New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1884-11-23
THE SUIT AGAINST BERNARD COLER!DUh
THE PRESIDING JUDGE REvEnsEs JuEfs VEN
DICT FOR MR. ADAMS.

LONDON. Nov. 22-Thc action for libel
brought by T.. NJ. Adams. London barrster' against
Bernard Cocrdgc, was resumed to-day. Mt. Auans
continued his opening remarks lie said that he had
much affection for Miss Coerdgc but he had no Thought
of marrying her.
Attorney General James submitted that the painnh
had no ease and must bc nonsuited The Judge ruled
that Bcrnard's letter was privileged communication
and that Adams in order maintain his must prove
express malice dishonesty ON the part of Bernar c
decided TO leave the to the jury, rcserVing 10 MN
self however, the right tn decide the action on point
of law in The verdict was not warranted by the e
dcncc. =, A.. L.
Mr. Adams continued his statements and said that he
aud Miss Coeridge now resolved TO get married
liberation brought: n verdict forthc planth for $1,000
The Judge ovorrued this verdict and gave verdict Tor
COlcIidgc with costs,
POPULAR RESENTMENT OF TIE ACT.
The sympathcs of the people during the trial were nm
ouestionaby with Mr.. Adams. lie made favorable I'M
preston upon all his hearers lawyers and aymen aR'
by his cloqucncc. his manncss and his patience under
the frequent snecring interruptions Of the presiding
Judge Mr. Justice Manisty. The Attorney-Gencril, Mr.
Henry James. who appeared for the defendant evidently
relied upon the the judge in favor of his client and
conducted his In pcrfunctory and Indifferent man
ner He called witnesses for the defence, and
declined to cTsssexamine the plaintiff
fsMr Adams consented nj the last moment not TO can
Chief Justice COcridcc AID Miss Mildred COlcridgc as
vitnessc although they had been subpenaed and were
justice Manisty's summing mp the jury strongly
wholly unnecessary for Bernard Cocrldse 10 prove me
truth of the charges which he made In his letter To his
sister II was evident that he believed them To he true
and there proof that lie had acted corrup,ly or
Inaliciouslv Tkc jury demanded To he shown thc
original letter by Mr. Cocridge 20 his sister Justice
Manisty at first refused 10 comply win ms demand
hut after haegng he consented. and the original
document WAS taken into the jury room. .
The jury absent ifty minutes and when me yedct
was rendered there was burst of applause which ihc
court officers were unable tO suppress.
when Justice NIauiy reversed The verdict there Was
profound sensation. Mr. Adams was thoroughly sal>h'u
with the verdict of $4,000 III hS fhVor,
and vould have been satisfied with verdict
of three athngs. lie knew that the jury was win h
when he closed his and II he HAD NOT had mat
kuowledge would have prolonged the case until Mon
dav and would have placed both Lord chief Justice ani
Miss Mildred COcrdsc upon the witness stand ne Itcis
no that he has bcen trccd and he is resontey deter
mined tu carry the appeal To q higher cour,
The case has attracted more attention on the part nf
LAWYERS than any that has tried before the queens
Bench the Tichbornc The course OF justice
Manisty Is denounced among eminent 1urlsts as an
abrcse OF privilege and disgrace to the British bench