The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-07-02
MARINE COURT-PART f.
Before Judge McAdam ana q special jury.

The BIltDbAIL bLANDEh SUIT.
Daniel O. Birdsan Vs. stephen II. Alden.-The
hearing of this case, which action brought by
plalntlfY 10 recover 81 600 from the defendant was
resumed yesterday morning, at ten O'CLOCK. The
court was crowded Immediately on ITS opening by
large number Of people. who seemed to feel
mucn interest In the proceedings.
The defendants case having been rested, Arehl-
bald Johnston was called for the plaintiffs side in
rebutta. He testified to the habits Of the defend
ant. and said ne saw him only once or twice under
the influence of liquor.
Melville p Bailey also testified to the character
OF the defendant, who. witness said, was "under
the influence" few times.
Charles D. Jones proved TO seeing the defendant
once under the influence.
DR.. samuel Russell Child was questioned as TO
the habits OF the defendant hut declined to answer
on the grounds that ms profession oroade him 10
disclose wnat he knew OF his patients, and the
Court ruled IN favor OF the Defendant
Richard Howard (colOred) swore that defendant
was drunk at the Stdrtevant House tnree-tnirds
OF his time.
Mr.. A. Oakey RaIl-You couldn't say he was Jour-
thirdsf Qaughter.) A. No, SIR; but swear 1
"a W him drunk three-tnlrds. GREAT laughter.l
Judge Frank w. Perry testified that be presided
at the superior Court OF Connecticut wnen Mrs.
Queby was divorced from her husband; MIS- Rich
ARDS was examined at the Irial, and from what he
knew OF ner as o witness ne Judge Perry
did not believe any person Ia Westport would
believe her under oath.
On CrOSS-eXaulnauU WlIueSS stated LnAJ Mr..
Birdsal, the plalnti1 In the action also about the
same time procured divorce from mis- (Blrdsalls)
vie.
edged that Mrs. truly was iDtlmate In his mouse
he might nave shown the accession in her case TO
his vile before delivering 1t, but lie was sure he
did not snow lt TO anybody else; he was the au-
thor OF 1t himself he got no presents from Mrs.
Du ,r,,na nresent 81 soma men koe urn a
q doll-and his decision was In favor OF MRS. Tru-
by; the other Judge, who presided without any
right, held different opinion or tue case 1t was
an ADVERSE decision.
Mrs TRULY, on examination, denied totally that
improper relations existed between herself and
the platinum, rs sworn to by her iatner ana Mrs.
Rlcharus, and Denied on cross examination, that
she got divorced from her HUSBAND IN order TO
DANIEL u. BIrdsall testined that one word the
plalntIn or MIS-. Richards swore 10, as regarded
improper relations ON his part with MRS. TRULY,
was not true.
On cross.examination he acknowledged having
divorced MS wlie.
me Court IN charging the Jury sald:-
Gentlemen, this case presents melancholy
state OF facts. Father ana daughter stand ar
rayed as witnesses against each other. The
iatheT, bound by the most sacred ties TO protect
his daughters character, STANDS to-day charging
her with infideuty and shame. The daugnLer,
bound also by the sacred instincts OF nature ana
1ial love TO sustain that father, apparently dis
cards MIN ana arrays herself as witness against
him. Various causes nave been sssig ed Tor tails
deplorable state Of AFFAIRS and you may probably
be able to determine the correct one. However
pass upon the rights oil those parties dis
passionately and ialrly. II You find that
tue charges constituting the alleged slander
were true you will find for the defendant, and, II
true, the motive VITA which they were uttered
becomes entirely immaterisl the truth being a
full complete Justification in law. On the qles-
ton OF Justification tue burden OF proof IL upon
the defendant, and he must satisfy you beyond all
reasonable doubt That the charges which he maze
against tho character OF the plainun were true
before you can ind for him. II, on the 0tner
band, you lind that the words charged were un true
IN fact, the law VIII imply malice from their use,
anu the plalntn ID not required to oner affirma-
tive evidence on the subject 10 maintain the
action, because the WORDS used, If untrue, would
naturally nure the plalntifr In his reputation ana
social standing in the community IN which he
lived. H. on the other hand, you ind that the
verbs used are untrue you will ind for The plain
tin assessing Whatever damages YOU think proper
between six cents and $1,000. You Will ave dam
ages to compensate for an injured reputatio nd
for the indignity, dsgl and degradation follow
ing the use of the words.
The Jury retired 10 consider the verdict but ha
not agreed up TO late nour.
COURT OF SPECIAL SESSIONS,
Before Justices Murray, Duty ana smith.
The following cases were disposed OF yester-