The record-union., 1894-07-14

Ine uuel. or Inat TINS man naQ DeeH tIl6u
on charge OF murder in consequence OF
It. The incidents aud persons connected
with it were subjects of common gossip.
and these were likewise published, but
the plaintiff objected 10 the story that he
had been engaged in preliminary prac-
tlce With his revolver beforehand, and
sued for the circulation of that particular
part OF the story-and he secured yer-
dict in his favor.
In the case of libel it had been charged
that man with two daughters had been
guilty of grave offense, in connection
with which bis daughter Mary's name
was used. Well, the man sued, and then
IL was discovered that the daughter
Maria was the one involved instead OF
Mary. The defendant was promptly
found guilty, and though the damages
assessed were merely nominal the rigor-
Gus technicalities of this curious law were
served. L do not recollect that these are
the correct names of the daughters, but
the principle of the legal anomaly IS the
same IL any event. IN still another case
lawyer sued for damages got them
because the statement was made that
his name had been ''struck off the rolls"
whereas he had been suspended for two
years Tor some questionable transaction.
One very curious case is often cited as
showing the ODD features of English law.
1t was charged that the ex-Mayor of
small English town had, during his two
terms, purchased coal at six pence
bushel and had then charged it at four
pence TO the poor and four pence to the
town corporation, pocketing two pence
by the operation. When suit was brought
a plea was entered that the official had
really been guilty of this during one
Mayoralty, even though in the second he
had only charged the coal at three pence
TO the corporation and three to the poor,
but the Judge before whom the case was
heard decided that there was cause of
action, as Justification was not broad as
the charge.
QUEER CONCLUSIONS IN LAW.
An authority on the subject of libel
law. who has written volume that is
widely quoted as a textbook, has
summed up very conveniently multi
tude OF decisions III this country and
England bearing upon what an ordinary
reader might term the differences with
out distinctions" in the statutes. quote
some of the unique conclusions OF law
therein set forth:
"a charge that the plaintiff had stolen
defendants shingles is not justified by
the fact that the plaintiff had sold defend
ants shingles without his authority and
afterward denied that he knew anything
about them.
"a charge of committing one offense is
not justified by showing the commission
of another offense, although of the same
or even greater enormity.
''A claim that plaintiff stole pot and
waiter is not justified by the fact that he
stole waistcoat.
''To prove a forgery to the amount of
$50 does not justify charge of forgery to
the amount of $3.50 Tor even SSD.
Nor is the charge of carrying on
smuggling as a business justified by
n q q
charge of smuggling during the war is
not justified by showing smuggling be-
fore the war.
"a charge that plaintiff, a clergyman,
had asserted that the blood of Christ had
nothing to do with our salvation more
than the blood OF hog is not justified by
the fact that the plaintiff had denied the
divinity of Christ and the doctrine of the
atonement, and asserted that Christ was
a creature, perfect man, but there was
no more virtue in His blood than that of
any creature"
These sample instances are the results
of decisions upon trial OF cases extending
over many years, but just as peculiar
cases come up every day now in various
parts of the country. And the far-reach-
ing effect OF them is peculiarly exhibited
in the verdict of $4,000 rendered against
a news company in this city that in the
ordinary course of business had handled
a periodical in which there happened to
be a libel, although the officials of the
company were as ignorant of it as child.
True enough, the Court of Appeals
threw out the case, but it was on tech
nicality, and the Judges then laid down
the law that the company was response
bic because it had circulated the libel,
which would apply equally to the waif
upon the street selling papers, if he had
any money to justify suit against him.
New York Herald.