The daily gazette., 1880-05-28
FIRST EDITION.
THE COUNTY COURTS.
END OF THE LIBEL SUITS FOR
THIS TERM.
CRoAsDALE GETS VERDICT IN HIS
IsUIT AGAINST TANTUM-NEAL SEN
TENCED TO BE HUNG ON AUGUST
9th.
New CASTLE, May 27.
,ially reported for the GAZETTE.

New CASTLE, May ~.
Court reassembled at o'clock this
afternoon, Chief Justice Comegys and
Judges Houston and Wales on the
bench.
Mr.. Bird, in closing for the plaintiffs
in the Tantum libel suit addressed he
Court in request for a charge to the
jury on the following points
/. That the defendant, having failed
to produce any proof under his plea of
mot gully" the plaintiff is entitled
| to verdict.
| 2. That no matter in the libel can be
used by the defendant as plea Of JUS
tification in the case.
| Mr.. Bird then addressed the Jury for
about an hour and half, reviewing
the libel at great length, and claiming
that the defendants had clearly proved
their case. In conclusion he discussed
the question of damages, and claimed
the jury should consider the plaintiffs
feelings as affected by the publication
of the libel; but that he would sooner
have no verdict than a verdict of nom
inal damages only. 1t was not dollars
and cents the plaintiff was after, but a
vindication.
Judge Houston charged the jury
He said the law on the subject of libel
was laid down by the Chief Justice, in
his charge to he jury in the previous
case, in accordance with well settled
definition of the term.
Libel, the charge said, was mali
cious publication, imputing something
that has a tendency to injure the rep
utation of another, and bring him in
to public hatred and contempt 1t is
alleged in this case that such has been
the result, but the jury are to deter
mine from it whether the effect is
such.
The legal question in this case is,
that when such calumnious matter is
brought up and not disputed, the
Court must say if it is libel.
We say it is, prtnsG .facie. But
something else is to be considered to
make it acticnable, and tina. is, was it
maliciously published by the defend
ant because it may be claimed to be
justifiable.
1t is for the jury to say whether the
libel was published by Tantum, with
malicious intent. This is a question
in regard to the intention of the de-
fendant, and it is usually determined
by attending circumstances. On this
point there is not much testimony IN
the case, and therefore the circum-
stances of the libel or the intent, must
be taken from the paper itself, and if
that is of a character that tends to de-
fame, then the Inference of the law is
that it is libelous. This is for the jury
TO determine.
| ha ol, OH Of II l,n lafp Mt
there has been no evidence to show
that he has sustained any special dam
ages in this respect. The terms of
the libel seem to be derogatory to his
general character. There is no proof
of special damages, and the question
is, has his general character been in
jured in any way? If you are satisfied
this was the intent of the defendant,
then you can find for the plaintiff.
AS to the question of the amount of
damages, if any are awarded, the
charge ated that the names attached
to the publication gave it weight,
whether theywere placed there without
authority or not, as it was not known
until the commencement of these trials
that the defendant placed The names
there without the knowledge OF con-
sent of the others.
This aggravates the action If
the jury is satisfied that the paper
was published with lbelous intent, which
fact they must determine. The more
defamatory and more malicious the libel
the greater the damages, primd tdctd.
But this is also a fact for the jury to
. consider in connection with the facts
E and circumstances of the case, or on the
l fnn.a T.f thnl tl..xt OF Iafa
mine damages, If they award any, fol
just such amount as they considered fail
aud honest compensation for the injury
they think lie has sustained.
As the jury was about to retire, Col
Whiteley asked that the charge of Chiei
e Justice Comegys, III the case against
S Bright, as it relates to the law of libel
be sent to the jury room with the oLhel
papers bearing OH this case.
a Mr.. Bird objected to this, but the CHIEF
e Justice assented to Col. Whiteley's re-
e quest, saying that he wanted it dore.
MIR. Bates inquired if the Chief JUS
tice ever knew of a case where law
book had been sent up to jury.
N The Chief Juslice-This is the law
q as laid down by the Court, and ii has
4 not been reversed. 1t was rendered
~ ye terday.
= The jury retired at 45 o'clock, ant
Mr.. Bates noted an exception to he
charge of the Chief Justice going before
the jury In the shape it did, as the copy
q furnished was that printed in the Euer!
EUening, along with the arguments o
counsel IN the Bright case.
NEAL SENTENCED.
VIM. Neal who was indicted for thu
- crime of rape on Mrs. Margaret E. Cos
1' ser, of Blackbird Hundred, was brOugh
le into court to receive his sentence. Whel
ie asked by Judge Wales if he had any
~ thing to say why the sentence of the Law
N should not be passed upon him, he die
ie not appear to understand the question
- but when it was explained to him by tn
CT tipstaves, he said, "Yes, sir, | have"
Neal then delivered long, rambling
statement, principally devoted to ex
planning his whereabouts on the day o
Mt the outrage, and regretiing that certail
he witnesses who could have established
hs his innocence, were not present durin
b. his trial. During his statement he di
Ir- not once mention Mrs. Gosser's name
and his only allusion to the outrag