Going for $4,000 and Getting $500
Yesterdays Sensation I'm the BROOKLYN
Court House-Thc Law of Libel.
Before Judge Gilbert.
Lawyer Sandersons great libel suit to recover
$50, 600 from the Brooklyn Union, OF which Henry
E. Bowen is the principal stockhoder was the
sensation in the Court House yesterday. The
alleged libel, it may be remembered, consisted Of
the publication of q report OF a rencontre between
Sanderson and one James, for whose wife Sander
son was acting as counsel, in front Of the
Court House. The court room was crowded
yesterday, and, as soon as the case was resumed,
Mr.. Britton, counsel for defence, read from the
testimony Of Henry Z. Bowen before the Board OF
Arbitration in which Mr.. Bowen swore that San
derson expressed himself satisfied with the publi-
cation OF the apologize articles, one OF which was
written by SandersOn himself. Mr.. Britton there.
upon renewed his motion for non-suit, which was
denied by Judge Gilbert. Exception was taken to
this ruling.
Mr.. Britton then summed up the case for the de-
fence, and claimed tnat ample reparation had been
Sanderson's manuscript of Sanderson's article,
tremendously pulling SandersOn, told funny
story about Sanderson's 0rthography. and then
proceeded to review the evidence on both sides,
concluding by asking verdict Tor the defendants.
Ex-Judge Reynolds addressed the jury on behalf
of the plaintl, and held that no settlement OF the
claim had ever been made, although contradictions
OF the libel had appeared. Reynolds INDUCED in q
few pleasant personalities, characterizing
BowEN's REPORTERS AS sCAvENGERs,
who sent by Bowen all over the city to gather
filth, and his paper as sewer through which that
Judge Gilbert in his charge to the jury said 1T
is not disputed on the part OF the defendants that
on which the libel Is founded have been proved in
such way as to entitle him to damages. The pub
caO wtnt ss aT anS cs Without LIBEL a
and, unless you think the defendant has
established something by way of defence,
it will be your duty TO render verdict for such
damages as will compensate plaintin for the injury
done him. The common law estimates private
character as equal to property and compensates
party Tor injury TO IL upon the same principles
an injury to his property or person. 1t has been
but 1t acts through its agents, and II any Of them
M publishing this article, were actuated by mace
fyou think. HpWeyer' there was mo- s1 ma1ee Inc
absence OF malice ought to 20 in mitigation dam
ages, because the essential ingredient which
from the fact OF the publication; this is what
is termed legal malice" i the plaintiff
ysu to enhance NE .na' upon tSis
subject you have the article itself and the circunl
so find you must say what would be fair compen-
sation to him. You also have the testimony of Mr.
Bowen, his son, McAllister and the reporter who
wrote the article, all OF whom testify in most un-
qualified terms that they had no ill-w towards
planJtH, anu tnat III appeared III the ordinary way
If you are satisfied with that evidence IL would 70
very far to rcbut the idea that 1t was done with
the intention TO njure the palntn and 1t ought 10
be taken in
MITIGATION OF DAMAGES.
The defence Is that after the publication OF this
article the parties met and made an agreement
that the proprietor Of this newspaper should
make all the reparaton in his power by
the publication. OF retractions, and shat the
plaintiG should be satisfied herewith II
you believe that agreement was made that
would entltle the defendant to your verdict. Ii
you think It was not made you must consider the
question OF damages. Upon this subject the law
affords no particular criterion by which the jury
must be governed in the estimation OF damages.
You must take into consideration
THE SITUATION OF THE PARTIES:
whether 1t is calculated to nure and whether IL
did in point OF TACT lnjure also the act done by de-
fendant BY way oil Ieparation, aud you are III the
exercise OF wise discretion to give such averdct
as will repay for the injury and answer the ends OF
public justice.
The Court refused to charge Mr.. Brtton's prorosi.
ton that legal malice may be rebuttctb by the alb
sence oil proof OF actual malice. Exception
Mr.. Reynolds took exception TO that part of the
charge which stated chat, unless there was actual
malice, the plaintiff was not entitled TO recover an v
more than the actual damages
Tie jury appeared IN Court al about four O'Clock