New-York tribune., 1884-01-13

ment which certainly has mono bnt hohoraple lnten
tions il should lower the standard OF the proles-
son. There is something 10 be learned, no douO''
nv English journalism. But 10 begin by adopt'ng'
and extending, and making worse some OF ,ne
worst practices of journalism clswhere is not "hat
its friends would like to see done.
The Belt case seems predestincd TO divide every
t-ibunal before which it is heard The public took
sides desperately. The unanimous verdict oi tho
iury who thought Mr.. Belt injured by MI Lawes ;
alleged libel TO the extent of 900, was received
with enthusiasm by section OF society auo
with hootng by another. Mr.. Baron huddes'on'
the Judge before whom the case was tried tooA
header for the plaintiff. Nearly every altlS' ="
London was Oh the side Of the defendant on INC
hearing for new trial, it was easily seoh ln' ''9
three iudgos who composed the court were hot VI
one mind. Mr.. Justice Manisty early hmtcu 'n',
he saw no reason for disturbing the Vcrdlc'' anu
then went TO sleep. Lord COleridge anu Nh Jus
tice Denman discussed the matter WIN couilsel III
a tono which sicnified plainly enough their dssat-
sfnction with the conduct Of the trial hy hr Baron
UnddIeston and with the behavior of the jury The
tlroo took time TO consider their Judgment Lord
Coleridgc went 10 America with the undischarseu
h,5o- ~ tl,e Relt case OH his mind. The argument
,yss last Spring. The Judgment was not I'LL last
Saturday Lord Coerdge was for new triai'
ont aud ont Mr. Justice Manisty was against
4 new trial on any ground. Mr. Justice Delihan
v a. fo~ new tia nnless the paintin would consent
70 reduce his damages from $4,000 10 i1oo' Inc
result of this beautiful instance OF Judlclil mar
monv would therefore have been new triai' hau
not Mr.. Justice Manisty, in his anxiety 10 protec'
the pIaintiff $ verdict come round to his Drotner
Denman'. view.
His brother Denman's view ] must say, what
ever may he its merits in other points, proceeded on
the legal fiction of disregarding { costs lhe sum
Nr. Laves would ave had 10 pay II the Ncrdlct
lad stood was e. 900, plus at least +lo'ooo plain
tif's costs OF Glj. 900 in all. The sum ne Wo'Iiu
hove IN nav under Mr. Justice Denmans judg-
ment would be $500 plus 10000 costs; or IN ALL
c1O5OO. That's. although tie sum awarded by
the irv was in this judges opinion ten times too
great the sum the defendant would be called on TO
nav ifM Mr. Justice Denman's view prevail, Is not
oute one third less than the first sum- To put II IN
onotbcr way Mr Justice Denman thinks 1r
Ia,ycs ought 10 he fined 600 for saying Mr.. Belt
WAS not a sculptor and his judgment in fact I'M
noses on him fine of more than twenty times that
SUN.
All these well meant efforts, however. have come
70 naught The plaintiff to-day expressed his read
mess 10 accept the $500 and costs which the court
Offered him Bnt the defendant somewhat to the
general surprise. interposed; denied the authority
of the court to impose compromise Of this sort on
either party, aud upset the Judgment altogether
by q notice of his intention to go to the Court OF
Appeal He may go from there 20 the House oil
Lords it, in the court of last resort, lie does not
get q new trial. there is still one other court IN
which Mr. Lawes can beat Mr. Belt, and that Is the
Court of Bankruptcy. 1t is well known that the
defendant, though the son of wealthy man. las
no property of his own, aud it is not clear now
the plaintiff can expect in the long run, to recover
the enormous sum he has spent and is spending
on this litigation. G. W. 3