The Bennington banner. [volume] (Bennington, Vt.) 1858-1894, 1891-12-11
B4nninRsou 6ountY court.

damages for the alleged alienation OF the
affection of the plaintiff wife, the jury
returned verdict for the plaintiff of
S6OS. 9S and costs. sheldon e. Cushman,
Batchelder & Barber for plaintiff; Chas.
II. Darling and'J. L. Martin for defend
ant. This cause now goes to the Su-
preme Court on exceptions.
The next case was the "Reformer libel
suit" entitled Luman P. Norton vs..
James H. Livingston. The readers of
the Reformer know that for some years
there has been constant fusilade of
longer and shorter items, published in
that paper, referring to various reputa-
BILE people Of Bennington in not very
complimentary manner; and to Mr.. Nor
ton in particular has Livingston paid
special attention in scurrilous attacks
and worse innuendoes. This action was
based upon an issue of the RefOrmer in
July, 1891, wherein Livingston in an edi-
torial said that Human P. Norton is the
only insurance agent in Vermont who
has been convicted in open court of will
full perjury" U.s. y,
To this charge it was expected that
the defendant would plead that the libel
GUS publication was not libel at all, but
only fair specimen of the everyday lit
erature contained in his Reformer, and
which it appears to be admitted could
have been fully established, even if it
would not amount to Legitimate de-
tense. However, this was not the plea
and the case came on for trial.
The plaintiff put in for his sole evil
dence the issue of the Reformer afore-
said, and which, by the way, contained
ON its fourth page another malignant
attack upon. Mr.. Norton.
In defense the defendant put in the
evidence in the case of Norton VS.. Glea-
son, a litigation based upon some insur-
ance transactions which was tried, as our
readers will recall, at the December
term of 1885,. We have never, heard the
integrity of either party to the Norton
and Gleason suit questioned outside of
the Reformer columns, although counsel
argued at some length upon this testi-
mOny, yet it amounted to no defense at
all, as we understood the Court in his
charge. Whatever may be said of the
conflicting evidence in that case there
certainly was not the first element of a
foundation for charging Mr.. Norton with
having been convicted OF perjury in
open court"
The court ruled that the publication
quoted above was actionable per Sc, that
the plaintiff was entitled to verdict,
and that the only question in the case
was the amount of damages the jury
should bring in against the defendant.
After this ruling all the evidence of the
defendant, and pleas, was offered in nit
igation of damages. On this point Liv
ingSton took the stand. He made a
sorry spectacle of hims eff. The editor
who assumes tie Office of public censor
of the good people of Bennington and
vicinity, arrogating to himself in his pa
per the wisdom of Solomon, on oath de-
MED all knOwledye of the legal definition
of the common word convicted" and
also of any malicious intent against
the plaintiff, !, Under cross-examination
he, wriggled, twisted and squirmed,
as heiwas obliged to account for large
number of most scandalons and out
rageuusa articles read from the columns
of the Reorher. IN which Mr.. Norton
was repeatedly cllled almost everything
but good Livingston accounted for
item after item by testifying that they
were written by A. p. Chill Is, even one
beginning "Hon. A. p. Childs," ETC., and
swore that Mr.. Childs paid him for print
ing these articles ten cents a line. In the
main these items were published as edi-
torials or locals (under the Reformers
regular headings), without mark or any
thing else to indicate that they did not
come from the editor. His attention was
called to various matters, to such an ex-
tent that counsel in argument fairly az
gued that the Reformer columns pere for
sale to any one 1--WE almost said for any
purpose), at ten cents a line.
The case was argued by Batchelder
and Barber for plaintiff, and by B lker
and Lathrop for the defen liant. The
charge of the Court was t. tie effect that
the publication being actionable per Sc,
as aforesaid, the plaintiff was entitled to
recover damagesAthe amount being for
the jury to determine. His Honor made
plain the law Of libel and referred to the
evidence in this case. The jury was out
about two hours and broughtin YER
dict for plaintiff, 5000 and costs, Thus
results libel suit No. 2against Livingston.
The former one our readers will remem-
Der. SO go, ra."
A prominent feature of this case was
the eminent counsel employed. For the
plaintiff appear C. H. Darling, Batch
elder & Bar er and j. L. Martin; and
for the defendant, She don & Cushman,
C. H. Mason, J. G.. Martin & Archibald,
G. A. Prouty, j. G. Baker and Edward
Il. Lathrop, the latter of Springfield,
Mass.
The repeated and persistent manner in
which the Reformer has followed one and
another Of our citizens with abuse is be-
coming almost unbearable, even among
the admirers of its scurrility. Mr. Nor
ton is not the only one, by no means.
Livingston has followed many Others,
sparing neither tlleJfair sex nor young