Newspaper of The New York Herald, February 22, 1849, Page 1

Newspaper of The New York Herald dated February 22, 1849 Page 1
Text content (automatically generated)

TH NO. 5376. CURIOUS LIBEL CASE. Inpcrior Court* Before Judge Vanderpeel. D. W *t.iarke v?. J a m?? Cordon Bennett.?Thle Til Mi notion for an alleged libel, contained la a report of certain proceeding* which took place at the pollee flloe Is June lent. There we* a fecond oount, charging another libel, aa set forth in an answer to a published communication of the plalntKT. The ease lasted from Tuesday till Saturday and teemed to exoite oont' slderable interest, as the oourt was crowded each day. ? Verdisi for the defendant Tbe Cousin. for the plaintiff addressed the jury.? He said that the opening of the sase had devolved upon him very unexpectedly, in consequence of the indisposition of bis assoo ate. He had not read the papers until within a very short time, and therefore he would IrltBy state the general uatuie of the oase. and tbe facte upen which their veruiot would be asked. The plaintiff was an attorney at law, keeping his ot&oe at S7 Beekman street. Wew Yorv. aud t&e defendant was the editor and proprietor of the N*w York Herald. The aeiien was brought tor a libel contained in two successive articles in two successive numbers of that paper, which would be shown to mem was one of large cirouiiatloii.aud. for Curtain purpO es, ot extemive influence. It appeared that the plaintiff had beoome the ?g?r-, i.r collecting the debts of the Qrm of Harris h r touil, and that he had been authorised to do so t>v j under an assignment, and by a direst power wbiuh had been given to huu lor the said purpose. It had beofcuic his duty to present a claim from the Arm against Mr Bennett, the justice of which was not disputed; hut the claim was not paid, and the plaintiff thereli re commenced a suit, aud brought au action, lur. Bennett, huumg that the matler was to be prose outed with leriourness, aud net wishing to subject hiiusell to ooets, paid the UeOt; but subsequently, the Slaiuufl was arrested oa au affidavit. 1'uat atildav,t, owever, was not us yet followed up by my preientBitut. The defeucant, in professing to give a police report, had stated that the plaintiff had been arretted on a cbarge for obtaining money under false pretenoea. JCveiy explanatory oircuuistanoe bad been omitted, and tbe rrpoit had been intentionally garbled, eo as to leave no dcub- that the piaialitf was guilty of tbe offence charged against him. Tne plaintiff, not wishing to submit to sucb an accusation by a paper of so wide a plauation, which was loilowed by 111 article manifestly malicious, and to which ?m appended a garbled decision oi Chancellor Walworth, put for-h lor the purpose of damaging the professional character of the piaintilT. It ever there wae a ca?e where the trite adage-adding insult to injury? wae was the pretest. If the jury believed these things, they would give their verdiot for the platutltf It might be proper, lor the better understanding of thv case, to read the libels The learned counsel was proceeding with the reading of the libels, when The Court interposed. and asked what the plaintiff complained of-whether the complaint was for publishing what hpd occurred in the police coart, or for giving s coloring to the report. The Counskl sa d it was for having given a garbled Statement ol the proceedings, and for having omitted every excalpatory and explanatory ciroumstanoe. EmasuklC Poach was the ilrst witness examined. llu v-nl In thii r.ffliln of the Ne w Vorlc HrraLd On t Mm days on which th? puptis containing the libel in questlon were published, for the purpose of purchasing them. Cross-Exuminrd ?Bought the papers at the request Of Mr. Clarke. He (witness) rerideaat 98 Centre street, and ie a bather by trade. Tke Counsel then preeeeded to read the artiolee. The Court?Consider them ae having been read. The Counsel laid, that there wee aoiaething elee in the paper which be wiabed to read alio. The Court did not eee the objeot which was to be gained by such a course aa that. Suppose the paper contained a libel upon any one else, would the plaintiff seek todeiire benefit lrom that ? Was he interested in the expedition to California ? (Laughter.) There bight be something about that in the same paper, and, if so, was that to be read ? Irrelevant matter, and things which formed no part of the subject of the aotion, must not be pressed into it. The Counsel *aid. there was in the very same paper a paragraph, declaring the oirculation of the Hermld. The Couht -That was admissible,as it was admitted by tbe parties themselves. The paragraph was then read. Samuel Hahhis was tbe next witneis called, bat he did not appear. Mr. K. sandvord then rose to address the jury for the delendaat. Hie speech was distinguished for the clearness and force el its reasoning, the obstinacy of its iogio, and tbe commanding eharaoter of its eloquence. He thought that they must have bsen ."urCleed when tbry bad heard the matter which had en charged as libellous lead. Tbe first alleged libel was a report of proceedings which had taken plaoe in ? public oourt ot justice ; and the second had reference to ceitain legal pre otmdl tigs. the whole soope of which was, that Mr. Clarke nad been in error in his law, and that Chancellor Walworth had been quoted to show that be (Clarke) hud been so. What wa3 oomplaiued of ae lib ^ Ileus, wae a fair end correct rep.rt of what bad transpired iu an epen oourt, and that he would be able to dnmeurtrale to ihe entire satisfaction of the j ju,y. The grounds upon which the publication hut appeared weie not maliuious, and what had been set forth In thtrn wa* truej aud that was tfc? issue which they bad lo try. He hLouici lay before them the depositions from which tae reporter had taken bis information and upon comparing them both, they would see if the report was fair or not. The editor of a newspaper was not responsible for the truth of any coruplalut whioh m'gbt be made in a court of ju-dice. If he gave what was alleged, if be published n? more than wbat was stated, be was justified by law. If, on the contrary, it appeared tbat important facts in tbe depositions had been suppressed, if the case had besa put>Hsbed for tbe purpose of gratifying mat'oiou* f??Uugs, then, indeed, there would be ground for the oompUiut made against the defendant, bathe w ,uld show that he (the defendant) had not been aotuated by any such motive. The report in question had b.:on prepared by the ordinary reporter, <n the nsual way. Mr. Bennett had not seen it until after it was in print ; he had had no agency In the affair, and was nat cognisant of it until other persons had seun It. If he (the learned counsel) could satisfy the jury tbat these allegations were true, and tbat the report charged as libellous was no more thau a f. tr report of what bad taken place in a eourt of justice, then they could not , hesitate to pronounce a verdict for the defendant. It was an action for the publication of truths of which Mr Bennett had neither knowledge nor participation in. Tbe second article, whioh was als.-> charged as libellous, was nothing more than a reply to an attach which the plaintiff bad made upon the report, wh'ch tbe defendant bad published as an ordinary item of news. Tbe firm ? f Harris & Ft?naoull had be?n engaged by Mr Bennett to make some alterations in h's extensive establishment. On tbe detb of April, 1848, the firm had some dispute, and each gave notion to Mr. Bennett not to psy to them the amount of the bill whioh the^ had against him. Tbe plaintiff was ob jrcicu HJ vjr iTi*. muuuuii, urrauro ur unu uun uis (Mr R >) confidence. Mr R gave notlre to plaintiff that be wm not to collect, and to Mr Bennett, that ho war not to pa; him. The rule of lair was, that me partner might eolleat. and appropriate, but the legal Interest in the proper!; remained the eame after tno dissolution, eo that neither could give an; lien upon It, and one partner bad a right to bar the b; giving notice to the debtors not to pay. The onl; couree was to appoint a reoelver Under the circurafiances. Mr. Bennett could not have paid the mine;. Had he done otherwise, he would have had to pay it over a/air.. Mr. Bennett wee not annoyed by the in etitutinD of the suit, hh he thought it might \iave had the rITeot of briogitg the parties into one ault, so that the money might be paid into court As Mr. Bennett wae always ready to pay the demand, he at once referred the matter to his legal adviser. Mr (ialbraith. in order to oscertain. if he could, who had the right to receive the money, and with instruction* to pay it to euob party. The plaintiff bad presented himself to Mr Oalbralth as the party who whs entitled to receive the money. He (plaintiff) bad raid that he had received an alignment from t Harris, empowering him 'o eollect the debts due to the firm to wblrh Mr. (ialbraitb bad replied that that did not satisfy him but sa d that If the plaintiff brought him (Mr (ialbraitb) a written authority from Mr. Renuoutl, he (Mr ??.) would be ready to pay the ( elalm The plaintiff then began m'-se ei;uivo:anons which had l>d to the difficulties The plaintiff said ttat he could cot get a written it'.hurlty, m he (Mr Rennowll) had gone to France Mr. (Ja'braith thnngbt that n? that ae'ertinn had been made by a professional man. he might rely upou it; and he there* lore had fort-borne to press for tne written authority, aahe(Mr G ) bad supposed that Mr Rennouii waa beyond the eeae Th* jury would reonlleot. that the plaintiff had put it upon oath that he had received the netbrrliy of Rennonil to eolleot the debt*, such assertion being contained in en addition whioh he had made to hie efti 'avlt and which wae to the following effect:?The ea'd dapoaent further aaye, that he hae received authority from Mr. ltennouil to aolleot the debts end fettle the Affaire of the Arm The next merniog. Mr Rennouii. whom Mr Galbraith had suppored waa in Kranoe, called upon him and aaked blm why he had paid the money; and ntated tbat what the Siatettff had aieerted wae untrue; and that he. (Mr. ennouil) having had no confidence in him, had given him do authority to collect the money Mr Ualb.-aith remarked, how extraordinary It wa? that the plaintiff ahonld have made mch a statement under aaolemn oatn: and when Mr Oalbraith railed for an explanation, he (the pleintiff) said that he had been obliged to reaort to a littlefinent to get (he money. Mr Rennonil then desired to know wbat he oould do. Ue (Mr R ) had told the plaintiff that be had robbed him -he felt i that he bad robbed him. Mr Rennonil waa advieed that he oould have the plaintiff arrested, for having represented t* at Mr Rennouii bad gone to Franoe; by which representation he had succeeded In obtaining the money from Mr Oalbraith; and, seoondly, for having sworn that he bad received from Mr Rennouii authority to oolleot the eatd money Mr Rennouii, feeling that ha had been defrauded by the plaintiff, preferred a complaint against him at the poliee office; ? and, for having reported which, the action was brought against Mr Bennett The complaint before the polioe magistrate was made by and with t ie advice of the Assistant Diairint Attorney. Mr. Oalbraith did not attend the Investigation but by a coupulsory proeeve of tbe court Tbe plaintiff at ens time, said that Mr. T>e Forest, tbe legal adviser of Mr nennnail. had given him antherlty to eolleot the debts; and afterwarda he admitted that that gentleman bad not given blm any E NE MORNI ruch authority; and part of the money (the whole of I which should have been paid to the creditors of the firm) was handed oyer te Harris. The only faet not notioed in the report was, that Clarke and Harris bad undertaken to cheat Mr Rennooil, and that omission was beneficial to the reputettea of the parties. The report was eminently fair. Would the jury, then, under such elreumatanoea. take money out of the pocket of Mr. Bennett, to glee to Mr. Clarke! if the plaintiff had put artiolee into the public papers for the purpose of impugning the accuracy of the Hmld't reports, and thereby bringing it into disrepute with the public, he must be prepared to take the oousequsnoo*. A little asperity, either in law or morals, was justitlab'e. With regard to the quotation from the decision of the learned Chancellor of this State which the plaintiff raid had been garbled, they would dud upon enonparing it with what had appeared in the llrrald. that it was a faithful oobt of what was siren in the book: ad there was nothiug wrong in laving before the p?bltc the opinion of high legal functionary upon subject wbl b wan interesting to so many in the oomtnuBity Tbe view of the learned Chinsellor was the law, and suoh they would find it, tbe opinion of tbe plaintiff to the contrary notwithstanding. He (the learned counsel) would repeat that tbe report was a correct, report, and that the preotse form in which it bad appeared before tbe public was warranted A tru'btul correction bad been made of an error in law into wbioh the plaintiff had fallen, and that he oonsidered libellous The law permitted the truth to be published, however malicious that publloatioa might be. His client bad not oome into oourt of his own accord; he bad been brought there by tbe plaintiff. It would be ftr him (tbe learned oounsel) to inquire how far the plaintiff was a man of good name, tame and credit, to entitle him to the redieaa wbioh he so presumptuously and so unjustly sought at tbs bands of a jury of bis oountiy After one or two other remarks, the trained couusel oonoiuded his able address, and resumed his seat. Svdnky H. Sti'aft, Clerk of tbe Police Ofllo \ testified as to the proceedings which took plaoe bef-re Justus Lothrop The object of this witnesses' testimony was to show that tbe report was a fair one. Jkbkuiah LoTHROr. Esq , was next examined ? He said that he was one of the rolioe Justioss of this oity; he remembers the complaint in question having been made; it was swam to betore him on the 19th of June. 1848; he then lssned a warrant fer tbe apprehension of Claike, who appeared before him, bnt was discharged outer custody; witness having told him that hs bad not jet made up hie mind to aend the papete before the grand jury, but told him that he had behaved very dishonestly in the traneaotion, if not criminally. Hxnrv A. Mott, Attorney and Counsellor at Law, was the next witneaa ?He eaid he lived at 'lb Park riaoe, and bad been a member of the legal profeNsion for the last three yeare; there wae no business connection whatever between him and Mr. Ualbraith; witless had Invited him to become his associate in the office, part of the expenses of which he was to pay; the offloe belonged to witness's father, Dr. Mote; his attention was first dlreoted to this matter, when Clarke and Harris oarae to the office to converse with Mr. tialbraith abont the money; Mr. Oalbraith stated that he bad no objeotion to pay it, but that he wished to know to whom he was to vay it. The platntiil's Cou.hcl objected to this line of evidence. and said that they did not want to know what had taken place in secret eonolave, but what had taken place before the peliee justloe. The question was, was the report true. The Court.?Do you oomplain of the slander ? Counsel for defendant?His client's answer was a justification. Counsel for pi in tiff.?Their ground of action was whether the procetdings before the polios court were ooneotly reported. The opposite side say thay were He said they were not. The object of giving a garbled report, was te show that the plaintiff had reoeired money under false pretences. The Court ?That lays the gronnd for jnstioatlon. uoi'MtL lor pialntitf ?if his client bad obtained money under false pretences, so an to be liable to be sent to the State prison, that would not justify the defendant in giving a garbled report. By the new code, a mere eopy of the matter charged as libellous was only required to be let forth, without any averment or innuendo He would repeat, the question for the jury was, whether a correct repoit of what had taken place at the police office had been given by the defendant. If it had why then he was justified?U not,he was not justified. The Court told him that hie own commentary upon his text was against him. CounskL for plaintilf.?The complaint was made after theenaotment of the new code, when neither juices nor lawyers were supposed to be acquainted with the sublime mysteries of that sublime humbug. 'ihe Court (with much earnestness ef manner) ? What says the learned counsel? ?he must aot in a manner becoming hie position. He rebuked him. 11 r SssoroRo would again state, in reply to the objections of the counsel lor the plaintiff, that his (Mr. S.'s) client's answer was a justioation and if that did not constitute an issue, he (Mr. 8) did not know what did The Cecai ruled it so. Examination resumed-Mr. Galbraith desired Mr. Rennouii'e authority to pay the money, when Mr. Claihe threw himself bask In the cbatr, and said be (Mr. U ) knew that that was Impossible, as Kennouil vae well cn his way to Kranoe , nothing more eocuirrd that day ; witness did not see Clarke or Harris until he saw them at the Tombs The evidence being again objected to by plaintiff's counsel. | The (,'ovfSEL for defendant raid his object wat to rebut the allegation made in the opening by the other side, that Mr Bennett had eaused the prosecution to be instituted against Clarke. t.iavnnaiti'n rimwc ? w uness, in idc ur/>l piaes, made a complaint to Justice Lothrop, who had told him to draw up an affidavit; witness did ao ; Mr Justice Lothrop was not ratified as to the aeaiznwfit mentioned in the affidavit, in consequence of which W tneaa went the next morning (Satur Jay) to the Court cf Sessions, stated his case to the As-latent Distriot Attorney. told him that ail the facta were stated in an affidavit, a copy of which he (wltneael bad In his hand and that tba police juatice was unwilling to instigate criminal proceedings againat Mr. Clarke; wi nese wished to know if he could give authority to proceed, when the Assistant Dlatriet Attorney took the draft of the affidavit, and endorsed upon in it the following : " We have no doubt that this 19 a proper c i>? for the investigation of tbe police, and that the omjsiaint should be entertained. Jowas B., Assistant Distriot Attorney. Witness then went to the police office and showed the affidavit to Justice Lothrop ; bad bad no communication whati ver with Mr Bennett; had not seen him at all ; bad acted as counsel la the proceedings b. fore the police court; Mr. Galbratth was seated ou the opposite side ef the table ; he (Mr. G ) had not even suggested a question. So far as witness remembered ; Mr. Galbraith had been aubpeenand to attend ; he had refused to attend without a subpoena ; Mr. Kennoull was a native of France ; witness bad osnversed with him more frequently in French, as he understood his own language better than English ; witness was not present when the money was paid. Mr. Mott was oross examined at great length. John Rkadk wee the next witness. Plaintiff's Covnscl objected to his being examined as to the general cbaraoter of tba plaintiff. The Court raid that a man's general character was alwaya In issue, and whsa he came Into a court of jus tlce, he must be prepared to stand upon it, and defend it if necessary. Therefore, the e ridenoe of the witness was admissible. If, indeed, a charge of stealing was to be brought up, in that care it would be right that notice to that effect should be given to the party against whom the accusation was to be made, that he might be prepared to rebut It. But the present was a different care. Tbe witness's examination then proceeded He said he lived In Bleomingdale and kept a hotel ; knows Clarke ; was Introduced to him abeut eight years ago , he then kept cows and sold milk ; ean't say haw long be had continued in that bnsiness ; knows bis general character ; knows it as spoken of as being bad j had heard it spoken of as such within tbe last six months ? in fact, within the last four months ; Clarke had been represented to him as a poor man, and witness had passed his word for him for $20, as his cows were starving ; had met him, and asked him for the money ; Clarke turned up his oeat tall, and clapped his , (laughter ) Cross-examined ?The money which wltneas had been security for, bad not been paid back liy Clarke. Clarke had told him that he had sent a wagon to the person (the name did not reach us) to whom witness had passed his word, which was, he said, worth $30, when in reality it was not worth $8. He (witness) had no feeling against ( laike. He had treated him (witnese) very unkindly and improperly, but he wouid not do him , the smallest Injury on that account. Witness same from Wiluliire. in the West of England, about twsnty years ago. Had left his former residence as a deoent I man ought to do. Had paid hi* rent, and his friends came to see htm after he had left Had lived in Boston two j ears. Could not say bow be had eome to be subpoenaed. fie had not expected being called as a witness. and bed not known anything whatever about the difficulties with Mr. Bennett. Mr Hawkes had known him for three years. Had heard several persons speak of Clarke's general cbaraotsr as being bad. Clarke himself had told wltnees, that about seven yrtrs ago be was npprehended for stealing wood, and confined in tbe Tombs Captain Thompson had told witness that Clarke's character waa not good Had heard others say that Clarke waa a bad, a very bad man binjimis Gai.bsaith examined ?He said he was an attorney and counsellor at law, and resided at 26 i'ark place. Has resided lu the earns office with Mr. Mott for two or three years ; previous to that, witnsss resided at 14 John street Mr. Martindale was in the same office with him then. There was no one connected with him as a partner Knows Clarke. Had known him through the medium of Harris and Kennoulls' difficulties. Had seen him but once b?fore ; the first time witness become acquainted with him, was at the pericd when he commenced a suit for money due by Mr. Bennett to the firm of Harris and Hennoui): tbe elaim *as fer a joiner's bill Clatke hsd setved a declaration upon Mr. B-nnett, which was sent to wi. tiess in the usual tray to defend, and with It were ens or two notes written by Clarke, and witness thought with them, Information had been Bent that notice had been given not. to pay tbe mmsy to either ef tbe partners ; both bad given notice that thsy had bad a quarrel. Tbe nntloe bad been given by Ken nouil; Clarke sailed upon witness, and demanded the nioaey; wiinees told him that the only difficulty in the case was, to whotn the money ought to he paid; witness con d not positively sratw the day an whioh Clark* bad called upon him, Put It was tome Um? be W YO NG EDITION?THUR5 fore the 14th of Juno: witness told him hew the difficulty bad arisen; hod told him that notice bod boon given not to pay the money; Clarke then eold it woe "ue" who hod given the notice; Clorke reprerented Harris ot tbot time, ond afterwards produced on assignment ond elolnird to represent both; wit nere told him thot ho (C)O' ke) might hove given notice hat hie (witnere'i) information woe tbot notice bad bt en given by Kennoutl aleo; Clarke then raid he hod on assignment from both; witness looked ot It, ond sow tbot it bod been signed in the firm name by one band; wltnere thought that the flr.-i question be asked Clarke was when the assignment was ma te, be lore or after the dissolution; Clarke answered unhesitatingly that It was after, witaess tbeu rrmara-d upon its invalidity; Clarke then went into a long ex planatton. and ended by raying tbat the as-igume >t war in ado before the dissolution; witness then lib d hi in by wbon it war luade, and be replied that it war made by Hart is, in the came of the firm; witness asks 1 him if Mr. Rrnnouil bad consented to it; Clarks replied ibat at that time he (Rennoail) bad not eonrented, ai d further (aid that one party had fall pnmr to assign the partnership sffeot* without the ooueeat of the other; that was the ground whiob Clarke had taken; witness n?ksd him how Mr. Ueunouil bad (tietn notice not to pay the money; witness told him he hesitated to pay the money mentioned in the assignment, and that he would like to satisfy Mr Bennett that that amount was due, and more particularly that he (ilarke) bad authority from Kennoutl to reoeire it. "larke said that Rennnuil bad consented to it by oeming to his (Clarke's) cflje along wtbVlr. De Forest lor that purpose; witness remarked that be should like to be satisfied of that faot, aud although he (witness) might be personally satisfied with wbat Clarke bad told bim (meaning bis own statement.) yet, as he bad another party to satisfy also be wished to show that he bad acted with sufHuienl sautiou la the matter and that he (Clarke) would oblige him very much if he would get Mr Kenn^uil to put his name to the assignment himself, or, if he wouid rend a letter to witness, stating that he had consented to the assignment, and to the payment of the money, or bring bun to witness's efiloe. or in any other in tuner that would satisfy witness and Mr Beunett. when he (witness) came to mention the thlog to htm. that both parties were agreed that the money should be paid to Mr Clarke, that be (witness) should be perfectly wil ling that the money should be paid oesr; when witness said that be wished to base Mr Reunouii's signature. Clarke began to laugh; said that that could not be dene, ae Ksnnoull had gone te France ; wit-en then told him that be mum relief; him that be had full authority lrom Reunouil. ai an Individual, to oolltet the money, otherwise be (witnei-s) would not advise it to be paid, witness thought thai Clarke theu went away, promlsiag to return with an affidavit that he bad express authority from Uennouil. apart and separate ircm the partnership alignment, witness told him if be would make affidavit 01 those facts, he would diieot the money to be paid, Clarke had left for the purpose, ae witness presumed ot drawing the afli davits: witners next eaw him In the library below, wbrn be (Clarke) saiu to him that he bad been looking lor biin with tfce affidavits, wbi?h he hoped would be satisfactory, and would cause the lueney to be paid |Tbe affidavits were here produced J i'he fir it affidavit was satisfactory, as it reiatsd to the performance of ttye work done at the Herald Building', and to the amount due; tbe secoud was net satisfactory as to the authority for paying the money; it outtaiued merely a statement that tlarrla bad made an assignment to Clarke, without raying anything about tbe authority or consent of Rennouil; wituess told him that he bad been already aware of the fact stated in the affidavit, and that what he wanted was the authority oi Mr Kennsuil. he having given not! e not to pay the money to Harris, cr to any one else; Clarke took back the affidavit, and said he would make a farther affidavit of that faot; Clarke then wont away, and wae awav some considerable time k? then it turned, with tin addition to it, in the following terms: " And deponent further saith that be has authority from Uennouil,of the said firm ot Harris ft ttennoatl. to collect the debts, and to settle the affairs of the saia partnership;" witness then told hiuatbat be oonstdered that sufficient authority to pay the money on; witness then went with him to the Herald office, and askrd the bookkeeper to pay $326; the bookkeeper, without saying a word, eounted out (he money, and witness handed it to Clarke; Hairis was in the office at the time, but witness did not know whera he had joinid tbetn ; witness cook a receipt, and the bookkeeper took one also; witness asked Harris to sign the receipt alto; in all the negotiations on the matter he (witness) bad had no interview whatever with Mr. Bennett; he had not asked Mr. Bennett a single question upon the subject: indeed he (witness) was not aware that Mr Bennett knew that the money hau keen paid ; the money had been paid on bis (witness's) oruer; he had advised its payment, because he believed the statement of Clarke that Mr Kennoutl had gor e to France, and that he had given hiui fall power to collect the money; it was solely upon these grounds the money was paid; the payment was m%de on the 14th of June; the next time witness heard of the matter was from Mr Iiensoull himself a day or two after; Mr Rennruil came to witness's office, and asked him if he had paid toe money due from the Heiuid office to ttafirm ot Harris k Kennooil; the re null i t the interview Witt, that he took Mr Rennouil to Mr. Clark*'* office for tb* purpose of grttiDg an explanation; witness found Clarke in hi- office, 27 Bookman street, and told btm that there seemed to him something wrong about the transaction, but said he ba > no deubt that ne iClarke) could explain it. and make it satisfactory to Mr Rennouil and to witness; he (witness) further said be thought it was due to Mr. Clarke to give him an opportunity to wipe away from hi* (witness's) mind any bad impression respecting the statements he bad made; Clarke said that he had used a little finesse in obtaining the money; when witness saw that tLat was all the explanation which Clarke tendered: he (witness) rote and left ; Mr. Rennouil either com? away with him, or soon after, Mr. Henbou'.! tame to h:m. but he would not have any more to do with either of them; he positively declined to act in the matter; witness had bad nothing to do with the proceedings at the police office; had been a witness, had taken no part, except giving his evidence and being cross qneitioned by Mr. Clarke Prom the time tbat the money was paid to Clarke down to the complaint beferethe police office. had had no interview with Mr Btnnett. Witness might have sesn him. but ke had no lecollection of tbat, but if be had, he (witnets) did not mention anything to him about law suits. He nevvr asked him any qnestions respecting them. He dealt with them to the best of his judgment, without consulting I nn in any way whatever The Wimii underwent a long cross examination Hi* Honor laid that the witness, If he were examined for five years, could not be driven from the testimony he had given on the previou* day, and, therefore, be (bla Honor) appealed to the counsel's sense of the neoes slty of brevity The case bad already oocupted a great deal of the public time; he bad written all the morning with great patience, but finding that < h y bad net advanced, and that it wae the aame thing, he had given up wrl'ing. Mr Oil miTH wai asked to give the partloulara of what Mr Clarke wae alleged to have done and sild respecting bis Laving need a little /mine in obtaining the money. The Witmes laid he bad assumed aire; had looked big, (laughter,) and seemed ;to assume an attitude of defiance. Hn Honor.?He looked knowing and cunning. (Laughter.) The Wn ne?? replied in the affirmative. Here plalntiti'a counsel made so-ie remarks in ail under tone of voioe. His Hou r stopped the witness, and told him not to answer such a question, that it was impertinent and nngentlemacly. Plaintiff's Counsel said, he protested against his Honor being the judge of his manners. Ills Honks said he had a constitutional right to be so. when gentlemanly courtrey was disregarded, and whin the grounds of propriety and good beet-ding were overstepped, it was his duty to etroumaoribe those bounds Plaintiff's Cousin. ?Then they must be governed by the code of Chesterfield. His Honor said it was very painful to him to indulge in such animadversions It was not bla habit to do so Plaintiff's Counsel said it was more painful to him. FaroEaicK Rxnnouil, examined ? II- > aid he was a native of Kranoe. and bad resided 11 or 12 years in tne United State*. By the Couar.?His business was that of a hou>e carpenter; had been in partnership with Samnei Harris; witness naa toia Dim inai ne wisnta t? aissoiee oy ma 11 rat of May, and that be wanted to have the hoots poet I'd by a book keeper; It waa on the IWtb of April, 1848, tbat he bail expressed ble wiah to ilarria; tnelr leaee weold be out on the let of May; Harris said there waa no need of a book keeper, but witness insisted upon baring one, to see bow the atlairs of the Aim stood, at that time the work at the litratd office was but half done; when witness insisted to hare the books posted. Harris cosaented; be (Harris) objected to Mr Hawks; the books were rrmored to Clark's office before they were ported, where it was agreed tbat witness and Hawks should both examine tbem; Hawks asked to are a balance sheet; Clarke eaid there It aas. In good plain writing; Hawks looked at it, and asked Clarke if he called tbat a balance sheet: Clarke said It was, and Hawks said it was not; Clarke asked why. Hawks rep:ied that It was only a balance sheet for two years, when he (Hawkr) knew that the Arm bad been doing business lor three years; Clarke then said, if witness wanted a long explanation he had not got time to spare, and pulled ont his watch; that meeting took place cn Saturday, the 2l>tb ef April, and on the f Slewing Monday, Hawks, acccrdlag to the sgreement of Clarke, was to call at hts office to settle the books; witness next saw Clarke at hts cffice on the appointed Monday; Mr. Hawks was with htm; Hawks had met wit n* si and told him that Clarke had objected to let him lee the books, and requested wltnrss to come and see I larke upon the subjeot; witness said to Clarke he understood tbat he objected to let Mr. Hawks rse their hooks; Clarke raid yes; witness asked him to state the nature ot his objection; Clarke replied that he did not know, and told him to call again; witness ealled the next day and asked Mr. Clarke If he Intended to show the bosks, Clarke said no, and that tha books were safe; witness then said he would like to kaow what his objection was; tbat he (Clarke) waa a lawyer, and that he must know what It waa, and wltneea further s*ld that he (Clarke) would please him eery much if he would tell blm ; Clarke repeated that he did net know, and that he must sse Mr Harris before ha let him see the broke; wttaess went to find Harris to a<k blm to go with htm to Clarke's offlee; Harris asked him what far;

witness raid that Clarka wished to see him; Herrla again asked him what for; witness replied be did not knew, hut tbat he wished to see him: wltneea told Harris that Clarke had objected to let him eee the books, ta which Herri* replied that ha had ooafldenaa iRK E 5DAY, FEBRUARY 22, In Clark*, bat sa'd be d'.d not know what his object an wet; witness went again to Harris, be believed, on (tie tVttfnviQij Mr Haw kes told witness tkat Clarke bad an assignment; wllaefs asksd biui to sxpl elu what an a: rignintnt meant, be did explain it: witness then went to Mr Da Forest; witness had never he ird of aueb an lot ti union t bp an assign wen t; iiawtee was the liret person wLu hud told him anything about itj Harrif Lad bad vsrious opportunities of seeing witness, Bted bad seen him but be had not mentioned one word in him at?ut an assignment; witness had never contented to any assignment; bad b en in the habit cd peeing ha iis every day lor four weeks before tbesmoney w?? paid, had seen h ni two or turee days belore It war paid, was at Clarke's offiue with Mr. l)e Forest but no arsigiiiuent was spoken of, witness bid oly> oted, in tba presenile if Mr Ue Forest, to Clarke, bad taid that be dm not want that Clarke boa Id nave abymiug K> do wun in? aiiair* fti in* nrni, >nd viu.ti't irc|U"lrd Mr. Ce heienl to explain that to Clake, Mr. 1)? Foreefc told Clatke that alt tin ( -It niti) wanted. *>i tu pay ihe creditor" . Clark? told Mr Ur Kuroul that iltat nouid not be .lone. a- D? (witd?m>) could aot oolU'ot the dfbiH, all that oonvereatu n took place two or three daye befure tbe mioey aa? paid; dudim b?d uuv*r tola any bo jy that b? was going to Km ore ; when Clarke had objected to lot hiui fee t> e boot.? he (wiineftkj gar* notice to Mr. Bennett not to pay ; had token a witne-e with aim to >lr. Lieunvit'e oflirt, he hud rei(ue?ted Mr ileuuett to be kind enough not to pay hum*, or llama or Clarke, uui'l the ii alters wero eettled; wilueee wout to \lr 111 nuett became be felt that he *i< about to b? robbed; Mr. Benneil eanJ be would uot pay tbv money, witnern called agem upon Mr II- nuett. to a?k btm if tbe notice he had giv-u aaa euflluieot, and whether be wouid requite a willtru notice, Mr. Bennett raid that tbe notice which had been already given would do; witneen bad not aotbuilz-d Clarke to bring a suit r gam hi Ml. Bennett, or anybody el?e ; bad never withdrawn tbe rxtloe he bad given to Mr Bennett not to pay; bad never given auy authority to Clarke to collect the tie lite of the Hrm; wheu witueea and Mr. C# Forest were at Clarke > olllue be (ClarkeJ said, look at that mau, (meaning the witneas); he waafullof euaplcioa against hiiu (Ciaike); having heard from en? of ibe debitor# that he had received pa.meutofhia clann out of money which bad been paid by tbe //* raid ho went to Mr. Bennett wbo referred him to Mr. Gaibraith, witot hb went to Mr Cialbrauu's office, he did not Lxnoa a m not havlog eeen him before; witn*e* aaid 10 him he understood that he bad paid tbe money to Clai he. and he arked bun what right be had to pay It; Mr Celbrauh replied, that be (the wltneea) bud j 1 vrn him that ngnt ; witness replied that he had not; Mr Calbralih repeated that witness had | di>un bo. end rho-ed him the assignment; witness Said ho fend not consented to any ?n.l<om?nt; Mr. | tiaibiaiih thou told witness that he (aitues*) hod glv?n authority to Clerk* to commence a suit against > Mr Bennett, witness tad ho had hot, and that he would eater that he had not given hiu any euoh authority, Mr Oaibraitb tin n aaid that witne*s and he had better g'i and eee Clarke; they did go; Mr Ualbratth aiked Clarke it outsets had given hint authority to collect the debts and settle the affairs of the Brm; Clarke raid jee, he had authorised him to receive the money; wit-urea toid him he was a liar; [thla the withers repeat* d with great emphasis, while the expression cf his countenance showed how ind'goant he felt at what he ccnrideied the meudsolty of Clarke;J Mr. Claike then raid to Mr. Uaibratth that he did not care a fig; they then leit Clarke's oftioe; wituess afterwards a compiaint at the poiice offlou, from the time that he had g>ven nolle* to Mr Bennett not to pay the money, down to the complaint before.the police cilice, be had had no communidation whatever with Mr Ben nett ti|On the subject ; ha bad Seeu him in the street, but had not spoken to him Thie ait n-s* underwent a lengthy cross-examination, but his evidence was not shaken In any particular. A l.i* e a K Bmt.H was next sxami ned.- In June last be was the reporter for the Hirmld; his department was poiice repotting, mi outy ?> 10 report the traueaetion* at the police oilier; tia<J prepared a report of the proceeding* at the police r flirt- before Justice Lothrop, and took it down to (he ofllue; had written out the report, and then rent it up to the printer*; the report* were fomtumes *upervired by Mr Hudnon; when they were, that duly was performed by that gentleman; the report in quertion had not to hi* (wuneee'a) knowledge been sopenieed; Mr Bennett had had ne kuowlesge of It; it waa an accurate report of the proceeding*, to fat a* it went. The learned counrel atked tb(* whn*?* whether anything favorable to the platniiir had been omitted; which question wa* objected to. The witne** *aid he bad no frellng in the matter either way The report had been prepared In the ordinary way in the discharge of hia duty. Ciott examined.?Wa* now the reporter for the Herald II. . .. IT II ........ .... ?k. ...I ?II ? ? 1 ' r.i'Bi II ?? " w r.w nnn i ur wrAv "ivurr*. n? BH1U hit ccoupation present *i> a collector of debts. He bad bsen employed by Mr ileunouil to examine the account# of the firm of Harris k Rennouil; Clark* had retortd to let bint eer the boeks after he bed agreed to doso; be had produced e< me aonounts w.iich did not rmbrace the whole of the business nor the balances up to Jutie. 1846; witness had told Clarke that it was impossib e to go into the accounts nntil the books bad been settled up thoroughly; Clark* raid thatheo tuld not attend to the matter then, and made another excuee; bad never heard that Mr Retinoid! was going to Fiance; bad never beard a word about It; th 29th of ast April was the first time he had everaaen Marks; he knew that his general character was very bad. Cinst (xamivid.~Had never been arrested; had heatd that a comp aint ol perjury was preferred against him by Clarke; witness went forward of bis own accoid to meet It. and had waited some timo with his counrel for that purpose but Mr. Clarke bad not deemed it fit to make bis appearance, witness had no ill fee'.lrg tt at imority whatever against C.arke. Several witnesses were called for tba plaintiff, wio (poke to his character Samuel Hihhis 'vas the next witness He said that be had been one of the firm of ila<rle .V Rennouil; that Rennonil bi.d tcld him several times that be Intended to go to France, and after that he f witness) went r >und to Mr C .. and b id him tbat he ?n atraid tnat Urnnr ull had a notion of going ts France, and that he (the witness) would be called upo? lo pay th# creditors; be tald tbat It was with the counsel ot Rennouil that Mr Clarke had been appointed assignee; that be had absented to the ase gnment to Clarke, and tbat It was with his (Rennouil s) authority tbat the money had bt en paid to Clarke This witness was under cross examination for nearly three hours. The witness was giving opinions instead of evidence, when DasfM'int's Counsel objected, aud told him that be was not the counsel. PiiiMTitr's t.otsiiL said that the opposite counsel was act<ng worse tban he The list aribaki'a Counsel rejoined, that that was imi os'ible. The plaintiff's csnnsel having again objected to the course pnnurd by defendant's counsel, in cross-ex- I I AWxivtinu tills witTiasfM U.4 t.hA MMAIfT ti ttlA Pi t. Tbe Couar said that tbe witness hurl it strong bias; that Lb was inclined to bolster up and Hiataln bi? act, by which hi- bad divested his partner of the ?n trol of aH he bad on earth and that turn fore it wan the province of the oppo-ite aide to examine him to show that the transaction wan not -o fair as he repre<ei.ted it. It wan fo r to Inquire If the plaintiff and the witnena bad obtained money fr> m Mr. Bennett by having had recourse to false expedients. a. d whether they had concocted a ir.bir.e by wbirh Kennouil'n mntrol over hi* earnings bad been taken awry. That went to tbe vital part of the action. It, therefore, ruled that tha question ?>> admissible The defendant's counsel wan proceeding with tha crorn examination, wben tbe plainlltl's coannel made fcnrfbi r cbjee'li n. which wan ov-rrnl-d by the Court. j Tbe p'altiilfl e Cm mki. then aaid that, the defendant's coiiD'el waa tbe most impertinent man that had ever exe mined a witness. It wan more like a scrub race than a trial So, raid the defendant'* Counsel., waa every race in which the plaintiff's counsel *a engaged. There were some eniC'kln who nsvr moved but in one way Tbe Cot'st iaid It would make a rule which It would enforce viz : thut counsel, when they alilresHed the Court should rise it did not. know whether the remark of plain) id's counsel applied to the Court or n?t, but it wan mo.t improper siioh scenes were unbecoming the occsrit ii and the time Cron-rtaminatio* mimed.- riaintifT'* Coumskl again objected; but bin objection waa oveiruird. Examination in-chief resumed ? \ que?tion was put to the witness an to tbe value of the d-b's in the assignment, to which Mr Sandford objected, The Couht. after bearing counsel rn both sides, decided tbat tbe assignment was net valid, kveo if a man was a bankrupt, be ought to have something to say in the matter The law gave it to him It was glad te And that the law regarded his view of the quee aeeignment, with' ut the (onprDt|i>l the other. *ti in accordance with it; and I' ?a* further in accordance with atrong -\rtj day common *?-n?e, and lb* dictate* of ju?tice and equity; and he hoped it ever would be *o Plaintiff'* CortrtKt, eald he claimed the beneflt of the Inquiry, on the ground, viz : that the plaiutiff wan the attorney for the firm The CorHT overruled the point. riamtiff* Cot-eve i. ex preened hi* dl**ent. 1 he CorHT eald It waa reaprnalble for the discharge Of It* duty, let the oouneel do hi*. W ii.lum M. c?i i ov ??? th? next witn*** He eald he wa* a reporter for the Courier end Enquirer. and waeeurhln June 184R ; reeollrct* when the plaintiff w?* before the police justice ; had teen the account In the Herald i could not dletinotly nay that he had read It [Tha paper containing the report, waa here produced ano handed to the wltne** 1 Could not *ay that he had road It before ; know* Vr (Jalbrat'h ; had no personal acquaJi falnee with him . Mr. Oalhralth waa at the uolloe office at tb* examination ; know* Mr Baker; I* a reporter ; he wa* about tha Hall* of Ju?tice at the time of the examination ; he (Baker) wa* In the unall room at the vide of the court, and wltoea* know* that he had reen him alttlng at the olerk'* de*k, which e* we under?tood, wa* net In the room where the axeu inatlon waa going on. It waa outeid* the room, had eeen him In the rmall room flrat ; h<<l *een Mr Ualbralth and Mr. Baker together; Mr. Baker wa* tlttirg at the clerk'* deck, and had hi* book, upon which k* wa* taking not** ; Mr OalbraUh came up and took bold of the affidavit, and eald antaetbing to Mr. Baker, hut a* wltne** did not wi*b to hear It. be Mapped on one aHo; they were together a* long a* three minute* ; Mr Gelbralth bad hold of th* affidavit, while Mr Bakar wa* taking note* | lime the i wltnot* deaeribed th* portion of the affidavit on tho ' [ERA 1849. clerk's desk, and the way In whioh Mr. Galbraith | fcelii it ] Tbte witness ?n not eross examined. The Court bavin* overruled another of the plain t il's counsel's objections b?n,ut on his ooat, folded up ' bis papers, and tben, uuder greet euibirrarsment and aitb deep emotion said (bat the Court had " erowdad" { upon him; be might be wrong but that was hie Impression, and. Iberefi re be wouni rather n'ep out ot the suit alt i getter, or let them withdraw a juror and have the . snit tried befoie another jut'ge Til * ('nii?.ri for .1.1.1 <e w.a V.J 11 : .........? ? " ? -v. u?u ITOIICJ I on the part of the oppo.-ite counsel to conclude the proceeding* of the dey with something pathetio. The associate counsel for the pUiutitt then rose, hat The Court raid that there *?t no question before it; otherwise it would have great pleasure in hearing him. He had conductrd hie part of the auit with propriety, eourtmy, and good order It did not eee what aii the (loutish waa about. The couneel secured to think that he had been oppreseively used This cause waa tried like an) other. 1 here was nothing in evldeuoa tnahow that the pia'nt flhad made any uufairdlspoMtlon wf the money which he bad received under the aiaignineut; the question wee, whether or not he had obtained the money fiom Mr. Dennett under falee nretenoes? If a perron had obtained niece) by dishonest meana, and had applied it to ohari abia purposes. that would be no excuse, and would have but little beating upoa theoase. Hie lienor. Judge V am'k scokl, tbeu rote to charge the jury. He raid it was to be expected that the rounael on both aides would have taneu a wide range in the dircharge of their professional duties. A great tnauy topics which were foreign to the issue nad been dragged in ; hut he war sure they would have no riifliooity in disabusing their minds of, and freeing theiu fruiu all iii'pteper itillueooea which were extraneous to the tacts of the case. Ths merits of Mr BenuetL, as spoken ot by his learnel counsel, on the oue hand and his demerits, as spoken of by the learned counsel f r the plalutiR ou the other; the poverty of Mr C a>k>- his present character and standing?all these were not warranted, and had nothing to ilo with t' e case before ih. ni. They wer trying the defendunt on a. spcoilic charge and if the stepped ene inch beyond that, they would be usurpin a duty not given to the in bv law; and more, they would be faithlese to the obligations of the solemn oa',h the/ bad taken, to decide according to the facts disclosed t) them by the testimony After the wide wanderings of ! both the counsel it would be his duly to give them the law. Jurtrsand judges bad eacli tnuir particular daties. Hie duty was paiamount, and tbelra was equally so. | The duty ot the Court was is dispose of the law, and the jury were to respond M the facts, if the oourt and have the error corrected; but If the jury rebellious ly ret themselves up Hghiust the court, the party was re nit dlless. 1 he law had wpely ordained that eaoh war supreme within its own legitimate circle or orbit, i The ictellig- nee of the jury, and the pa'ienoe with > which they hud listened to the case, was an ample i guaianty that they would discharge their duty ho- ( neatly, bololy. impartially. end independently Ilia Honor then defined what a libel waa. If the defendant bad shown that the report was a fair account of the proceedings which had taken place before the police j magistrate, then he had proved a juarttiaation. If they | concluded (bat it ?* a air and impartial account, l they were not cahed u>on to go farther; but if they i should decide that the defendant had not succeeded in ! hii attempt to justify that would go In aggravation of damages. The boloueee of the defence would rise up In judgment against htm It was for them to say if it wae an impartial and accurate report. If a reporter, for iDetsnce, should give lh? vi. operative parte of the speech of one couu-t i. and not do the same as regarded that of the eppoette c?unet 1, and if he omitted to I give the evidence on both Mace, that would be a libel of the grosse st character but if a rep.irter saw fit te condense, by giving the sub-tanre and essence as fairly and impar lully ae if the wbole of tbe evidence bad been given he wou>d not he held liabie, and the omission wouid net be fatal to tbe patty undertaking ....Ull.k Tl,. I ? ._ ?. 1? contend- tl that the piooeedings at the police olllca j were ex-paile. and that therefore the report was not a ! prtTi)f|i?U communication According to their eta- I tute, the proceedings had not been ex-parte. All proceeding* in tireir courts < f justice were open to the public; and it was well thai it ebould be no. For verbal slander there were privileged communion' loni, ae well as for libel For example, if a person wtnt to another to inquire into tho cbaraoter of a man whom be was about to employ, and if that pertou told bim that he wae a thief, that, order the cueumstanc.a, wue a privileged communication, end did not expose the party to an action. Cut there privileges should be used in a fair and impartial, and not lor venting private spleen or malice They muet not be used as harbed and noise tied instruments, to wreak private veugeanoe and give unnecesrery pain These were high privileges in conntriee that boasted of liberty. In despotism they were wcrse tban useless They were the offspring ef that popular will winch threw open the doors of their eourts of justice and their legislative assemblies. But they must net be perverted to unholy purposes. Let I In in beware how they uiroucisoribed the right of ptivileged communications on the one hand, or how unwisely they conceded it on the other. Had that privilege been abused! That wan for their consideration Mr Bennett was legally rerpon sible fur everything that appeared in bis paper. If be deliberately read ovel a defamatory article, and then insetted it; if. in a word, he wae the father if the article; if bis was the hand that'-had penned it; and it in* was the vsice that had approved of it. then they would give heavier damages; but if he had bean made liable by the indiscretion of his subordinates, their osn common sense would tell them that that would go in mitigation of damiges. Tne evidence of all 'he doings with the plaintiffs and tie Frenchman stewed that ir, Benuett had bad little to tio with them And that was nst surprising. The demands upon the time of an editor of a jturnal if so lame a circulation an the Unaid was said to have, must he very great. It was an exclusive and an all tngrossing occupation, iie (Ills Honor) had looked over the uflldavi's and the report, bat It would be treaalcg on their prouDu, poaching on their manor, to give his opinion He had a deolded impression. hut he would keep that Impression to himself? One thing was favorable to Mr. L'enuett, vis: his willingness fu m the start to pay the debt. He had been between two fires?Harris on the one side, and Ren nouil on the other. He had evinced an entire willingness to pay. if he knew to whom He had never evinced tbe least repugnaree to discharge the claim upon him, end tbe jury would ssy wh> ther it wa<. not natural that undir fuels circumstances he miuht have said to Hartis. Clarke bad sued bim. he might sue and be ; whiib. peri aps. might be taken to mean, that although he wat willing to pay, be bed been sued. They would ay if that wu? the ce? p malice which had instigated Mr. Bennett to publish the artiole* But if Mr. Bennett lad not been so amiable towards Mr. Clarke, that wr uid not cawse hitff to lose his privilege But if the re pert had been made and published for malignant puinises. and for malicious motives, then the defen cian't lort bia privilege. If, on the other hand.hetiad alien the report like that of other easee - fair and Impartial?r b? n be did Lot lore privilege If tbey dealded tl at it ?>? a fair account, tbey would dumlvs It. whethti I he tact a w> re true or not The antiquated noto n that the gr? hter tbe truth the greater the libel, waa ? *! loded It had Its origin in a most polluted Rouree ? tbe it en oiable old Fnglirh Star Chamber; It had been exploded ibete and it oouid not long lire iu a country el err v 1 c!? e< u.e llb-i'j prevailed The liberty of tho ;mi in thi* couniry whh regarded a.? an inoatimable privilege, iir nrantiou-ni et, a euree It waa rlgbt that a P aintifl Rbouid come into coutt with clean handa. The great qufetien waa. whether Vr. Clarke had been g uilty of obtaining money under fabe pretenoea Did he tell Vr tielbraiih. aa a m-ana of getting the money, that Rmnotiil had gone to France? And, aecondly, did he tay i bat he had authority from Hennouii to receive tie money ? There were the moat material matte ra relied on by the defendant. Mr. Oalbraith had proterted bia uuwi lingneea to pay, nnleeR other evidence than tie aas'gnment had been exhibited. Had Clarke any authi rity in addition to the aaaignmant ? 1 hat waa the point It waa bad faith on tba part of Mr. Clarke, if. after Mr. (Jalbraith'a entire and imxirable unwlliingnera to pay the money, ha aliegid he had au'hority from Rennoull to receive the money, wbiie in bia own broaat L? derived that authority from the alignment. It apI eared that Itennoutl had not only not given him authority to reoelve the money, but bad objected to hia having any ecncern in the matter It was a qaeation of credibility between Hennouii and Harrla. They weie the antipodal of each other Harrta had aworn . bat Hennouii bad given the plaintiff authority to reteive tb* money Itennouii had denied that he had given any surn autnonty emeu mry ? wiiBfuiwi , in finch k position they ne !oc?it about for probabilities , -prrbabt ltles arising from the autagnnlsttcal position 1 of the par tie*. Had Harria. bp hi* oonduot, shown I that ba was at 1111 rft to pay his partner, who (aaid hta | lienor. with much earnestness of manner,) had la- 1 bored hard with him for three yeara, that respect whleh , tti due to him, by conlerriDg with him upon the i object of the assignment beforehand? It waa au act tf dececey fiom one partDer to another. I Whjskruld he have entered Into an arrangement with Clarke before be had consulted hla own partner ? Th< re waa a probability, but, perhaps, not inch as they might deem (It to appreciate. Then let them look to the hostile position of Harna and Hennoull, after the esigenit ct. It ww In evidence that Kennouil had a dbtiust of Harris, who thought that he would And a a Iflculty If be had made an overture to hla partner respecting that aeslgnment. Harris had said so hlmself. They must cast about for some makeweigbt to I hat equipoise, to make one of the scales kick the b 'am. lie mh o 11 at once wanted to confromt Clarke. That eas tbe spirit cf a man who felt he bad been wronged ( lathe bad raid he had a right to flneese; that was a significant a pri giant remark. Tbe great privilege of trial by jury was the circumstance of the witness** being under the eye of the jury who could i ee their demeanor, their prompt nees, or their hesitancy to sotwer It was ftr the jury to say who bad figured the ir ore favrrsbly- Hatrls or Rennoutl In truth. th*re ?s? a secret frivrr ? lt could be felt He It was with piemrli stii n. When a witness tried to give a coloring to bis testlmory. Mid to narrate that which hvl no existence in loot tt huh almost lrti| oisibl" that his mendscity could eic?p" an intelligent jury. A lie orawled user th?m, they feil It Mi.y scslti ibsy itnes It w*i false, no matter w'.tb abut plausibility ir might have t>sn attempted to prop It op. I hat was the experti i reel ah snute iseo He looked in a witness's face, a. the probsb'lity of li ? statement. lie feit its loflu nee ujcn htm. snd be war cot.vioced that hehail fore fvrn Mitself. Ir ore of the witnesses, Harris and liennottII bad vxbitilt* d netve If he had sp*k*a In the confident spirit of truih-lf ha had maeifueted 1 LD. TWO CENTS. throughout his evidence boldness and In nnnomnui; ?nd If the erldrnee of the other wes meeting end besltettng. end destitute of the ohereeterisites of truth?It the jury regarded tho?e marks, then they would here no d.ffloulty In coming to n safe sonelusion. It would require ? greet deal of oredulity on the pert of Herri* to believe thet hie pertner bed left the eountry. end gone e dltteuoe of three thousend miles, If be (Harris) hud not known It to b> so. It wis an event, end one wbiob It wes reasons}', v to suppose thet he, as tbe lets pertner of Kenn?iil, should here known. Tbe manner In wbloh ;he plainlit! had eiecntedtha trust whether it wes good or bed, ??? not materiel, ner wes the disposition whioh he hed wade of it pertinent to the question. Wes the rep >rt of the proceedings et tbe DOilee oflloe e feir one* The | jury would answer by tbeir ve'dlet An attempt had bern mad* by the defendant to assail the general character ot Mr Clarke lie (his Honor) was bound tonay that bo had sot suctvodod; and, th-refore. If the plaint'fl bad pr rod to their satisfaction the libel, than they would have a right to look at hie general character, with a view of giving hlro a larger amount of damage*. ' The witnesses cat eu tor the defendant had boon laboring under rank prejudice, and therefore It was not safe to rely upon their testimony Mr. Smith, they all i knew, wae a highly res pectabm police officer but he had had a difference with Mr Clarke about bailing thieve*. ! It was Mr. Clarke'a privilege m a lawyer to do no Mr Kamjuikij here rose, aud hedged permission tore' inind the Court thai 'hat wu eight yeara ago. before ' Mr Clarke wa* a lawyer Hi< Honor returned ?Th" wltnrsseewhomMr Clarke had called were all respeotab'e man Mr. Hollister an officer of the court, bal epoken of blin in the lighost terma. aa having been a boarder of Ills The preponderance of the evidence as to charactei was decidedly n favor of Mr. Clarke The jury would o-ar in mit.d that they were trying Mr Benuett tor the aot charted against him by the plalutllf, aod not for the lib-rH*n which were alleged to have been taken by hiut with others. With these remarks, tbey would retire to their room te deliberate upon tbeir verdiot It having been Intimated to his Honor by the officer of the oourt, that the jury were not likely soon to agree, and as hi* Honor wai obliged to attend a meet lag of the Judges at baif-past d o'clock that evening it beicg then H o'clock, they were ordered to bring iu a sealed verdict at 10 o'clock oa the following morning. On Saturdxy morning, the jury came Into court, aud after his Honor had takeu his seat upon the bench, the foreman of the jury handed up the verdiot, whloh was for the defendant The reporter would be doing an act of Injustice to bis own faeltnga. if he fafleu to acknowledge, in suitable terms, the urbanity aud kind ues* of Mr. Thompson, the Clerk of the Court, la affording him all the so viu modatlon in his power, to report this oase. He takes this opportunity of acknowlediog the same, aud of returning him his best tVunks. K migration to Catlfornlas MOVEMENTS IN MEW YORE. The hfllk C'.lvHe. at Pier No. 5 North If iver nve. pent* a desirable opportunity tor those conteinplttingu voyage to fc>un Francisco, via Cape Horn. There is an appearance ot comfort as well as elegance .itiout her cabin arrangements, which to us seem all that a passenger could wish. Tue captain is one who understands his business, (a matter of no smell importance,) and the owners men who are accustomed to curry out their plans with energy. Her Ireight, we are told, is mostly engaged, and her passengers will be sufficiently limited in number to avoid crowding. The Imik St. Mary, Captain Reese, hence for San Francisco, sans to day. She take* out thirty passengers; many ot them have heretofore been engaged in mercantile houses of the fi st class. They go out under the name of the West Coast Trading and Mining Company, fciach member d< nosltes ftoOO. and lb a blnirr holder in the ve.uiel and cargo Among the company an members, are an ataayer and mineralogist, physician, tec., and every article lor their own advantage aud profit May success attend them in every honorable undertaking tliey may see fit to engage in, and may tliey, [individually and bb a body, realize their hearts beet withes. Annexed are their namess ? T. R. Warren. President; K P Ho>??rs, tteoretary ; J. W. Ludlow, Treasurer j K MoKetgr, Capt ; tfidaon ( dell, J. E Walker. J. L). Urljjgs. W. O Bur hens, E. 11 Ryall, W. H. tioogland, W O S'.oughteuburjh, W 8 Throckmorton. J. V. Hartshorn, r. Lambert, J. Walton, J. B \V??t, 11 A. Powers. S. Conner, J It. Icgeraoll, D. I.awson J. Rathbooe, A C Rathbone, P. R. Johnson, E. Lee, O. W. Arnold, T. O Williams, J. O. Eldildge, W. M lligsim. Robert Wataon, Dr. ralnter?Total 80 The baik Nautilus, Capt Wilson, sailed yesterday for San Francisco, with the following [?issengers:? The Albany Mining Association. consisting of A. Clark, fresident ; T J. Wallac*. Secretary; J MoC a anion, Treasurer ; Stephen Clark W T Skinner, E. F. Cady. A. P. Wilbur. K A Cornwall S. W Hardy, T. Fex, C. Styles. J U. Mitchell, A C Streeter, J 8. Holton. S C. Birdsall, A H Oisabell. j C. Peck E. S. t'herey, C. H. Walcott. W H Couitrlvht J Finoeftan. W Hostord, J Sanfird. O C. Waller, J Cole, R. Staley. I Wallace. H. Ruper-bsrger, B W. Hamnions, E, N. Bennet, R. Packard J Van Bo*klrk, J H. Stevens, M. A Mnrcellut, II. P Holme*. N. J. Van j Vianken T. (J. Vir.hare, E. Pacey, W. H. Car low, J O. Wellington, P V Lewis. A Abbot, A W. MoNaaghInn < R Rrnmlsl K S Hint I f'nstl.tnn f. V.r. Loan, W O. Winne K Gregory, S. D N Bonnet, L. Gr?y, M Van Booikirk, H. H. Barton, D. E Jones. J. R. Lyons, J L. Pangburn, C. ID-agles. J Cooney, 8. T. Kosekrans, J S Otrbam Wm S Butler, J. Nooneo, E. Weitingheuse. E. 8 Barney?Total, Iff. MARYLAND. The bark Kirkland was to have sailed from Baltimore yesterday, f< r California, with a large Height, and the following passengers Dr. George W Lawrence, George Oolder, William Goldfr.P.W Kejrer, B Howard Keyger, Wm Quintan, K L Thompson, T B. Flanoigan E P. Lin ok Joseph P. Rey nolds, Thomas Reynolds. O. Henderson, Jsires Henderson William Knox, Joseph Knox, J. R. Murphy. (Jeorg* R Barclay. R M. Dunkin, C J Hall, David P Marshall,Themis \ freagh, William Blssell, James B. Webster. T. SohalT-r. J II Foster, George Reppart. Thomas K Webster, W. S By us, Dr 8n , Tbrree S Austin Cbarlee Kettlewell, II B. Hosmer, James A. Benson. W. B. Moilatehery. John Pappard, John Biiokelt, I K. Cist*, William Adams. H. J. Irons, S J. Webb A B Mc< retry, Joshua Pednok. Osorge M. Harris. William r*mpb?ll, William Taylor. Ttio1 mas B. Simmons. S K Simmons, Andrew MoUvain, .1 ( hn it. Cbaltin. Conrad Gunter, William Taylor, J. E. Plaeler. Carter H Gibson, J. E Chinn. James L. <Jrepg I' R. Train David W. Paxon, Thomas ft Robfy. Wihlam Fentoo. John B Baldwin, Jackson Fulkinion, Henry Woodson. Total ed LOUISIANA. The following is s list ot the passengers by the Mi Kim, 1 ound lor California:? Mr Hcnnings HUd lady, Messrs. Salomon, TInoberg, T Purnnell H P Watkirs. J R. Painter F Baker, John Swarthont Dr. David Goodale, J. Gardner, C. P. Fsrgo. J. P. Painter, Muiphy J B Wadsworth, H. V Keep, J. Vandyke, B (l?n>r, Tillman Ocsrge Beard. T. S H Roberts, E K Vallient, D Kearney, G Turner, William Gillespie, H. Clark. J, M. Sssbros, Rathhon. J S Larue. W T L Ilemmedieu, C. M. K< light N Jones J Alston F SnhiiHer. A Fischer, J. Kjat, G. Gil'ian. A Mitchell, W Bowden, Francis, Daisy, J C. Word and son. A Elkln, Sperler, P. P. Powell. E B. Osborne, A Guyal Harris Stewart Ruifell. W. G'sh John C Robb, William Wiggins, (J O. Fhipway, Henry Steele,./ A. Dunn. E U. Ganly W. H. Ccmp<r, David Austin. H Herring. Wliberham, I efli.m at a Barclay, J A. Menicber, .1. H. Tann r. and tw (.ty s? ooid class paesecg'.rs ?Total 86.?If. O Piruyunr JiA. 13 The following gentlrmen arrived in this eity on Sunday evening, jev the steamboat Iowa, from Qutucy, Illinois. Thty are bound for California :? Colonel John Wood. Dr R. W. Rogers, T T. Kendrirk, Captain J. ?' Dorman, William Matlock, D. VI. J. riian. Esq . G W. Burns Otoige, J. Roger', Esq , Jrbn Wood. Jr . Danli! Wood, A. Nash, J. H. Miller, O M Rbeldon. Denis OuMery. Charles Brown, John Mikesell C G Ammen, John MsClintook, David Wood, I> niiel Davis, of Iowa 1 h? > are all stopping, previous to their departure, ut the Commercial Hote 1,corner of Girod aud New Levee fctrei.ts ?iV. O. JkUn, Fib. Id. A [.At! A MA. The echo. ner Princeton Bailed on the 10th tret , from Mobile for the Brazos, with a company ol 55 go d seekers, made u,? priuci|?ully in the interior of Alabama, with a few adventurers from the city, The each-re ol it are Capt Bildwin anil F,ieut. Ad.ian, both of w hom served in the Mexican war. The company have a series of law? lor Us control, and its me inhere are bound together for a pnrioj of two years. It has taken almost everything essential lor rd overland journey, including professional men and comfortable provisions for the sick. HAVANA. A letter from Havana stat-a that the Californii fiver whs raging'hrre with much intensity, and w as carrying on its thousands, umi among others, lis beet mechanics, who have found profitable employment on the railroads and sugar estates there ior years?AVtr(m> yporf HrrulH The following statement, contrary to the ahov-*, is from the Journnlof yesteiday A mercantile house at Havana, writes that it had had a vepei I up tor California tor a whole month, and. that not one paaerngcr hud presented himself Paring Rohiirky at thr Mint.?Yesterday, while a drayman was delivering same ?|>ecie at the United Mates Mint, in Chesnut street, for a Thiid street broker, 11 man came along, and seizing a bag of Knglish gold, containing upwards of f7 0(10, made ofl with it. He was seen to commit the hold robbery, was pursued and arrested, and taken to ihe Mayor's otlirv , and sent to pricon. The robber is ?n Englishman, calling himself John Phillip". He dropped the money before he was overhauled, and it was recovered.?l*ktU bul/ttin, Ftb. 21.

Other newspapers of the same day