New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1884-02-02
THE FEUARDENT JURY OUT.
NO AGREEMENT AFTER TWELVE HOURS
POINTS OF JUDGE sHIPMAS's cHARGE-THE JURY
ASK INSTRUCTIONS ONCE.


terdav in the Fe,ricni Cesnola trial Mr. Choate rose
and corrected what asserted to be several msrepre
sensations OF the testimony made by Mr.. Bangs durlnS
his argument and asked the Court 10 charge the jury that
the abandonment Of the latest chargethose contained
in the Cook pamphetby the plaintiff argued malice on
his part Mt Bangs asked tho Court to charge that II
the fury found the testimony of witness false IN one
partieIar they were entitled to reject the whole OF It,
The Judge began his charge at t0l5 and occupied an
hour and half He spoke rapidly, but with great as
tinctness He began by saying;
CFNTrrrs OF THE JURY: This Il action for libel,
I'm which there are five counts or specified causes on
tenio9 There no arch pr0of OF the libel alleged In the
fourth ana nn eea9s as 10 yo the history Of the
controversy prior 70 1872 the defendant had publicly
arebTology had been exhumed by him in cyprus ana
particularly at Gogos. He sent them 10 LONDON
ana sol tne Sor NO ooR and from him they
passed into the possession OF the Metr0pontaL 81
Art. In 1874 second collection had Deeh
and this SOLD directly to the m!.seun,
the defendant wrote book describing the ,ch
attention from those interested I'm archeo0glca snoect
time afterwaTd he was appointed pes, ot s,,i
lect 10 Boarl of Trustees In 1880 the plantn VINO
was acquainted with the collection Ia LNhuon, In
an article in HE Art amateur III which ne mate .
specified ard certain inspected charges hecDargeu t
some objects had been improperly restored by JQS "
yeher antloue fragments not belonging 70 eeh OtueI
and which had been worked up to gige better appeal
10 the collection. HIS specinsu SrFbad heen
rrl.f. tfola
fraudently added and few other objects Inns aIueio
was republished. II well unlerstOOu tn ,aisy
he answered il In newspaper card over his own sigma
tIre, saying that the charges were nacl9nsiy .s az
the ground for the first cause OF action he
defendant wrote to the kYeenye nonef matters
between himself aud the plaintih charging Slo a of
with bad faith and this is accounts te scOn1 commun
cation read before the Investigating Coniluoo, 90 ~,
which the plaintiff accused OF dlshonesly Sdrer
Oh
libei Is false publication which exposes the pe,soys
attacked to hatred and contempt. LheIe ~ vileged
publications, and a large class, which are ptn'syy 49,
Those put forward In proper selfdefence are " m ss
gated 10 thi class When the charges were made Hs
: dutv which tho defendant owed TO himself that ne
should make an honest reply to them, ana TINS equRp
bin with qualified privilege ai't S nrviIeSe II is
0restion OF fact whether not he has lost that
and the plaintiff nugt take the burden OF prooi III o'
fishing the defendants malice -,
Judge shipman went carefully over the abundant 'e''
mony that has been addUced respecting the trdhsdco
IN London and set the Of the plaintiff ana the ue
PENDANT side by side and then proceeded 10 conso '
soecc charges as the statues He said the report VI
tho Investigating Committee should have no weight with
The Jury as q report, but that the testimony Oh MI %
nord Mr. Ward and Judge DAILY was competent teSunlo
ny The Judge repeated the plaintiffs story as 10 the
little Venus and spoke Of Alleys story and the tesumohy
oP Messrs Osborn Tracy, st. Gaudeus and warner he
detailed the reply OF the defendant when was tna' Iuo
mirror bad been hidden by ncrustatlons anu stateu tl
icroscopist had said that the surface was ancient 'h
Ward and other sculptors said it was by the same mana
that sculptured the rest Of the statue, ana tnat
the stories told by the plaintiff and his WITNESSES
about it did not harmonic. The story OF the FfleSV
No D. WAS reviewed with equal attention 10 det Inc
other statues were divided into three casss' lnoS' o
Auhrodite and Eros where nobody except the piNin'
had called their mOnolltlc character mo
made I'D the second class. where extensive inioy
been made and their propiety was ia's VI "a con-
fessedy improper restorati0ns and whica nii'
10 tho defence crcpt into the Museum exhO,iO Wy ~
~ tnowlcd ge of the defendant during the hurry 9 pre-
naring for the opening in March. 1ssO me & T1
respecting these matters was GIANT ~ SiI,,s erc.
nassod 10 n consideration OF General 81 CesuoaS "a
ty and pointed out the facts To- Thicn ne J bv
give tbeIo as TO the question damages in case
they found a verdict FOR the plaintlh'
THE JURY SEEKING INSTRUCTIONS.
The i,rv retired at 1920 p m. Many people fingered
IN Tho co,rt room on the chance Of prompt verdlcI put
when an hour had passed aud the jury rappeu lOuu
X for lunch, the court room slowly empueu Inv
counsel parties to suit and tho stenographers ds
e,red for lunch but there news Of an agreement
on rot,rn supper was finally called for, and it was
,ad known that several jurymcn bad teegFaphe
~ t,e,r wives that they did not expect 10
conclude their deliberations before morning some m
,,o,s ,ersons discovered that window on tho Park
Row SIDE Of the building (Which opens on thc M @
,,rt co,nranded view OF the jiiry-rOOn, ana tnese
dsroy crers spent much time IN watching ihe VI
me ii GcSDoIa acconnGniedby Mr. Prime,
returned 10 the building aud, with Henry O.; may h.tu
e,J artv In tbe reporters room. which immediately
adions the jury Mr. Feuardeht ana his coul'cl
sV 1I05 O'clock Judge shlpman entered the court
roo,n The lawyers took their places, ana alttF ~ lew
General N Cesu0la scanned their faces closeJ ana 5
Feuorfeut made an effort TO look unconceIned iheJuue
stated that the Jury had requested nm 70 we s
lion ITO what extent, under the raw Is th %
Justified in using strong or severe languSso III &
cbarpes of the plaintiff" In reply 10 the que so JluEe
shipman re-read thai portion OF MS cha,se U.9AinS
the subject In addition ne SAD n ,or,drd t t,sG
charge you that the Jury will not harShly dcanu lla
nothing be said by the defendant beyond me aDSqte
excency OF the occasion when severe charges maze peer
made uDOu him. provided his reply Is made ID
and does not 90 beyond the OCCASION OF scll-lt.ci
Within that limit strong and severe WORDS may OF
that ratort is made necessary part OF me ne
defence or arises out OF the deiehcse pro- t'It
NOT made for the purpose Of iniuring tine other man
character Is made in the warmth or sell b
and cannot Law down any more exact rule upon now
FAR strong and severe language Is ustdabei but tha Is
the general rule OF the law. Does that not answer inc
Foreman Davis replied "That docs answer 1t fully
u INC JTS court officer said that Judge shipman had
determined remain in his room an Hgnt so 5e
10 be in readiness TO receive the VeIuc1 whenever ~
jury should agree
COST or THE TRIAL.
Tho trial occupied about nifty working days. ana ex-
tnded over an actual period Of nineytwo days. the rst
hearing having occurred on October 81. lesZ'
The expense Of both 1t TO the "oFeri'
ment and to tho parties to the SUIT mas
ber ,arqe The nav of the urymen alone at two dollars
day viii he ~ 200 and board at the Asor House dur
ing their deliberations Is OF course included Inc cost 10
The narties I'm interest must be nearly $oOOOO me
cost Of sending commissioners to London to take 6sd
mony was OF course great The stenogTapners Who INN
with the aid OF typewr.rs ,. have .a re,
ceived about $4,000, or 2,lOo no rom ea 6g
Ncssrs Choate aud Bangs and the judges charge VIII
ali make about 5000 pages, or 10000 i0los
OBITUARY.