The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-04-01
OSBORN LIBEL SUIT
Argument in Supreme
Court on London Law.
Its Constitutionality Questioned. Chief
Justice Clark Requested that
Supplemental Brief be Filed
on the Subject.

The case OF C. D. Osborne VS.. NJ T.
Leach and News and Observer. was
argued yes Aay morning in the Supreme
Court. Messfs, James T. Morehead and
r. R. King appeared for Osborne; John
a. Barringer for Leach. and c. NJ. bus
| bee and A. l.. Brooks for the News and
Observer.
All parties had filed printed briefs and
the oral argument was not as full as 1T
would have been but for the time limit
which prevails in the Supreme Court.
The plaintiff contended that the London
Libel Law, passed by the Legislature OF
1901, was unconstitutional. because it re-
0uired a notice as a condition precedent
before bringing an action of libel. the
court has recently in the case OF Williams
VS.. Smith, from Craven. upheld that pro-
vision of the London Libel Law. but yes
terday the Chief Justice said that the
constitutionality of the law was not argued
when that case was heard by tn. court,
and that 1t was still an open question,
and requested that supplemental briefs
be filed The defendants also contended
that the article complained of was not
per Sc, as it only charged a breach OF
contract.
There were certain other incidental
questions discussed during the argument,
but the main question seemingly was the
constitutionalty of the law.
At the trial in Guilford Superior Court,
in December last. Judge o. II. Allen dis
missed the action as to the News and
Observer upon three grounds, because the
plaintiff had not given the preliminary
notice required by the London Law. and
because the plaintiff had not made out
any case against the News and Observer
in that the article was net libellous Oh
its face, and because it was admitted by
plaintiff that lie had suffered no special
damage.
In regard to the defendant Leach, or
the trial below, the judge ordered the
jury to return verdict OF one penny
damages, he being of opinion that the
article complained of was not hbellous
The judgment of one penny was only be-
cause a Judgment by default had been rem
dered against Mr.. Leach at a former
term for want of an answer
The case is an interesting one, because
it involves the validity of the LondoI:
Libel Law, which limits recoveres III
actions of libel for articles published in
newspapers to the actual damage suffer-
ed by the complaining party.
The suit brought by Mr.. Osborne was
on account of an article published in the
News and Observer in the fall of 1900. in
regard to a suit brought by Mr., Leach
against Mr.. Osborne for breach of con-
tract, which article Mr.. Osborne thought
him, The article in the
News and Observer simply recited what
Mr.. Leach stated would be the facts al
ieged in his complaint when fled in the
suit which he had brought against MIR.
Osborn.
Other appeals argued from the Ninth
District yesterday were the following
Holloway vs. Proctor, by Winston &
Bryant and Manning & Foushee for plain
tiff; Boone & Reade for defendant.
Tyson VS.. Railroad. by Barringer for
plaintiff King &. Kimball for defendant.
McGirt VS.. Railroad, by strudwick and
for plaintiff; King & Kimball
for defendant.