Superior Court.
{"newspaper_name": "The New York herald.", "edition": "01", "page": "p1", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 1501, "word_count": 255, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9790999889373779], "ccnet_perplexity": [2112.5], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
Before Chief Justice Jones.


JAN. 9-Gour0ud VS. CLark.-Libel CGse-This case,
already noticed concluded The defence put in was
that the words complained of were not Of sufficient
amount to damage the plaintiffs reputation that ey
we're used in reference to particular occasion at the
Tabernacle and that tho alleged Libel in calling plaintiff


had reference his professional repu-
tation. The jury found for the defendant.


.4nfonio Ra,tr vs Lyon Berkard Slander This
action Of slander The plaintiff is Dentist, residing in
Broadway, and 1t appeared that defendant in aterca
uon with him. called him thief and robber, for
which expression suit is brought. The defence put in
was that in May last defendant plaintiffs store
and contracted for Of teeth for which he TO pay
S34 and paid in part in advancethat he subsequent
" took the teeth and kept them night they
did not suit there being but Of them instead Of
agreement Defendsnt subsequently returned and COM
pianed Of this when the Dentist told him sit down.
when he took out the een and told defendant pay for
them and he could have them further alleged that
he plaintiff and d. fsndspt had made written sE ement
regard to this contract and that the plaintiff had e
torsed on the back the Of the
$40, which he demanded hack from plaintiff This occa.
stoned the alteration, which led to the alleged slander.
Adjourned over.


Before Judge Vsnderpoel.,


JAN Peter Borthelemy the Nev York Poydrets Co.
This case already noticed is still before the