Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1879-11-28

The Baltimore Sun says, "In the suit of the
Atlantic and Virginia Fertilizer Company,
against Edward G. Belt, Il farmer of Mont
gomery county, for $50, 900 damages for Ii
bel, the jury in the United States Circuit
Court yesterday found a verdict for the Fer
tilizer Company for six cents damages. The
jury also wanted u saddle the costs on the
company, but that was not allowed by the
rule, each party paying his own costs in that
court when the damages are under $500,
though in some cases the court will require
one party to pay all the costs. The alleged
libel consisted Of publications in the two
Rockville papers calling the fertilizer known
as Eureka" and manufactured at Orient
Long Island, unwecome stuff, IA fraud, and
using other strong language, About thirty
farmers and others from Montgomery county
crops Mr.. J. K. Cowen, of counsel for Mr..
Belt, said il used to be said q corporation
had no soul 10 be saved or body to be kicked,
but now IL seems there is one claiming that
its good name has been injured. In closing
the argument for the company. Mr.. Sterling
said they did not seek heavy damages, bat
they asked for such Il verdict as would vindi-
cate the company. The total costs were
about $1,000 on both sides
The law of libel in the case was set forth
as follows, though there was little difference
between counsel as Ia the law. For the
company the instructions were If the jury
find that defendant published the newspaper
articles complained of, and that the plain
tiffs were corporation engaged in the man
ufacture and sale of fertilizer called Eure-
ka, then the plaintiffs are entitled To recover
unless the jury futher find that the charges
of fraud aud deception contained in the said
articles were true. If the jury find that the
defendant published the articles in the Mont
gomery County Sentinel, and in the Adyo-
cate, in the same county, with intent to IN
ju7e the plaintiffs in their business, and shall
further find that the plaintiffs were not gull
ty of the swlndling or fraud in the conduct
of their business imputed to themin said ar
ticles, and that the publication was calcutta
ted to injure the plaintiffs in their business,
then the plaintiffs are entitled to recover in
this action, even though the defendant be-
lieved that the Eureka had proved inefficient
or injurious in its application TO crops in his
neighborhood Also that the burden of
proof on defendants plea of justification is
upon the defendent 10 Salty the jury OF the
truth Of the libelous articles complained Of,
and that the plaintiffs were guilty of the
fraud and deception imputed to them there
in. For the defendant the instructions
were that if the jury find that at the time
and prior to the publication by the defend
ant of the notices offered in evidence the
plaintiffs were engaged in manufacturing
and selling Eureka as a fertilizer and had
advertised and sold the same In large guam
titles 10 numerous citizen of Montgomery
county as and for valuable and good fer
tlizer, and if the jury find it was not a
valuable and good fertilizer, and that the
plaintiffs, well knowing the same, made false
representations in their advertisements and
publications concerning the character Of
said compound, and by such false and fraudu-
lent representations made the sales aforesaid
and thereby deceived and imposed upon said
citizens, then the plaintiffs are not entitled
to recover, and the verdict must he for de-
PENDANT"