The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-01-20
INTERESTING LIBEL CASE.
John :. chambnlin's Complaint Against George
wilkss-The District Attorney Represented
by Elk Judge Fullerton-what Counsel
for the Defendant Endeavored to
6how-The Plaintiff on the Stand.

The examination in the complaint OF John p
Chamberlin charging George Wilkes with libel
after one or more p0stpOnements. came up yesterL
day afternoon before Justice OtterDOurg at Essex
Market Police Court. Shortly before two O'Clock
Mr.. Wilkes, in company with his counsel M
Samuel G. Courtney, and Mr.. Dittenhoefer, cams
into the court room, and. after conversin0 few
minutes with friends that he met, took seat bo-
hind the railing and quietly awaited the calling OF
the CASE Precisely at two O'Clock Mr.. Chamberlin.
with his counsel, ex-yudge Fullerton. and Mr.. j. d.
NoyeA made his appearance, and 80 soon a.
Justice Ot.erbourg disposed OF few minor COM
plants the names OF sChamberlin" and wilkes"
were called. BY this time the court room was
filled. and behind the railing were many anxious
faces, Messrs william Borst and James Irving being
among the number.
The Justice, asking Mr.. Chambern II ne rep
resented by counsel. and being answered in tho
Affirmative, displayed the complaint, which has
been published in the HERALD when Mr.. Courtney
desired that Mr.. Cnamberln be put upon the
stand, as they wanted to examine him. Upon Mr..
Chamberlin standing up before the Justice the
Clerk OF the Court began direct examination,
when Justice Otterb0urg summarily stopped it.
and stated that the complainant might be CROSS
examined to which the counsel for the defendants
acquiesced, and commenced by asking Mr.. Cham
berlin where he was born, to which was
swered, '1n LaIsingburg, 1887" Mr. Courtney
then proceeded to ask the witness how long he
lived in Lansingburg, to which Mr.. Fullerton OBJ
Jected. Mr.. Courtney claimed the right to show
the history of the complainant and his general
reputation, from the time he left his native place
to the present period. Mr. Fullerton denied this
right and said that in every properly conducted
examination no such latitude was allowed. This
was the case OF the people against the defendant.
and 1t was for the latter to prove his allegations.
Mr.. DittenhOefer answered Mr.. Fullerton in tho
same strain that Mr.. Courtney had INDUCED in.
and intimated that Mr.. Fullerton was representing
the people without the authority OF the District
Attorney, when this question was settled by Mr..
Fullerton showing the Justice request Of Mr..
Phelps for him to act in the matter and protect
the interests OF the people.
Justice Otterbourg decided to sustain the objec-
ton.
Counsel for the defendant continued his argu-
ment respecting the admissibility OF such ques-
lions, in the course OF which he made strong COM
ments upon the reputation OF the plaintiff, tending
to impeacn his character for honesty, and supple
mented his observations by allegations that plain
tn on previous occasions was guilty laccordng to
views OF counsel OF committing similar offences
charged In the alleged libel
Mr.. Fullerton. in replying to the observations OF
Mr. Courtney, said tnat he did not object to his
asking any questions as to the allegations COM
planned OF, and that the statements made by coun-
Sci could only be INDUCED In, so far ne saw,
riosity. Counsel should conane himself in
his comments and IN his examination OF
the witness to the particular and specinc charges
The next question asked by Mr. Courtney was.
"Where did you go when you left Lansingburg |"
The same objection was raised as before, and tho
same arguments were INDUCED In as before BY
Messrs. Courtney and DttenAoefer why the ques-
sustained the objection. The following questions
were then asked the w1tness:-
Q. How long did you live in Lansingburgf OBJ
jected TO. and objection sustained.
@. What was your business and occupation in
LansingburgS Objected to, and objection sus-
Q. Did you ever live in Chcago' A. No, sir; o
passed through there, and stopped little while
The witness then admitted that he had lived in
st. Louis in the years 1885, ana that he was then
then asked rom what place he III et to 60 to St.
Louis, which was objected to as not essential The
question was admitted, and the witness said that
Then followed other immaterial questions re-
garding the length or time witness lived in Louis
VILE and his occupation there all OF which were
objected to and not allowed
Mr. Fulerton-Prove the truth Of the libel.
Mr.. Courtney then ascertained from questions
asked where Mr.. Chamberln lived in st. Louis.
the street and the number, and desired to show
and advised If they desired to show that the wit
ness kept certain place In st. Louis, let them
amend their libel by another charge, and then the
In this country there was no man too high for the
Court to reach and none so low that he could not
seek and obtain its protection. The questions
we're not admitted
Counsel for the defendant asked many moro
questions relative to the witness knowledge OF dis
reputable places and games In st. Louis, but
Justice Otterbourg did not deem them pertinent to
the complaint and libel, as charged. Mr.. Fullerton
commented upon the attempt to annoy the Wit
ness by such questions. and when Mr. Courtney
admitted the fact that in the original publication
there was mistake OF ten years, MIR. Fullerton ad-
vised them that they could Ego about and prove
the allegations charged In the libel at any time in
his lfe.'
The witness in bis further examination said that
he had been employed on the steamboat Fashion,
on the Mississippi. as barkeeper, IL the years
1855 and 1885, and that he came to New York In
1865 The examination was then adjourned until
Friday next.