, 1875-05-09
EAhY-S3 OREY.
Arguments on the Motion 6nr q
New Trial,
Judge h1cRoberts Suggests that the
Plaintiff accept $4,000,
This Is Agreed to, and the New Trial
Refused.

yesterday morning. hIr. Cloudy, for the defend
ant first read tie grounds on which he based hi
notion which aro in bret "a follows:
12'at the Court erred in refusing to admit evf
| dance in behalf OF the defendant by declining
to admit tho letters received by the defendan
detailing tho fac8 in tue publication complained
OF, and in refusing to admit the retraction
ALSO, thai the Court erred in refuaing to admi
e7idenoe tending to show the efforts made BY th'
defendant to ascertain the truth Of the facts
stated IN the publication, or in allowing the Do
| fendant to show the course Of. his business o.
The custom Of newspapers in publication. Tht
Court also srred in giving eartain Instructions
refusing othsrs, aa1 in subsequently oalling tht
jury in and giving them oral instructions afte'
thoy hsd Left the boz. Lastly, the verd;cs wo:
excessive in amount, Mr.. Gouay then read twt
adaavits to the effect that the jury hzd roturnoi
into court in the absence Of cousol, and roceived
from tbs Judge oral instructions without The
| consent Of the defendant or his counsel
LIZ GouDY
then Eaid that there we1o only two points On
which he wished to sxpatiate; tho point ns tc
the exclusion OF the letters. II they had boen
| admitted they would have shown mitigating cir
| cumstances ia that the defendant had been mis-
led by others. and when he discovered the faot
| he attempted to make amends In tho present
case aIso no eyideuce had boon given Of eny nc
! t,1sl damage having been sustained and tie vor-
dict Was, therefore, entirely punitive in iss
character The second point was in regard to
| the amount OF tho damagas. which were exces-
! slvo- No verdict OF that eiza had hardly ever
cases OF malicious prosecution, which
he held wore in principle the samo,
where damages for over $4,000 had been set
| aside. The criminal punishment for tho publ
! cation OF u libel was fine Of $500 aud six
1nonth'a imprisonment or either. Mr.. Goudy
ton. Of the figure At which ylndictive damages
could be rated
followed On behalf Of tne plaintiff. Ho thought
tho damages were exceptionally hieh. but thot
shs oaae was une1ceptonably e1aaperating, aud
thae, under Ill the circumstances, the Terdlcs
was not excessive. The Court had rightly
reiused to allow thu introduction OF tho
letsers because they would tend to throw the
responsibility or from alr. Storey on nome il
wss the only serious ono. The jury certainly
was not led away by prejudice or passion, as the
opening address, to the jury wns one Of the
worst over made. He felt justified in saying
defendant knew OF tbs letters before the article
WAS published, md yet, without more than in-
forming hirnaelf Of their character, passed them
ovas to subordinate, Mr:: Storey Was only
too snxions ,., to lay tns ;a. hlth b before gre
bosiness manager OF the Times, had Increased
its circulat:ou from II, 600 to ~, 00J. The de-
fendant hxd not received the lette1a from his
regular correspondent, nut from stranger, and.
though he might costly by telegram hays asesr~
tanned ths truth OF the matter, he neglected to
do 80, but treated ths plaintif "a though aho
uere Fourth Ayenno cypftan- Mr. Storey Was
worth $25o, 800 beaides tho good viii Of his
paper. He had published the article. in al
a, 500 and the yesdics oily changed 50 cents for
eaoh publication OF the libel 3omo ono had
suggested to him thai he vas Influenced bY tho
fast that ne and the PARTIES hbeled were Of dif-
ferent political partiea, but that idea never en-
tered the defendants head. bnt the publication
was through pure devlishnes6, pure mAlica, and
pnra oussednass.
ME- SIDNEY SMITH
followed in QUO OF his characteristic arguments
and m unusual amount Of sxrcasna. He thought
no punishnnons could be too grett for such an
aggravated asseult on character. It was gross
violation Of the rishts OF Journalism, mud On
editor who WIS guilty of such conduct should DO
severely dealt with. The letters. instead Of
boing adapted to mitigate damages would rather
tend to inoreaee them, for they were signad hy
fictitious names, and came from etrangetn.
Mr. Cloudy then anew drew attention to soma
oases in vhicA tho Court hnd set aside excessive
dau1ages.
JUDGE M'hoBEETs
reasons for granting = new trial. Ho said ho |
had refused to allow the two letters to ba re:d in
evidence because the plaintiff vas entitled 10 all
the letters or none. Mr.. Storey had failed to
produce the other two, or account for |
their disappearance, and could not there !
fore avail himself Of the two he offered. It wns |
evident that the defendant had been imposed j
On, but he had not taken sufficient care in first |
ascortaining the truth Of the letters before pub
fishing al abstract Of them, Tho retraction also
he'd been ruled out bcoause made AFTER suit !
brought, snd becauEe it only purported to be a /
telegram from Rockford and not an editorial |
with the sanction and name OF tho editor.
But tho verdict was for very large amount,
To be sure, $50, 600 would not recompenGa the
would have been d1sposed 70 allow the verdict to
stand hAd y boen Slaoou, and thas amount
would have been sufhclent puuishment, and
sceota pns9ea ~ enas e1cept .a2lnS g. money o1t
,n+ ns ,soa 1' 1;~nnse1 4na,,a eo,aEat;nu
md had odered the columns f his
paper for that purpose. Besidea the plaintiff
Tas not prosecuting tho euit for n,eroensrv pur-
oosea. aa snoa!a; saale1ole; 4a1 N T'e" OF au ERe
a,.;. a. n non - - xard;s{ ~ - sa,Is