The daily gazette., 1880-05-20
FIFTH EDITION.
THE COUNTY COURTS.
THE NEWARK ISLANDER CASE
GOES TO THE JURY.
MR.. BOOTH PRESENTS THE LEGAL
POINTS IN THE CASE, AND MAKES
THE CLOSING ARGUMENT.

THE CLOSING ARGUMENT.
Specially rep .rted for the GAZETTE.
New CASTLE, MAY 20, 1880.
Court opened at 10 o'clock this
morning, Chief Justice Comegys and
Judges Houston and Wales on the
bench.
In the case of Hance, assignee, VS..
Wells which was referred to referees,
w. G. Spruanoe, Esq, was granted
permission to withdraw his name
from the record as counsel for the
defendant.
The Newark slander case was re-
sumcd, and James II. Booth, Esq,
of the counsel for the plaintiff, ad-
ressed the Court in opposition to the
legal authorities bearing upon the
case cited by Mr.. Spruance, for the
defense. Mr.. Booth also cited au-
thorities (includln9 one from 4th llar-
rington, Delaware Reporls) in sup
port of the plaintiffs cause in this ac-
ton.
About IL o'clock, Mr.. Booth con-
cluded his citation of authorities to
the Court, and commenced his argu-
| ment to the Jury. He reviewed the
evidence in the case at length, claim
ing that it substantiated the plaintiffs
case, and entitled him to damages.
About II O'Clock, Mr.. Booth con-
cluded, and then Mr.. Spruance adj
| dressed the Court in n comment on
some of the authorities cited by the
plaintiff 5 counsel. At length this
j "a al
before the Court, and Judge Come
| gys, at l2:05 o'clock, commenced his
charge to the jury. He spoke rs fol-
\ lows:
We have no new law to deliver to
you, but only such as has been an
uounced from the bench of the Su-
perior Court, from time to time, as
| the occasion has arisen for SO doing.
The substance of the charge made
by the defendant In this case against
| the plaintiff is that he stole a five
dollar note belonging TO him, which
charge was made on the Sth day of
June, 1877, on the evening of that
day, in or upon the premises of the
store or shop of the Messrs. Murray,
in the village of Newark, and in the
presence of divers persons, some of
whom appeared before you as wit
nesses. The witness Joseph Muir
ray, in his examination in chief,
proved the very words laid in the
second count or statement i'll the
narr ; and the other witnesses for the
plaintiff, Alfred Bailey and Ferris
Rudolph, swear to the use of other
language by the defendant, but sub
stantially make the same charge of
theft. In the cross-eXaminatiOn of
Murray, his language with respect to
the words uttered by the defendant
varied slightly, though not substan-
tally, from that first used by him
and the effect is not altered thereby.
The crime of larceny is as well com
nnttcd by one who, finding auother's
money or other goods, and knowing
or having reason to know who the
owner is, appropriates or applies it
to his own use iraudulently, as
ii he had had stolen it in the
| ordinary way. If the plaintiff had
| picked up this five dollar note, he loss
of which was proclaimed by the de
| fcndant, and instead of restoring il To
| him, had concealed it from him, de
| signing 10 apply II to his own use he
wouid have been as much guilty of
| larcency as ii he had inserted hIs hand
| slyly iutO his pocket and taken it there
| from. In this case the tie enuaE ad-
mits before you, through his counsel,
| tha, he did charge the plaiutiff wi h
st, aling his note Of he had not, YOU
have ample testimony of that part by
| the witness Murray buf he contends
tha' he should not be S. Ljected TO
verdict against hIm, if you believe Ii,
thought at the time that the plaintifi
committed the alleged theft; and that
| if you should give one against him, II
should be Tor merely nominal dam
| ages, say of six cen ., no damages hav-
lug Ia fact been proved by the PLAN
| tin a. All. lie dsks the cour, SO to
charge you. The plaintln on the 9th
er hand asks Us to say 10 you, that H.
he charge here made Is OF Il felony
| the law imples that it was made mali
ciously, and that some damage was
sus aimed, the measure of which is to
be fixed by the jury.
The law for your guidance in the
| decision i'll this case Is tins
Wherever one person charges anoth-
eI Will Il Cllllt, lllt law lllIclS illdI u
was done maIlciously, from ill-wlll. In
such cases, however, the inference OF
malace may he opposed by the defend
ant and if his proof be strong enough
to satisfy the jury that he made the
charge bona .fde.
That is homes ly and upon grounds,
atfordng reasonable warrant for SO
doing, and no oactualddmages have been
proved ON the plaintiffs pIrt, the jury
would be unwariantcd in rendering "a
verdict of not gun y for, where neith-
er actual damage nor le-al damage
arising from charge of CRIME, exists,
no verdict should be rendered for IA
plaintiff. TO relieve himself from the
otherwise malicious SANDER and
verdict by jury, plaintiff alleging
crime must show, by proof, to the sat
lsfaclion Of the jury, that he had rea-
sonable grounds 10 believe that the
person charged was guilty. The au-
thoriies cited, by the defendants
counsel are none OF them hostile to this
vi W. 1t. would be most singular if
one man could could accuse another of
crime in a public place, before
company of people, and then escape all