New-York tribune., 1875-02-04
THE COURTS.


$4,000 DAMAGEs-TEsTIMoNY CONCERNING THE
PLAINTIFFS CHARACTER-THR LETTER TO TITAN
j. CoFFEY.
The trial of the libel suit of William II.
Kembe against Charles A. Dana for the publication in
The Nep York Sun OF alleged lbelous charges affecting
the character OF the plaintiff damages beng aid AZ
S5OOOO begun yesterday In the Superior Court be-
fore Judge Curtis T. C. f. Ecclesno and Wheeler H.
Peckham appeared for the plaintiff, and william o.
Bartlett and Willard Bartlett for the defendant The
complaint alleged that prior TO March u 1872, the Legs
ature OF Pennsylvania had passed whereby the
Governor OF that State authorized 70 appoint
special agent for the collection, from the United
States, OF certain claims OF the State OF Ponnsy
vania the agent to be allowed to retain commission
OF 10 per upon the whole amount OF the claims
from the collected that thereafter the Governor
OF Pennsylvania appointed as such agent George o.
Evans that March ls. ls-2 Charles a. Dana com
posed printed, and published, falsely, wickedy. aud
malciousy. In The Neo York Sun, false, scandalous'
malicious and defamatory libel OF and concern
ing George o. Evans, the plaintiff This article
il was alleged charged against the defendant that he
had uulawiullY and corrupty consDired with others
named 10 cheat and deraud The OF Pennsylyania
OF $4,000 that he had conspred with one Hartranft
frluIuen1y and illegally, to deliver certain vouchers
publc documents Of the Common wealth Of Penn5y!-
vana the special agent to be appointed oY the Gov
ernor to collect Claims OF that State that ne
nad wrOngfuliy and cOrrupty aided and abetted an
attempt to defraud the state Of Pennsylvania by giving
the special agent, George o. Evans, letter OF
introduction 10 lawyer in WashIngton that
he had fraudulenty and corrupuY carried out and
efected conspiracy cheat and dfraud the state OF
Pennsylvania and had received as his snare OF tHe
fruit conspiracy the OF s0OOO and that no
had corrupy and IN pursuance Of corrupt conspiracy
10 that effect received from the special agent George
O. Evans, the OF s25OO0 the property Of the Com
Ith of
alleged that on account OF these charges. the paInn
had been injured in reputation among his friends ana
poghbors in the OF $4,000, which SUN, toSether
with costs, ne asked the Court TO award him
The Jurors for this trial selected with great care
both sides exhlr.ting her challenges, ana the unusual
proceeding OF challenging every juror to the favor
was resorted Before the case wss opened eh1rts
were made to settle 1t without trial The piaintu'
after the jury empanneei, stated that not hVhs
brought the for the sake of money he was Whs'
II the defendant should make full retracuon 10 ao"
Judgment to be entered for mere nominal damages
TAe defendant declined in any case to allow judgment
AGAINST him. but was willing, II the suit was dsconh-
ued 70 retract the charge the plaintiff had received
money. THIS not being satisfactory the case pro
cecdod. Mr. Ecclesine opened the case Tor the pAhA
and offered evidence copy Of The Sun Tor MIrch 10,
ls7! Defendant. counsel objected to the adh'4'h %
the whole OF the article containing the alleged nO'i
but the objection oyerruied ana an exception
p,ted The article was then read, Mr. Ecclesine
attention 10 those parts which be considered Ibeiou'
The defense offered evidence the offer Of the pantH
TO compromise, which excluded by tn Court.
There was then offered in evidence portion OF an an
davlt made by william H. KemDle in which he admitted
that he had written the following letter. published
among other things The S, as part Of the Alleged
libel: - A.. ao ,.c-
NJ O. % tyia lie Ia, cam tuls shat be wishes
You TO il. 0 Pat him through a. yoa ~oui r 5I' u"Ir
'iTia T..a J. cos .i, =, e.3. $ssaus'oa Sa D. G
The defense also offered in egidence a copy of The
Journal OF the Senate Of Pennsylvania, IN reercnce 10
the passage OF tha joint resolution regarding war
claims The report of tine commission sent ID PAia-
cepbla 10 procure evidence In regard 70 the character
and reputaton Of tho plJnu read. This included
tse testimony OF J. y. MGll.r ana John NJ. Trust ot
PliladelphiI which adverse to the good character
Gor9e o. Evans was the first witness FOR the paln'if
He TESTIFIED the letter written by hemoie, slYeh
aaiu,t Tn, rlted states, iu1 that the claims referred
that letter as being Ged by asm o GTle rn T hn
ngs the city OF ieiphi; witness nad desired
TINS letter because he knew no lawyer m NiHhlnS ou
and IA, could not eve the retaiuing fee which woni
he required 20 present. his claims Ine ".lus ..
division and silence" were INTENDED 10 sho" t'tt
the bearer Mr.. Evans. would be good Tor thr lawyer
fe,s aud would not reveal the fact tna NO re-
taiEcr had Deen gwen, when was SDI v.
breach OF etiquette among lawyers. witness had never
delivered the etter 10 C0hcy, and never empoye uAt
gentleman prosecute ms cians AtiuD4e hai notAnH
/, do with the prosecution Of the claims of Pehn9y4-
vIna against the Unued states. On the cro's.eAaA,
nation Ihe witness slld he oWed hcmpe ih'Ir! u'.
that the last TIM be had g0t money lTOu nun "' i1a
Spring Tne irtcr referred % ne put MO IAo Aa1' u
| ms LAWYER. John IL. StrIhdu or SeW-1Jrk
Mr. Struhau who was the next witness tesVnru tHA.
the had been gwen 10 hii 3y Evans Ahu n 4Ne
A. unknown rtpre-enlat We oI the PI 'n "a
! delphla lie never 1t afterward, aud kIe" oi 10
way mud it, He was sure IL Jl no re.gr TO i' ] I
sylyauia claims, witness tod heuDe I1al lAe loy.ct
| seemed 10 lmpicate him. and that II he kemoe' Woi
write letter cOmpainiuE ot thlt Idct "lhes' %Ou'
write explaining the matter ana Houiu 20 20 I & an'
VINO he believed wonid pl0lsh the expahtu'n !, cou
vnced OF Its truth kemDe never wrote me letter Oh
complaint, and therefore witness never mel'Ho4 '"e
/ matter 10 Mr.. Dana 49,. -, ,.,,
copy OF tae letter when ne made tue dliVII aunt
ting that he tne author Of H. An objection Oy de-
PENDANTS counsel 10 the admission or the testimony o
KemOie as TO the contents Ot tAe e1IeF oy,nS ostI
| rued, and an exception noted, the WI
ness further testified tnaJ the date Of the letter
! as puOllshed had been altered from March l.
1872 March 90 1872 IN order to bring II IN tAe case
/ o,igiual letter but only the words division aud
! silence" Furthermore he believed that portion OF
letter dated March 1872 and not containing tho word
"ad iitiOu," offered IN tFl4tnce ny tue pi4lhtH
means " securing the original without suc'tsS IIe
Court ruled any Out-d eFI nee Of the letter was
Mr.. strahan. beng recalled testified that be
letter. which he had given 10 the reporter. Tie did not
know whether Mr. Evans made copy Of the letter OF
! that tine word addition " nor IN the original
letter. and the date OF mat letter was March l.
" r. Leeds. late snerf o, Philadelphia John Hil
Collector OF Faxes OF Philadelphia; samuel > Moon ana
character standing OF Mr. kelnOie 10 Philadelphia
aud throughout Pennsylvania which they declared TO
Peckham OF counsel for the plaintiff offered IN evidence
copy OF Kemoles letter, dated March 1872 and not
shed copy was incorrect. without deciing upon MS
admlssbiity Judge Curtis declared tue court AJ9urneu
to IL u. IL " dAy, wAen the tr.Ai vi" DC 'oA'IhAoL
|