{"newspaper_name": "New-York daily tribune.", "edition": "01", "page": "p2", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 6509, "word_count": 1144, "ccnet_language_score": [0.963699996471405], "ccnet_perplexity": [1413.800048828125], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}



thope for such consummation


The first Election under the Temperance Act,
and the choice Of Delegates to the Constitutional
Convention, should such Convention be autnorzeo
BY the People, will take place together on 'he ids'
Tuesday in April next.
The I..x of Libel and the Liberty OF the


Press.


Owing TO the absence of our Reporter al inc
opening Of Gov SswARD's argument In the LioeI
case of Cooper u.s. The Tribune, our report oil thai
argument is lees perfect than we intended to have
it. and we note especially the omission OF one re-
markable case cited and commenced on by Gov. s.
that of Grimpood Vs. Parson Ptit-on English
adjudication. Parson Prit was preaching Sermon
on The Judgments Of God, and, among other 10
stances, cited one from Fox's Book OF Martyrs
wherein Fox had asserted that one Grim~ooo'
having given perjured testimony against certain
Protestants, during Catholic persecution, where
by they were doomed 10 death, was himself struck
dead by visitation of God 1t turned out lha'
this statement of Fox was erroneous, and 'hal
Grimwood was still alive ard one OF the hearers OF
Parson Prit's SermOn-whereupon ne brought hif
action for Libel The Court ruled that there wa
no cause of action-the Parson having uttered the
false and injurious imputaiions without malice or
evil purpose and n the honest discharge OF his duty


This case illustrates slrkingly and fully The gene
ral doctrine Of law and OF common sense with re-
gard TO the Rights and bamunitifs Of Editors, the
assertion Of which has been so frequently allud-
ed 10 by the inferior Courts Of this State, in the rla
of sctionsfor Libel against Editors as if it evnced
equal hardihood presumption and ignorance o
r l. Wo
recall single recent instance in which such as
serton has been noticed by the Bench OF this
State, otherwise than with the sneer OF irony
or the frown of reprehension. AS these rights
were not directly and prominently in the present ac-
tioa, they were not insisted on and illustrated by
the Counsel for Defendanis-their general line
of defence being that their clients had done no
,urong TO the Plaintiff, and not that they had indeed
aggreyed and injured him, yet, not wilfdy and ma
Iciously, but by reason of error and misapprehen-
sion on their part vhk engaged IN tbs discharge o,
q du,u-for which error and the injury thence en-
dured by Plaintiff, they are indeed liable TO an ac-
tiooon his part for damages had and sustained, TO be
proved and adjudged in view Of all the circumsan.
ces of the publication. Such was, in part, the de-
fence lnterp0sed by these Defendants on the trial
at Balson Spa the former action for libel brought
by Mr. Cooper, on ,heirreport of which this action
is based-which defence, and the grounds of 1t, ss
appeared to them, were entirely misconceived by
Hon. John Willard, before whom that cause was
tried And from some casual observations which
fell from one or more of the Judges on the trial oi
thi. demurrer, il would seem not impossible that a
similar msapprehenson is cherished by this
Cour-to wit, that there is set up, on the part Of
the defence to these suits, general right OF Edi'
tors because Of their VOCATION to detame and heap
opprobrium upon their feow.citizens without res
traint or accountability, Nothing can be farther
from the truth or more wrongtully preJudlcal To
this defence All that we contend for ls the prlncl-
ple established in Parson Prt's and reiterated
in cases innumerabe, well expressly set forth
in Starkie and all other authorities on Libel, thai
an !ndipidual making statements prGudiciai 10 the
character of another ,oe Engaged in the legitimate
discharge ofa duty not to be PRESUMED guilty Of
malicious intent and therefore Of libel 1t may be
that he is so guilty, and therefore may be held TO
answer on an action for libel butthis malicious in
tent is 10 be proued not taken for granted nor infer
red from the simple fact OF his publication, as IL
would be if he had not been acting in the discharge
Of duty Thus. if Parson Prit had Whispered





privately into the ears Of one or more of his pa.
rishioners, tue law would have presumed him gull
ty of malicious intent to lnjure or defame, and SO
have held him responsible to action for libel
without farther proof of mllice on his part Or had
Grm~ood presented himself prepared toprove that
Prt was really actuated by malicious design TO in
jure him. and had used his pulpit and Foxs Book
of Martyrs merely TO give force and impunty to hi
libel, the law would have held him TO answer Bul
the law Justly regarded his position and calling
shield against the presumption of malice.-So ii
the case of master giving bad character 10 hi,
servant, and TO cases innumerable with which the
books are filled


To apply this principle to the case of Editors,
though it does seem that illustration hardly be
necessary: An individual is detected in WHISPERING
from ear TO ear among his associates lha, Captain
Jones of the baque Sauda. on her last passage from
Liverpool, passed brig in distress, saw her signal OF
distress lying was entreated by her passengers Il
go TO her assistance yet kept recklessy on, leaving
her inmates to their fate The story is false, anc
Capt. Jones traces out the author and sues him fo
libel. The law presumes that author guilty of mali
cous intent TO injure Capt. Jones. and deals with
HIM accordingly, unless he can excupate hlinself
But suppose that same statement TO appear IN the
New-York Tribune, and the Editor, on being waited
on by the person injured, observes, "Capt Jones,
cut the paragraph so injurious to you from the
Boston transcript, believing i, 10 be true Inever
till this moment knew you from Adam; never
regarded you with any feeling whatever but such
as your alleged conduct excited; am mos,
happy to hear that you are innocent Of the inhu
'manity charged upon you, and will gladly make
you any reparation in my power" ."-Bu, Cap,
Jones chooses NO, to be satisfied and brings his &C.
tioe, not for simple and proyabe damages received
and suffered, but for libel. Hhy should not The
rule of a.c established in Parsom Brit's case, as in
thousands Of Others apply in theeass here presented
Can any man imagine reason why i, should no,
Mos, surely, it was not the sacred vocation of the
Parson that protected him in defamiag his neishbor
the essential matter was the future of the pre-,
s,smptioa of malice by reason of the position OF the
offender. Here is the whole ground of immunity
!, - L... .la;r,ad m hshalf of the Press-that