Newspaper of The New York Herald, February 19, 1855, Page 2

Newspaper of The New York Herald dated February 19, 1855 Page 2
Text content (automatically generated)

SI eeuld sot be ecmpeHed by the ordinary prooesa of k>w. " | By satisfactory proof, must be meant evidsnce I Mcogniaed by law as competent in tta nature U | ore tbe fact, and sufficient to prima foci* ef^v _? It The witness Corbyn does not state when v ,? i(mM> how often be bad Men in the habit of r^n, o^r* hoach, nor that bia relation* will him nor . hi ewa business, wu such that be wTqi 'a h... b.._ Ikaly to have seen him bai b-^ X the c*5 during the two or three weeks the Ui%L7 -.H* io" br* even inquired when J,?* f_or CictinPAtL For aurht that the to* t??tlied to have said, be might l0tt? day as before the cause waa noticed for triaL lequiree proof of more than the ao ?Mi abMBee of the witness from the State on the ?lay -o? action is tried. Bush a continued absence ?ran be pro Ted, that ordinary diligence to procure 7^ attendance by process of law would be iuef lCClQ&l? The evidence to give a right to read the depo artion must be snch ss would mate it erroneous to reject the deposition. Giving to toe declarations of Strakosoh's wife the fullest effect, no one can conjecture from it when EHrakoech left the State. No good reason can be assigned for receiving her declarations as proof, when she might have been called to testify to ue act, if it wss as she is represented to have stat ed it. The statute, by requiring the fact to be "satis factorily proved/' should not be oonstrued to admit of mere nea.-say evidence, when direct and compe tent evidence appears to hive been as easily a:tain abie. In Guyon vs. Lewis (7 Wind. 26) tb? deposition was taken and cause tried before tbe exi?:;ug sta tute was enacted, (I J. 28.) The deposition was taken in August, 1828, and the causa was tried in January, 1829. The plaintiff testified to the court that the witness, immediately after being examined, laid the plaintiff he waa going np the North river, and expeoted to leave the State; that previously he was In the habit of seeing him, but had not seen htm since. (Id. 28.) He was a transient person; had >o fixed habitation anywhere, and was a jour neyman carpenter, seeking employment. That was held sufficient. In Jackson vs. Riee, <3 Wend., 180) a deposition of Richard Harrison, taken under the act to perpetuate testimony (I. R. L., 465), waa offered in evidence, and rejeoad. The pnUmiaaiy proof was that of a witness who proved T.*,"1 Harriton waa between seventy-five and eighty years of age, and that the witness bsleved, we? tbe ill state of his health, and the infirmitiee eonaequent uuen his advanced age, he was unable to attend at the circuit as a witness. He bad not, newever, seen Mr. Harrison in several years, and iZ1 P<rtcnally know the state of his health. The deposition was rejected. The Court said, for aught that appeared, he might, although 80 3?"' of ??e, have attended the court. At all eruto, the *hdge was not bound to presume him ?nable to attend. The plaintiff should not rely ?pon presumption where it was his duty to produce ???Pei kins, (2 Wend. 30&-315,)a de JJfl3 er' tTaken UEder ;he *ame ast, waa offered in evidence. It was allowed to be read, ?n a stipulation of the plaintiff a counsel that a jodgutnt of nonsuit might be entered if the 8u P^y^CPlut'.on * c?ae made, should be of ths saveived deposition ought not to have been The evidence of her inability to attend was that ye?n aDd one of tbewit from kicw.'edge of her situation and infirmities, he believed she could not SfJEVJ?-"10? from Albany to Ogiensburg with ?nt i tke most serious injury to ber health. This was < m Carke vs. Dibble, 16 f?ki' Ibe. Ti Haddeo, 3d series, 225 ) I think tbe spirit of these dejisiois requires I^kaI ** eontra distinguished from mere hearsay or ^lief, ejpecidly when it is apparent 5SL-. "e^y ftiainabie as the inferior proof J offered. The mere declaration of a ?ud person should not be received aa competent, aid ccrtainly sot as satisfactory proof of any fa:t, If' can be as easily procured to ?wiifj to the fa t at the one offered to prove iris declaration respecting it. In this case, all the proof ^ ?iy?n of the continued a btence of Btrako sch ?roa the State waa the declaration of his w;fe tket ) I, **V (*ot wIjoii lie went,) and that the witness ban not seen him in six ?;.^Mll,0? ^Mark?' 2d Mood. & Ma'k., 375, and 1 Camp. R. 172.) i Allowing such testimony would furnish opportu- I ?v for ooilusion, and ?ioi*ts the rnie th?; mere | aeaisay evidence is inadmissible, wi-Lcu: the eliifht, est necessity fcr it, in a ca?e in which it was jnst as I feasible, to call the party who made the declaration made- testimony by ois I wife, t^ at Stiakcfcch left the city, avowtdlj to go to Ctoeinaati, stating when, that she had not see a or f,om hlm aince, or bad revived letters from Cincinnati poet office stamp, would udoub' edly be ratisfactory proof. We are aU of the opinion, that on the crioenoe given, the plain ttffwas net entitled to real the deposition. ta V"^0" enrit^d io a new trial, admi!aion ofth'8 deposition in evidence. Ibis conclusion readers it conecessiry Jf I** nPon any oi the other questions argned oa exo<Pt ,U3h me? arias upon a second r/fprct to whi,ch the "iling of the eonrt on such trial my properly be required. *Nbw york uebald, of the date of Dec. 15, 1861, purporting to sUte its average daily clrcula tk>n irom 184- to 1851 inclusive, and tbe antual re tor it in 1835, the fliat j e?r of ite existence, and also in the year 1851, was oftertd in evidence for tbe purpese of showing the circulation of the Se^ffice'" 1848-49 ' Md ineome of It was objected to "on the ground that the de '"oant was in no way connected with it by projf, and that it was irrelevant." v ' Tbe objection was overruled, and the defendant's ccunrel exotpted. It waa then read "to saow the circulation of the jfP*r.? d its income." The proof sufficiently oon ?eeted tbe defendant with that number of the BIB AID. The paper was '? re.'evant." aid was competent evidence to show tbe circulation of the Hisild, ?d of the extent to which the libellous matter bad been published. So much of the extract read, as 1? thi" PolDt' proper evidence. The cbjeotion waa not taken tbst the passage re ***** of the Hbuld should not bs nad, but tbe obiectloa was to tbe whole article. In M t? b?tween tne different jwinte of It, the objectlon ssssna to nave assumed, ?hrt aa a whole it wu not admissible tor any pur 5^ir"?ei5StTCaD obj<ct,on uk?D waa thit it .is?'??^ierth<a,?artv^,at^? to the Teoeipts of the afflce,jlf spsd>'Jy objeoUd to, should have been ex elueed, or whether Its admias.oD can be seen to have so prejudiced the defendant that, treating this ae a motion for a new trial on a case, as well as an 5fl!SSL. ? ,the Judgment, a new trial should De depend upon conaideratiana cDnnected i?* on the aabject of dam tgea, and eotoeptiras taken by the defendant to the refuaU of the Court to charge on that branch of tbe case as requested. reqn'*^d Court to eharge the y that if tbe jury should And any ground ia ? case for glykg damages to the plain tiff against ?*? defendant, their verdict should be for such sum only m would compensate the plaintiff for tbe in 27 and that the Jury ? liberty to give to the plaintiff any 2^d?nt V?y^*y / P^hiaent of the de- I leadant, or by way of vindictive damases, or as ^"2'! The Court refused to iTiha rJ? and the defendant exoeptcd. It is not contended that tbe terms of tbe cbanrs a? fl/en. are parti:u'arly exceptionable g ' The jaiy were instructed that the plaintiff hai not proved any specific loss to hit business aa an apera manager. "In eetimatiag the damnges, they ware to >ook at the cbarac.er of the libels and tbe aMUn^r nf plaintiff, not giving way to aay 22t.?f likL prcjfooe, but examining the whole L meB' Md "o drawing the'r the Conrt had rule in aucb cavei to b** that ? h ? tlfthS' S?uld u,ke iEto consideration l ail me proof before them of any malicimm ?etaai intent to isjore the plaintiff- thSit m? r i tended the evidence cf Itrako^h^ved Vc^ 1 1.n'*Dtiop tnjure the plain tllf fer^k ap bia buainets. They would examine this J^denoe Mrttoily, and determine whether it shoald be credited, and whether they oould 'rely upon the repreeentations be makes, that Mr. Benn^t (t -ijtd 5?witth^?Dl2lntiff'h' uti4*ur,riff inJQre a?d break n- ?e plaintiff. If it should c >ms up to that. defe?de?t stands before us as a man wbo dallberately undertook to do an injury; and if he toil to prove hie allegation to be true, be caanot escape with nominal damsgaa. The whole question w l* ??tlfely within your s ued discretion. If you find for the plaintiff; you will give such as the occadon requires." l_If the charge, aa given, waa not erroneous, and ?s favorable to the defendant aa be cou'd "qa're, then the auestion arises whether tie.. J?iw.ny moJ "? to give the lastm v 7 ,wbet?,r ^e not givin* of it may f^erT*d to have been a snbstmtia: Th^.H defendant I state tbe latter ?ot!? ta b*tor* M ?p?" ? ST^^Srt. P ?*?Ptto* to the decisionT of imZSfw S2? *ho,r ,or rtate anything to legauy justify the infer snce that the pUtntiff nrmwi *Meh mrt* ?s^hL .525$*? tbw Wblcb sxut? fiswarzi,?^ ,z ^ C? fWiir r ?P*c Mk*d the ' inkiilt it to be inferred from the feci of the reaueat itreif. I cannot that when a charge unexoep i. h?*" *lTT*' Jt '? ?rror not to gofurther, and charge a proportion , which, as aa v^VS1*?' u ^^d, when wS? oonverse of it has neither been asserted by the adreree party nor its cF^he*caee "? disposition of an; part Hi? d?kndent, in hia request to the Court to charge that in addition to compensating the tn4a ty, the jury were not at liberty^to give any farther BBm 7. $ punishment o'the defendant, or by way of vindictive damages, or as smart money, oseu these three alternatives u sy&onimoos expres sions, then it was not erroneous In any vieir to charge as reque ted, if "vindictive damages." or ?,*"****"?" money ," could properly bs giren. I nlesa his proposition aa an entire one was sound, it was not error to refuse to instruct the jury tj ador>t and be governed by it not understand the learned counsel for the oerensant to deny that in estimating damages in an action of libel, the jury are not only to oonsTder and compensate any actual pecuniary loss, but If the lnjwy was wilful or intentional, they may consider the mental sufferings of the plaintiff, the circum stance* of ladlgnity and contumely under which the nf? ??iI^tJ?*tWvhW1 th?Jary. l? the exercise 2??!? and dtocretlio, have arrived at what, in their compensation? having refer ^ these circumstances? their duty and power end ; and they can add nothing to buch oom pmisation to punish the defendant fo# the public good, by deterring bin from doing wroncs to the same plaintiror to others. 8 One consideration naturally suggests iiself upon ??ir DKCr?. of these propositions. A plain tiff who has been injured by a tort or wrong ola de "fcnt, j8 entitled in all oases to his actual damages, ntneee include compensiflon for mental suffering, and a consideration of the drenms'auess of indig nity under which the wrong was done, the public discomfort pro Fi*,nV? d compensate! at all events, whether the wrong was wanton, or wmb done believing the charges published to be true. ?_*? , 3M#. the mental suffering must be as great, the circumstances of apparent indignity are the seme, and l his disgrace will be as absolute and mortifying in the one case as the other, uctll his char acter has been vindicated by a verdict establisbing the falsity of the calumnies charged against him. ir such considerations are not constituent ele ^?age8' ,Dd ? a P?r?,n who has be&u injtured in these respects is not to be compensate! by damages, as a matter of stict legal right, and if a defendant is to b? exonerated frem such damages when the injury was not wanton, and is to be sub to tfcem when wu> 'hen such damages may p e termed punitive, or v.ndlctive, or dauages given as smart money. ' rv#Ltte rigbt ??>th'm does not result from the fact hi suffering and disgrace caused i. ? ? ? ? *fe not given to compensate for v?c? 01 course, merely because j them; but because he caused them from a deliberate purpose to inflict them, with thing to palliate or mitigate his conduct. JPf, *?ch d?nage? whsn given, are awarded full as mneh to punish a defendant as to compensate a plaint ff, ud they are gi"n as Sffta SiSSl ? SP"1 money, as because tne plain tiff is entitled to them as an indemnity, inasmuch as Ik!y-*re giTen,in consequence of the wanton new of !??. ao,d J101 merely on account of the suffer the plaintiff? M dw?rac? cawed by them to ?ome of the <**** *H1 show that the decisions u> the courts of this State, on this point, have beeiuniform. Tlllotson v. Cheetham, ' "? 66> "HB *n action for a libsl No plea was ^^'Kem\TdUijSy qUirJ WM eJW8atad b8f0fe The Judge charssd the jury, tbit the case " Je nanued f/om the ju y exemptary d images;" * * * ' that he did not acceae to the doc:rine that the jnry ought not to punish the defendant, in a civil I "W** pernicious effect which a publication of i iSv111^ w,e calcula edto produce in sooiety." defendant moved to set abide the in<m?st, snd insisted that "the charge ot the Judge i irMiiysr^ M*tinK ^e piamtfr was ' friri^u^ ?5emP!*7 damages, on aoouut of the Ycdfric.y " ,uoh pnblications ta the oom mnnity. la a private action, the party can recover *roD"; ^0 has no cotcirn with The motion was denied- K*nt, Cb. J., after .iUnir capes, wh.eh, in bis view of thorn, sanctioned the doctrine contained in this part of the carte, re marks that <' it is too well Settled in practi^'aSd is too valuable in principle to be called in question." fhe retort or the cue stotes that " Th .mpson j. and VttnNess J., deJared themselves to be of the fame opir ion." Bpenoer J. , said that " in viadlctive act k ns, suh ss for libels, defamation. assiuU and battery, fa'se imprisonment and a variety of others, i , is alwaj b given in charge to the jury that they are to liflict dtma?es for example sake, aad by way of punishing the defendant" Tlis decision was ma?e in 1808, and seems to be a direct adjudication of the question presented in the iequest to charge. In Ilojt vs.G. l?ton,(etal. 13, J. R. 141-151 ,)whuh JT" of t:ospaes, fur seizing a vessel, Ac., the plaintiffs counsel admitted ' tbat the defen iiVl fi n,ot h*!? influenced by any maUcious m> t.vti i in k slung the se'zure; and tbat they tad not ? <i h5?lnt?hh ?V vlew or dtHl?n of oppressing ,^ltg P'^tiff. The presiding Jnlge f? i ^ ?ch *<UniMl?n pre:luded the plaint ?.C. ^DUlg FP d*?4?" *?ai*at the defendants, by way cf punishment or smut mmey; and tbat Mich adiission the plaintiff jou'd recover only Itu^n to theS" lUI ' ^ ^ *4Ve thftt dl" ItWory vs. Jenkins,(14 J. R.. 352.) being ansction oftresrfu, for bea'ing the plaintilTs mare, by rea ,fl? died, the mare was proved to b* \ ^4<r or "? * Jndge told tho jury the plaintiff was entitled ta recover the value of the a toeMwed, as ns dii, that the de ftndant had whipped her to death, It was a case ia which, fx ?m the wantonness and cruelty ot the de SSiV CT?dn(?' J"-* l?d a right to give smart money. They found a verdict for #75. A motion was mads to set aside the verdict, for excessive damages and ml sdire-tlon of the Jud*e. r^H} ?* ' j w?lhl?k the charge of the Jud<s : fl.H "d we should have been bettor satis fled with the verdict if the amount of damures had been gre ater ar d more exemplary." In woodward vs. Paine, (15 J. R. 494 1 the same in. J'?Xi3ifis,n?'y.be J"* *"d ??eu,~ In Root vs. Ring, (4 Wend, 113,) which was anac in a P?t.ng , m? a jnry could render no more l meritciious service to the public than in repressing this enormous svil. It can only be done by vlslOnt ' ^,*?*"?d images, him who wantonly and false'v aaaails the character of another through tbe public \ .No exception was taken to this part of the J charge. Tbe Chancellor, is his opinion, stated the rale ti be that "the jury may not only give such damage* aa they think neceaaary to compensate the plaintiff lor hia actual injuiy, bat tbey may a'soglve damages by way of punhhiaent, to the defendants. Tula ia usually dene mirated exemplary damage* or laart monev." In Pero ?. Ruacoe, (4 Com*. 162,) which was an action for alander, the Judge charged that the failure to eetabliah a justification wm, in lav, an aggrava tion cf the alander, and that tbe defendant was not entitled to any benefit frcm the evidence given to make out a iuttifloaUon, if tbe jury believed that it failed to make out a foil justification." An excep tion w~a taken to this (barge. The ''unit of Appeal* held the charge to be cor rect, and raid that an attempt to juitify, though koneatly made, was an aggravation of the original wrorg. If the defendant make* a mistake it is at hisown peril. In Allen v. Addington, (11 Wend, 380,) an action for falrely representing the credit of one Bikar, whereby tbe pUlntiff was lcduced to s>U him goods to tLe value or 12,000, the Judge instructed the jury that "if ttey ahonld consider the plaintiff entitle 1 to recover, be woull be entitled not only to tne am' uit o* tbe gooda told, with fie interest of the same, but alto to txenplary damages.'' Tbe defen dant excp'ed to the ohvge, ai.d the Jury found a verdift (or the plaintiff for $2,504 84 damages. P'iWhen tbe (ansa was before tbe dapreme Court, for a new trial, that Court held that the ru e of damigea laid down to the jury, was not objection able. A wilt of error was brought to the Court for , the Correction of Errors. (7 Werd, 190, 2rt.) The judnmrnt was reverse!, on the a>le ground tist the second count waa bad In substanoa, bo' the I third count being deemed sufficient after verdict to sustain the judgment, tbe record was retniUsd to the Pnr:fme Ciurt, with libtrty to the plaintiff to ap ply there to smend the Ptvtta, so aa to apply the verdict to the third count (the firat count not Having been proved) and to nnder judqmett thereon ?, aid I if sn< n leave waa refused, to apply for a new trial ! and for liberty to amend hia declaration before the awarding of a renirr dt nr.ro.- (11. Wend., 421 ) Application was made to tbe Bapreme Court for leave to amend the Pa*un , and enter judgment on the third count, which was granted.? (12. Wend., 215J This seems to be a direct afiiraanse of the propr sitfon, thai la aa aetlm of tort, although it affects property only, aad tbe aetnal da sages can be saeer lalaed, exemplary agw may be given . iD a cat* in which the tort resulted from a purpose to deli berately and intentionally Injur# the plaintiff. Although the doctrine that examplary or vindic tive damages may be given in actioni of tort, when the wrong was wantonly or maliciously committed, baa been uniformly noted upon at JVut Pritu. and sanctioned both by thi Supreme Court and the Court of last resort of this State, its justice or any direct antbority for it, baa recently been denied, In Dais vs. WjkofT (3. Seld. R. 193) by an eminent Judge of the Court of Appeals. f We bave alao been flavored with the opinion o Mr. Justice Jewett, and that of Mr. Justice Mason, in the csae of Taylor, Hale, and Murdoch vs. Church. That waa an action for libel. The Judge charged that " if the jury were satisfied that the de fendant waa influenced by actual malice or delibe rate intention to injure the plaintiffs, they might give such further damages (in addition to a full compensation for the it jury) as are anited to the aggravated character which the act assumes, and is are neoesssry aa an example to deter from the doing of inch injuries. " To this there waa an ex ception. Mr. Justice Jewett held this part of the charge to be comct, and Mr. Justice Mason bald it to be clesily wiorg. A note of the reporter atates that five members of the Court did not express a concurrence with either Judge on the question now under consideration. All the Judges agreed with Mr. Justice Jewett in granting a new trial, on another ground, stated in his opinion. How minv of the Judges were present on the ar gument of teat case, or todk part In the decision of it, the reircttr's note doee not state. If tbe Court of Appeals has not directly affirmed the contrary of the instruction sought on tue trial of tils action, neither has it affirmed that inch an in sti uction would be proper. To instruct a jury aa tbe Ju<*ge before whom this action was tried wis requested to charge the jury in this case, would be di ectly in conflict with the law, as it baa been uniformly stated to juries, in snch actions, in this State, from the earliest period of Its judicial history, so tar ad the practice is evidenced by reported decisions. Under such circumstances, we do not feel at liberty to dif regard a role so long and uniformly held, and directly affirmed by the Supreme Court of this Stale, half a ot ntury ago, and if not expressly decided, at leaat clearly approved by the Court for the Correotion of Eirore, m Allen vs. Adding ton and in Roct vs. King. (See Day vs. Wcodworth, 13; Bow. U. S. R. 371-2: Ausiin vs. Wilson, 4,Cath. Rx. 273, and tbe cases cited by counsel in Randall vs. Stone 1; Selden 18.) If in actions of libel asd slander, and In other ac tions o! tort for injuries to the person, or to charac ter, damages m?j be given when the act was wan ton, or actually malicious, whl?h would not other wise be allowed, although in ea.b case the astual pecuniary injury, tbe extent of ptrsoaal infferiog, tbe attendant olrcumstar oes of contumely and indig nity, and the public disgra e, be precisely the same in the ore case as in the other, it is of no practical consequence whether such damage be termed nonl tive, vlndici lve or compensatory. By whatever name they may be designated, they are manifestly given on aocount of tbe wantonness or malice of the de fendant's cor duet, and tbe very rule which deter mines whether they may be given or must b9 with held, baa no real principle on which it can atand, if it be conceded that they cannot be given by way of example, or to punish atrocity of conduct While inch damages are allowed to be recovered, it cannot be an indifferent consideration whether a defendant is rich or poor. Damages whiah would be exemplary, when inflicted upon a person in mod erate circums>' ancca, would be trivial and in no prac tical sense fxempla:y when imposed upon a person wboee property and income were very much larger. Who t'.e pur tie* to a controversy of such a char acter is this, are, what are their pursuits and posi tions, sn<? wr at the in fluence resulting from them by a libel pubby either of the other, may be, are not un>mpoitai't parts of the transaction itself. Such consideration?) sometimes gire to a libel and slinder, all that it baser a substantial interest or importance, and sometimes they are of such a cbara ter tnat however gross tbe terms of the libel, they alike fail to give respectability to tae a ;tk>n, or excite interest as to tbe ce fence. In considering the question raised by the ex op tion to the refuial tocnargeas requested, we have nrtrefeired to the decisions of the courts of any ether State. We have forb me to make such a refe retce, lor the reason that tbe decisions of the courts of tbis State have been uniform, a-,d reash back to a jerloj so remote that we do not feel at liberty to treat tbe question ts an open one in this State, not withstanding the doubts re ently expressed by some members of our Court of Appeals, In relation both to the justice of the rule and the existence of any authority by whUh it can be upheld. A new t lsl is granted, on the ground tv.at tbe de position of Strakosch was imp; overly admitted. A new trial being granted on that ground, it mutt be with costs to ab de the event of tte action. The following is the de irion of Jueti:e Hoff man : ? Hoffman, J.? Aa I concur with my brethren ia thrir conilusic.c8, upon every point of the cause, and consider the reasons assigned by Mr. Jus tice Bcsworth as soffiofcnt to sustain snoh conclu sions, it might appear needless to add anything to tbe opinion delivered. But tbe leading question in this case? tbe right to give vindictive damages in a libel auit where ac nal malioe is found by the jnry? receives great importance from tbe opinion) of some Jndges of tbe Court of Appeals, which questiou that right, the doubt thus thrown upon a rule which I bad received from my professional teachs.s aa nn qnestiotrd. irreversible law, has made me feel it a out) to add something to the reasoning and authori ties upon which tbe opinion of my brother Is founded. Tl e twenty ninth exception taken by the defend ant's counsel lpon tie trial, involves the point in controversy. Tbe Judge waa requested to charge aa follows: ? " Tbat if the jury should hnd any ground for giving damages to tbe plaintiff, their veroi * should be for auch sum orly aa would compensate him for tbe in jury he bad sustained therefrom ; and tbat the jury were not at liberty to give him any farther sum by way of punUbment of tbe defendant, or by way of vindictive damages, or aa am&rt mousy." Tbe observations of my brother Bos worth, in con trasting this teqneat with tbe charge aotually nude, and bia conclusion that tbe refuse is not, when the whole is considered, ground of exception, appear to me uranawetable. But I am desirous of expressing my own opinion upon this great point, when placed in tie strongest form In which it ean be presented for the defendant. I shall, therefore, consider it aa if the Judge bad expteasly charged tbe oonvene of tbe proposition to be the law, and had employed the language of the request, varying it only by omitting tbe word "not" in tbe latter part, and iaaerting the same word after the word "should" in the first clause. In leteimlning whether this would be ground of exception, the Court is jusclfled in connecting it with portions of tte chv g? actually made, pertinent to tbe same question. I' m*f, therefore, b : viewed, in conjunction with tbe iu*trurtlnn, "that an actual malicious intent in tbe publication might be proven, and tte Jtv waa to judge by the evi dence whether such as runt was made out. If such was the case, asd tb* defendant nad net proven his allegations to be uj zs should not escape with nominal damages." I shall treat tbe qaes' cn, then, as the counsel In sists It mnvt be treated >i? Jcr tho refusal and the a> tual charge; and shall sui>|f*w. that tbe Judge had ae deo after what I nave q'iot*d from the charge, the converse of the proposition cxinuined in the re<ioest, as I bave stated it. n It ia to b? noticed that thin proposition does not involve, bnt nay be cttirely consistent with, the ex clusion (f the idea of punishment tor the injury done to society. It ii put. iahment of the defendant for the wrong done the plaintiff. It ia putlshment for an injury attempted or designed, aa well m for one in flicted. It is puriibment for tbe intent to injure ia numerous cafes, where no injary cut prtbebly arise; and it ia consistent with the asau nptian tiat the of fence cannot be peia'ly visited by tae State, or if It can be, that tbe jena fy ia inflicted on a different ground. I am unsb'e to see any logical contr * llc'.i jn in hold ing tlat the same person may be compelled to atone for the same offtnoe to an individual for a wrong done or menaced him, and to ao iety for his aggres sion upon her peace; nor again, that the mode of making such attcnement sbould be payment of mo ney in each caae. If this ia ao, then the adjustment of tbe proportion of punishment becomes a matter ofprac'lcal arrargement, anl it will be aeen that tnbunaJa of justice have ao adjusted it In thla connection I may adveit to tbe po'nt taken by tbe counsel, that thia doctrine of punishment in vades the provision of tha present constitution, that no person shall be subject to be twioe putin jeopardy for the aame effonoe. That precspt is found in ttie early ages of the common law in tbe maxim, ntmo dib<t bu puniti pro mm drl i. to, and was applicable to niminal prosecntions, and when one judgment or sentence had been perfected. Another maxim, per haps note pertinent, ie, that no one should be twice vexed , if it appears to the Court that It la for one and the same cause. (.'? Rep. 01 , Shame's cam). It bas never been imagine! that either of these pre epta interposed an objection to the iasti'u'.lon of proceedings by the 8'ate simuitaeemsly with an action by an Individual for a libel. It baa be same settled law in England, and In tbls State, thai the existence or determination of the one is no bar to the other, although it may bear upon the question of the suspension of proceedings and mitigation of paclrhmrat in the niminal court. That court will postprne sentence, or the proceedings, until tbe re sult of the dvil suit is known, with a view to tbe extent of punishment; bnt the civil action ia not aUyed or affected by the criminal proeecatian. (Cook vs. Ellis. 8 Hill, 466, and cases.) I am inform

ed by two gentlemen, who have each AIM the offi M of Irtatik* Attorney, that tbe prastioe H aa frequent to stay proceedings before as after oorvictloa, u?tll tbe newt of tfe# cfriJ mJt ia ascertained. The pantokinent upon a ccnviet'.on for a libel la our Bute to a floe not exoie4iBg 1*0. or imprtoonr meet not exceeding ore jeer, or both saw flue end Imprisonment. (2 R S , 697). This -s tho repara tion to the public, which the Legislature has deemed sufficient for the vindication of pnbllc justice. And that offence which la thus punished to the tendency of the libel to provoke to a breach of the peace. (1 Hinck., PL C. 73, 2 Kent, 17). t 1 This tendency is so essentially the ground of t?^ criminal prcsecatioD, that It lay at the root o, tha into so long prevalent in our own country, '.tut the troth upon an indictment for a libel oculd not be given in evidence. (Toe People vs. Croewell, 2 John. Cas. 392, 2 Kent, 18). Whether trne or false, the danger to the peaoe of the country was the same. when, then, the terms vindictive damages, or exemplary damages, are employed in a civil action for libel, they mean, in my opinion, the atonement which the law demands shall be made to the libelled party by the offender, and such atonement involves essentially his nonishinent. It to a condemnation and infliction for traducing the individual, not for provoking him to break the peace. It would be objectionable, in this view of the case, to instinct a jury to give damages on the ground that the interests of sooiety required the de fendant's punishment, or that they could consider the offence to the Btate as a reason for increasing the damages. It must be admittsd that this idea has, in so ire caccs, been loosely and partially pre sented. It dees not belong to that idea of the pan. isbment now Bought to be developed, which is con sistent with the supcor ition, either that there is no penalty on behalf of the State, or ibat sach penalty >s for another cause, and with a different objeot The moment we admit of any exception to the naked rule of compensation, measured by an ac curate or approximate computation of actual pecuniary loss, we admit the idea of a reparation for something indefinite, and the adjustment of which must be indefinite. It is itated that the Lord Commissioner (Adam) of Scotland? the most ear nest advocate of the most restricted rale? said, in an notion for defamation of a professional man, "that the question of damages must always include both a question of less and solatium." (Quoted by Mr. Sedgwick, 465, N.) The allowance or any sum for solatium is an allowance for something beyond positive loss, and for reparation distinct frjm resto ration. It seems dlfficut to separate this idea of re paration frcm that ef punishment. What is taken from the offender beyond what is lost and can be icstcred to the party injured, partakes of the nature of a penalty. But again, there is a class of libel cases in which the character and situation of the person assailed pre clude the po sib ity, not merely of a pecuniry loss, but of an injury to the reputation, or even a wound to feeling. Lord Sent erdeo adverts to suoh instances when he speaks of the calumnies of those whose censure to more to be desired than their praise; and Cloerohsd before declared: Invidiam virtute par tiam, gUriam, won invidiam, putarrm. (In Cat ) When the ini>tice of the oountry is invoked to deal with a libeller in such a case, on what ground can any damage be awarded bnt upon that of atonenent for an attempted offenoe, and punish ment as the absolute foundation and object of the verd ct ? Civil a tions for libels must be abandoned, and in casts where the just indignation of an honest community demands their enforcement, if such a principle must be surrendered. With these views, I have examined the leading Erglith cases, and those of our sister States, which are cited by Mr. Sedgwick in his able work upon damages, and in the comments of Mr. Greenleafand Mr.Metoalf upon them. A few others may be added. (Cole vs. Tuoker, 6 Texas Rep. 268; Fleet vs. Boiler heep, 13 B. Monroe, 225 ; Stout vs. Prad, Coxes K. J. Rep. 79; Trabrue vs. Bays, 3 Daoa 138.) It appears to me that the great body of these authorities sanction the rale an 1 have attempted to express it. It lb sipfiSacns tor me to notice the decisions in cur own Staie, after the critical and ample examina tion of them by my associate. I content myself with adverting to thst of TiDotson vs. Cb^efiam, In 1808, (3 John, Rep. 56), and to thore of Collies va. the Albany R R. Company, in 1852 (12 Barbiur 495), and Tajlorvs. Cbnrcb, in 1853 (Selden'a Notes of Appeal Cafes. July, 1853, p. 50). in 1808 Cbief Jostle Spencer stated, "that it bad alwajs been the practice to instruct the jury in vindictive actions, such as libels, that they are to infiiit damages tor exanple's sake, and by way of punistment to the defendant." The rule Urns dec)ar? d to have always prevailed before 1808, has prevailed ever since, and has been recognized, or assumed to exist, in a long series of decisions in our State. It has become consecrated as an en during maxim of our laws, by a perpetual tribute to its legsl truth offered by t tie illustrious judges of our tribunals, from t' e day of Spencer and of Kent to the ol arge of the Chief Justice of this Court in the prestnt cause. For myself, I feel that in wandering from it, I should merit the admonition involved in the m*xm of Lord Coke: Quo d novum Judicium no* dat jus ntivum, std dtclarat antiquum. For these nasors, I consider tbe refusal of thj Jodfce to cbarge tbe jtry as he was requested in the 29th exception, to be unobjectionable, and his actual charge rone t. A ntw trial most, however, be granted on account of ihe admiriion of the deposition of Strakosch. Judge Campbell next delivered hto opinion, brief ly saying:? I concur with my associates that the abienoe of Strakosch was not satisfactorily proven, and that his depesttion should not have baen admitted, and that there should be a new trial. A question was raised on the right of the jury to give punitive damages. The Court have come to the decision that in an ac tion of this kind punitive damages may be given. Oases wers cited In the courts of other States, in which it has been held that damages could not be given to punish the defendant in a civil action; yet there are decisions to tbe contrary in the courts of this State, snd, without saying what we would do if this were an open question, we feel ourselves con cluded by the authorities. New Granada. OUR Ci.RTHAOF.NA CORRBSPONDINCE. Carthaoena, New Granada, Not. 10, 1854. Sah t a Anna'* Household at Turbaco Ready for hit Reception if he Abdicattt? Hit Promittt and Aett ? Cost of Hit Territorial " Sheet" ? Hit Public and Private Character in Contratt ? New Gra nada Politict. Your Taluabls \ apers, 18th and 2tf'.h September, cane under my eight by chance. 1 em astonished at the good eenee yon bar* shown In jour papers ot the 31 and 5th of February, 1853, respecting Mexican affairs, ind Suta Anne. I have had already the honor to mtntion to you that his dwelling, furaitnie, cook end two stewards, ate still in the very earns state as when he left Tur baoo on the 9th of March, 1853. His body or person is certainly in Taculaya or Mexico, but hie mind vsguea or warders ant of his land; for the moment he sees danger of himself or his person, he either abdicates o: abandons his Mexicans to their fite. Colonel Etcobar aent to him by the State of Vera Cru; In January of that year, on his embarking him self on tke 10th of February, said to me, vof conten ts? " I depart highly bat isfied. The General has promised to me solemnly, that on his being rein stated ia power in Mexico, he will leave on* side the o'd clique ot flatterers and rogues.'' Hit friends from Mexico, whilst his correspondence used to come through me, both from the capital and Vera Cruz, wrote or were accustomed to address him in the following words: " Your paity is Increasing, and would increase still more were they sure of your principles, and of the justice of the acts of yoar new administration, bnt they aie afraid that yon will return to the old habits or employing near you people of the wors; description ? pi/lot y picarot." Well, yen will corner an immense bensflt to the poor Mtxicass by striking hard agslnst Banta Anna, to yonr treasury also, for he will bs tempting them with new slices of the pineapple, which Santa Anna himself nsed to ray, " he would eat when It became ripe." Surely, the Senate of the United States were wieer than Mr. Gadsden, In retrenching or catting ten miilkns out of the original twenty. But bad that grave assembly liecn composed of In dividuals well acquainted with hia character, Ave mil liors mere might have been saved to the coffers of the United rttates Treasury. Santa Anna has no greater admirer than myself at a private, domestic man, and were he to return here, which he may likely, and for which be is pre pared, and we too, we shall reoeive him with open arms. But ss a public man. he must be shunned ; snd I am of a particular opinion, whish Is corrobo rated by those that have been chee to him, that In governing he gets craay, whimsical, and loses all tact ; ?o that It is impossible for him to remain or to be lift in power more or longer than one or two years. ?Our political affaira continue in the same uncer tain and bad state. To complicate them nm, he is going to send ns Senor Francisco Mora, as minister. However, under the actual political state of affairs, we angnr badly of the Commissioner of Santo Anna, who is a plague to ecciety whilst he has any sway In it Send him away from Mexico as fast as poeai ble. P. oqR. Spots on thi arw? A correeposdent of the Providence Journal of this asoroing, states, for the Infor mation of those who betlore that there it a ooooeotlnii between the temperature of oar planet aad the state of the sma'i disc, that there are mw two spots on the sua of ascoamoa sine, aad great regularity of flgare, almoet eJiruiar, which are eurrvnnded by a penumbra I ery distinct, alee circular. Correspondence ? ^fiui, Switzerland, Jan. 30, 1855. Jrrut of an ^Uegtd Defaulter from the United States \~Tht Central Railroad, ft. 1 only time for a word, n the mail is about ,# rjiD?e. I have jut received Information that the abs cot ding treamrer of Holmea City, (I think that is the name) Ohio, vaa arrested by a member of the Baele police, on arriving at Nenfohatel, on the even tag of the 18th. What step* will be taken with bim, 1 am as yet unadvissd; he had about hii person some 50,000 franca in billa of exchange. There waa a reward of 12,000 for his apprehension, if taken with the money. Thisoagbt, In some manner, to appeaae the Bwisa confederates for the amount which, I presume, they will be compelled to pay orer for the unjust detention of Dr. Philipe and companion at Baale. I learn, howaver, the reward for the arrest of the treamrer goes to the gen d'arme who was so fortunate as to get hold of him. Should it prove true, as has been ropreeented, that be is a foreigner, I am inclined to think tin Know Nothing* will make full use of the fact. The Bwirs Central Railroad is now open and run. nixg daily from Bisle to Lieital, and the works are tapidly progressing bejond the latter plaoe. The Badith line is also completed and carrying freight, and it is hoped that, in a few days, a passenger train will also be started, so that, in faot, Basle is now the centre of a network of railroads? Swiss, French and Bidiah. Affairs In Vebruka. OUB OMAHA COBBI8PONOENCI. Omaha City, N. T., Jan. 31, 1855. The Proceedings of the Legislature? The Nebraska Bill? The Capital, ire* Nebraska's legislators work slowly here. Nearly one-third of the specified time for the first session has passed without either housejpMsing, jointly or separately, but about three acts. The all absorbing question is that locating the oapitaL Last Friday, the House, by a majority of three, voted for this place, and the report will pats the rounds of the press for a season, that the capital is located here. Such ia not the case, and I doubt such a result. The Council c insider the question to-morrow; but little hopes are entertained, however, of carrying any of the thirteen members more than now, by bribes, promises, or threats, for this place, and there is about tiro majority against the plaoe. Charges of bribery and corruption have been made against members in their action upon the question, and I am convinced that muoh has been done to se cure it 8)me members will doubtless make more than their simple per diem. A joint resolution from the House paaeed that body a few days since, strongly oommendatory of the Kansas and Nebraska bill, Ac, The vote stood 21 ayea? 4 nays. This was better than I expected. Indeed, I had not supposed ttat number of Nebras ka democrats, (21) were in that body. They will psss tbe Council. A memorial to Congress for the passage of the Homestead bin, passed to its third reading in the Ccundl yesterday. It will paaa that body and the House. The Committee on MQitia have recommended the Governor to organize two mounted companies for Indian service? to be stationed, ons at taa month of tbe Running Water, on the Platte river, and the other at Nebraska Centre, on Wood river. We need sueh. and even a stronger force, to prevent further Inciah depredations, every day now, almost, rt aching us. Gambling and drinking are common. Provisions are icmsrkably high, and the thermometer now stands 10 degrees below zero. Accomoanying I send j on tae standing committees of both houses STANDING COMMITTEES OP THE COUNCIL. Judiciary? Richardson, Rogers, Bennett. Finance, Ways and Means? Messrs. Folsom, Jones and Nuckolls. Territorial Aflklrs? Mitchell, Bradford and Good will. Schools and Seminaries of Learning? Rogers, Coir Its and Folsom. Militia and Military Affairi? Bradford, Jones and Clark. Highways and Bridges? Co wlei, Folsjm and MitcLell. Expenditures and Claims? Folaoa, Nocko'.ls and Richarihon. Incorporations? Clark, Folsom and Nnckolla. Territorial Library? Rogers, Richardson and MitcbeJ. Poblic Buildings ? Goodwill, Rogers and Nuckolls. Privileges and E.ections? Goodwill, Joaes and Cowles. Counties, County Beats and Townships? Jones, Brown and Folsom. Printing? Brown, Bradford and It >gers. Enrollment? Mitchell and Bennett. Agriculture and Manufactures? Goodwill and Bradford. STANDING COMMITTEES OF BOC81 OF REPRISES - TATIVM. Privilege! a?d Elections -Richardson, Kempton, Byers, Hail and Purple. Ways and Meana? Clancy, Cowles, Wood, Single ton and Whitted. Judiciary? Lathim, Poppleton, Johnston, Purple and Richardson. A ceo ants and Expenditure#? Thompson, Arnold, Davis, Doyle and Decker. Agriculture ? Goyer, Fluey. Maddoz, Davidson and Singleton. Militia? Robertson, Doyle, Decker, Claney and Ben net. Reads? Byers, Latham, Hall, Wood and Whitted. Pnblic Buildings and Grounds? Davis, Thompson, Richards* n, Arnold and Wood. Internal Improvements? Thompson, Johnston, Goyer, Dtyle and Robertson. Federal Relations? Johnston, Wood, Thompson, Latham and Robeitsan. Engrossed and Enrolled Bills? Latham, Kempton, Byers, Richardson and Smith. County Boundaries and County Seats -Kempton, Poppleton, Purple, Cowles and Wood. Corporations ? Johnston, Poppleton, Purple, Thompson and Byers. Library? Wood, Singleton, Thompson, Davis and Do} le. Banks and Currency? Thoapson, Hall, Finney, Whitted and Arnold. Common Schools, Colleges and Universities? Poppleton, Johnston, Riohai dson, Purple and Ksmp ton. Publie Printing? Purple, Poppleton, Arno'd, Msddoz and Finney. Get Mans Protesting tMlnti ( losing Lager Birr Saloons on Sunday. [From the Cincinnati Commercial, ?b. 16.] A meeting of German ciliiena wsa held at Kortmann a Hall, over the canal, ye*terday afternoon, to couaider the propriety of aeeking for a repeal of the Sunday ordi nance aaalnat the opening of coffee- honaea on ths Sab bath. The meeting was numsroualy attended (the pro prietor* of German public houass being stroogly repre sented. ) and the proccodings were rathar of an enthaai aatic character ? our German fellow-c tizen* being Tsry loth to aurrender their right of quaffing lager bier on ths Sabbath. Mr. flans waa appointed President, and C. Class Sec retary. Altar half a doren apesches were made in the German language, the following petition to the City Council waa adopted, and a committee appointed to circulate it in the dlfff rent warda for aignatursa: To Ike Honorable Ike City Council of the City of Cin cinnati. ? The underaignsd altizena and reaidenta of aaid city respectfully reprcaent to yoar honorable body, that ths ordinance to regulate taverns, reatauranta, Ac. . paiatd oa tbs 10th day of Jaauary, 1856, and pat in force on the let of February, dosa by no meant mtet i with the approval of the citiiena of Cincinnati. lat. Because it defeats the rery object of it* enact ment ; while it* advocated aaaert that ita operation 1* beneficial to moral* and religion, ft draga the vice of intemperance to the rery firesides of private families. 3d. Because ft is in violation of the letter an<l spirit of the constitution of the Cnited state* and of this State, by forcing the citizens of all denomination* to conform in the celebration of the Sabbath to the rs ligioua tenrta of a particular eect, thereby destroying ths freedom of conscience. 3d. Uecau*e It beers on its very face the works of ''hardy legialation," providing as it does for fines of one hundred dollars, while no such power la granted by the city charter. For the?e leasons, more amply explained by the ad joined mrmoiial, ths undersigned most rsepsctfully so licit your honorable body to repeal said ordinance, or to modify the line ia such a way that the refreshments Crmittcd by the law* of the Stats may be accessible to j the public on Sundsys as wall as oa ths othsr days of j the week. ExcuniKNT in a Cincinnati School-Expulsion or a Nmm I't rii.? The Cincinnati Commercial of Friday aays: There waa great excitement ia the Seventh district yesterday, concerning ths deteraination of Miss New ball, that a colored boy, who had been in other depart ments of the *choet, ahall not be admitted into hers. The bey was regularly a pupil for seme months, and nothing was said of it until bs was traasfsrred to Hiss Nswball'a room, when she sent him home with a note Informing bis mother that he would not be permitted to remain longer In the school. The mother, who is a light mulatto, Inquired the reason, end Mis* >f. laid the mat ter before the dtetriet trustees, who told her that the must receive the hoy, sad she persisted ia refusing to do ee. The GtwtU says the matter waa laid before the trhool Beard subsequently, aad that Mis* Newhall, after en exciting debate, waa sustained ia.the course she bad po raved. [From th* Button Journal, Feb. 17 ] On* *f the Manchester trains. yesterday, in >?'*< tha vieinity of Bpiokct River, had Ita flie extinguished by the water which overflowed the track for a d. stance of nearly a quarter of a mile. In endeavoring to get ay iteam and go ahead, all the wood la the tender wm oou unmed, ana the oond actor wm in a momentary dilemma for want of fuel; hat be shortly procured a lenler full of four foot wood, to barn whiish it wae neceeaary that it ihould be tawed. The conductor, after soine inquiry, found a itoat man who wae posseoted of a iaw-bore? and aaw; and. engaging hia aervtoes, the wood anwyec mounted the tender and went to work. He won eat sufficient wc od to get tip steam, and the train ewe* nor* started on ita way; bat toe Iron hone had a voracious appetite, and consumed the fuel so rapidly that, as he puffed along the track, tt required the most strenuous effcrti of the sawyer to tarn oat eat feed fail eooagte to supply the maw of the engine. The sawyer pteeented a novel sight, as he cat away on the tender during the progress of the train, for a distance of ten milt*, unt.l ft reached a "wooding up station," when be was paid off and discharged from bis srduons service. The brooks were all very high between Mancbeeter sad Lawrence. The train on the Vermont Central Road, which left Barlington on Thursday morning, arrived in this city last night, about twenty-fear hours behindhand) having been detained by tho deep snows? for while H was rain ing hard in this vicinity It was snowing all along tha Northern Koad, and iu otb?r parts of eentra) and north ern New Hampshire and Vermont. In some parts of Lowell, particularly in the vicinity or Poath street, the streets were overflowed, the cellar* filled with water, and considerable damage done. Oen tralvllle was afloat, and canoes wereHn demand. The dam at Edgevllle, between l.oweU and Nashua, was carried away on Thursday night. In Lynn many cellars were filled with water, and near Central depot the railroad was covered to a depth of six or eight inches. The ti<*e on Friday was very h!.gb, ?nd lumber was afloat on the wharves. All communication was cut off between the city and the bea:h except by learn from Emerson's Eastern ExpTees, that be tween here ani Haverhill, this morning, three enlvertaH had been washed ont and let the rails down, but the! track had been temporarily repaired, so that the earn passed. r Between North Andover and Bradford,' a culvert and| email bridge was entirely washed away, so tbat passen gers were obliged to take stages at Haverhill for Brad The stone bridge over a small stream at the stean mills is all gone, and a week or more will be required f erect a bridge so that ears can pass. On Powder House Brook, at East Kingston, one side ofj a culvert was washed away, and foar lengths of rail sunk, so that a temporary track was laid for the care 1 pats. Another cu'vert, a short distance this s!ds of No<tb| Kingston, 1b also washed away. At Newmarket, yesterday, on a street near tbe depot tbe water was Ave feet in depth, so that It flowed int< the windows of several buildings. This morning the flood bad greatly abated. A railroad bridge was washed away in Exeter. The Housatonic and Nsugataok rivers, in Weetern Massachusetts and Connecticut, were rising rapidly atj last accounts, and disastrous results were feared. The Tranter ipt of this afteinoan has tbe following:? I Tbe flood at Winchester baa receded, so tb?t the plaod Is comparatively dry sgaln this morning. Fir* engine^ were employed last evening in pumping ont the eeuarsfl many of which were completely filled. The water stilH pours with great fury through tbe culvert at ''Bacon's,' where the Lowell railroad bridge fell in yesterday; bat I Urge gang of handa working through the night sue creaed in making one traok passage for trains this ssorn ing, and the other will be prepared to day. While assisting <n the passage of a train over thi bridge yesterday, Mr. Charles Converse, of tbe Woburi Express, lout a pocket book containing $175 and valu able papers. It was seen afloat, but eould not be cued, and will probably, with considerable other _ perty, find its way through too Mystic Into toe leal Horn I'ond, in Woburn, roue four feet higher than eve before known by the "oldest inhabitant." 8*v*r? small buildings have been cs fried off by th* freehet. " SBRIOra FRU3H1T IN THE BBANVYWINE AXD CHRII TIANA BIVKB8. We learn from the Wilmington (Del.) Journal tha| there has been quite a serious freehet witbin the lasj few days in the Brandy wine and Christiana rivers. Th Journal says:? On Wednesday night last th* io* in tbe Christian came down with the tide in sneh foroe as to part th fastenings of the steamboats Thomas A. Morgan, beloagH log to the Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore Ra!M road Company; the Napoleon and Wyoming, belonging to Philadelphia, and the Ooeola, belonging to Captall Baker, of this city; the bark Superior. ofPhiladelphisH 'and the brig Hamlet, belonging to Harlan k Boilingi worth, and caused them to drift down with great fore against the Wilmington bridge, wher* they were con pietely jammed in with ice. The boats ire not believed to be injured. About 10 feet of the bridge over the Christiana, two miles froi Wilmington, have been carried away, and workmen ar engaged to prevent it from becoming an entire wreck ? Travel to Newcastle is suspended by the damage to ttt j bridge. The Journal adds: ? I Tbe banks cn the margin of the Christiana river hav^ broken in several places, and tbe marshes for set miles around are completely deluged with water. Tbtre is at present a larger body of lc* in the Chrlstij i na than there has been any winter since 16.19, and fear me entertained tbat a great destruction of property wi take place when it breaks up, for in many paces the ic is piled up five snd six feet high. The tide in the Christiana, on Thursday morning, ro? to an unusual height, and fears were entertained tha when it commenced to ran down, it would bring with the body of ice above, and carry away to* Wilminrto bridge, and cause considerable damage to the vessels i ur harbor. At Brandywine, as far as we conld learn, very litt damage was sustained. The water rose to a confine ] able height, and entered the lower stores of tbe li<A mills en that at ream. Abolitionism In Harvard College* THE TOTI ON THE REJECTION OF *. O. LOKING. The Boston AdvertUer publish** tb? following m U. state of the vote in th* Board of Otwmwi of Harvat College yeaterdav after noo . on th* question of concui ring in the nomination of Hon. Edwd. G. Loring, m L? turer In the Law School. Th* Board consist* of ? member*. Th* following member* are known to have been ab**i yesterday: ? Hon . Caleb Cuihing, Rev. Baron .Stow, D.D , Hon. IX ?Id Sears, Hon. Marcus Morton (ex-Qov*rnor), R*t. & mu*l M. Worcester, D.D., Hon. Julitu Rockwell, Hoi Richard Fletcher ? 7. The following member* are believed to hart toted J( (In favor of confirming the nomination) : ? Hob. Emory Waahburn fez Governor), Hon. John I Clifford (ez1GoTernor):_Hon._Abbott Lawrenee, Hoi (against confirming the nomination): ? Hon. Henrj J. Cardnw, (Governor); Ho*. Sine Biown (IJeut. Governor^ lion. Henry W. B*nchle. (1 resident of the Senate) ; Hon. Daniel C. Kddy, (8peak> of the Htnie); Rev. Barnaa Sean, D. D., (Secretary th* Board of Education) : Hon. George S. Brigg*, (?: Governor); Hon. G*org* 8. Uoutwell, (em Governor Hon. Samuel Hoar, of Concord; Hon. Samuel D. Bra ford, Hon. Francis Burnett, Hon. Gee it* Morey. Ho Joel Harden, of WiilUirnbarg; Hon. Thorn** Ha***] (Judge Boston l'olio* Contt) ; Bon. Daniel W. Ahrord, Greenfield: Rev. Hotel Ballou, lid, D. 0.. R*v. Rodne A. Miller. Rev. J. H. Twombly. Nathaniel Coggtw?U, 1 & Wheelrlght, Nathaniel B. Shut!*ff-20. The Allot published a li*t. in which the name* ef Ho: Abbott Lawrence and Hen 8. D. Bradford are transpose th* former being represented a* voting nay and.tb* la ter yea. In the other name* it correspond* with tl above list. . .. II Shock of an Kartliqoake In Row Brmnawtcl [From th* ?t. John New*, Feb. 0.] We were visited yesterday morning by what might I termed an earthquake in th* real **n*e of the word, inch a phenomenon can be judged of by th* *tate of oi f*?ling*. It happened about a quarter t? 7 *' -.lock, . M., accompanied by a rumbling noise which laeted f> ??m* second*. Th* houses shook, acme more aad ton l**a, acootding to locality. Th* vibration may be oo< pared to that which w* expeiience from the blasting a reek, without bearing a loud report? or to that whit we feel when on board a steamer, from the working the engine. The general impression among those wl heard the noise was that a number of b*avy wagon* < wbtcl* were pateing *v*r a hard road, dive?t*<l of saoi the windows, Moves, tins, and other metal substanc war* all in a violent agitation for eon* seconds Boo thought their eh'mnevs were on fire, from the rumblli noire, and ran into the street, much alarmed, to sice tain if sach were the case. Mctt people were asleep In their beds, aad were su< denly awoke, aa if they bad received a galraa e shoei The sensatlcn was more perceptible and alarming stone and brlek buildings, which shook a* il they wou fall tn piece*. In th* Portland Valley, in the vicinity the church, the shock was perhsps the greatest. *( ere informed that children lying la their beds we sronaed and jumped up with fright It was not ft |c aflair. as lsg?n*rsI1y the cas* with earthqaake*, b. was fait in various parts, perhaps all part* of tH ! rotlnce at th* rame time? also In the ce.gliboriri f ta'e ? a* we karn by telegraph to Rsadlag Boom \ > redericton ft was very perceptible? th* seme at tf land. At Dorchester it ear so s*v?r* that windows we, I roken. and " a large ttrns building shook lite a leaf t wss also very stnr* at HackvlUe aad at Calais. T? hock waa very distinctly felt at Halifax. Ds-lrooutl nu Windsor. In Chatham It waa felt severely lotto] (' Vale It lasted two minute*. People walking tjj treels were brcught to a dead halt; they felt tbegrourj usklng under them, and could scarcity stand. Riot in Kansas ? A Clergyman Mobbed as, NlABLT Khlxi).? The Islington (Mo ) Krprtis p-jbl sh sn account of a riot between a number of (quitters Kansas. It occurred in the town of Fremeet, and t *i lollewlng are said to he th* facts. The nseb. wltho R invocation, entirely destroyed the premiers of t ev. Mr Hummer, sad after havlnc bestsnl s-nnwl 1