{"newspaper_name": "New-York daily tribune.", "edition": "01", "page": "p2", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 2427, "word_count": 431, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9445000290870667], "ccnet_perplexity": [1876.699951171875], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
You old sinking, old nasty Old itchy oii toad


you come here any more you must pay your board
You'll therefore take this warning from me,


And never more enter these doors while they belong TO


J. p"


This Libel exhibits neither good taste nor good
poetry; but the action was not brought on that
ground. Now II is worthy OF especial remark, that
the only part OF all this vile and offensive vltupera-
ton, censonous and ridiculDs and coniempiuors
as II all was, was the nputaton that the plaintiff
mad d contagious disease, which, III The language
OF Justice Good, tended 10 exclude MIN from all
society


Having thus ascertained what the Law OF Libel
was IN l169, | bes leave now 10 remind your Honors
thai IN Inc early stages OF that law, there was no
distinction between verbal and ,rrttfen Sldndr No
written WORDS were actiona6le that would not have
been aclonable II spoken. will not GO aooHt by
tedious way 10 prove this: II Is fully established
In The Case of Thory Us. Kerry, Taunton, $50, de
cced IN 1872. The Libel charged The plaintiff
with having wriltena scurrllous address, NC. The
following points were made by Sir James Mansfield,
IN delivering the oPBion of the Court:


Isl. That there being no otfnce charged IN The
publication, an action could not have been man
tanned for such words spoken.


ID That upon due consideration Of the whole
subject, there was 10 difference IN reason or prin-
clple between Oral and Written Slancer
Sd That the rights of the citizen would be suii-
eientiy guarded by applying 10 Llbels the rules es
icousned IN cases OF Verbal clsnceT.


iih. That originally no difference was known,
and now II was always discussed. IN actions Tor Ii
bel, whether the words would bear an action If
spoken.


5h. That the argument thai libel tends 10 pro-
mole breach Of the peace is altosethe. rreieram;.
9th. That the other argument ,hat written SIAN
Ger evInces more naliguity OF purpose than that
which Is verbal, Is also Irrelevant, because The ac-
ion Is sustained on the ground not OF malgniy but
OF injury TO the party


1lh: That the other arguuien; that libel is more
ditiusively published is also without weight. be-
cause IN the change of times and manners the rea-
son has failed


Sth. That the difference new made in the law in
regard 10 written and verbal SANDER first esa-
blished IN the time of Charles the Second. That if
1t were new question this difference ought no. 10