final decree, drawn by the Doctor's lawyer at his own expense, and his neglect to pro vide for his wife as he had agreed, with many other facts touching the plaintiff's character, were very satisfactorily proved. Judge Collamer presided at the trial. When he held the scales of Justice nothing but strict legal evidence could be placed in them. Prejudice, passion, sympathy, pathos, all went for naught. He told the jury that the alleged libel implied if it did n*t directly charge acts of adultery upon the plaintiff with Dr. Phelps, before the decree of divorce, and unless the defendant had proved that charge by evidence which would support a conviction upon an indictment for the crime, and so forcible as to leave no reasonable doubt on the minds of the jury, their verdict must be for the plaintiff. He said that the idea that a strict proof could be dispensed with because the charges related to an ancient transaction could not be ad mitted for a moment. On another point the justification was also difficult. The plaintiff proved by evidence not controverted, that the usual practice among solicitors was to execute an order of publication by publishing a concise abridg ment of the stating part of the bill only. The Judge therefore instructed the jury that if they found that the publication here con tained more than such substance under such practice, and that the excess was libellous, they would hold the defendant responsible. Under such instructions, without disregard ing them, the jury could not have found a verdict for the defendant. Such disregard was reserved for later times — it was never encountered by Collamer or judges of his type. On the question of damages the charge was sound and instructive. The jury were told that the pleas alleging the truth of the charges was a circumstance generally tend ing to enhance the damages, but if the de fendant believed them to be true, he should not on that account be visited with vindic
tive damages. The jury would consider the manner and extent of the publication, the nature of the charges, the causes of the defendant's irritation, and give damages ap portioned to the plaintiff's present character without reference to to her youthful aberra tions. Finally, he admonished them to give the plaintiff an amount of damages which would repair the injury to her character, but not so large as to encourage actions for libel — in short they should render a wholesome verdict, just between the parties, and salu tary in its influence upon society. It would not have been extraordinary if the jury had found some difficulty in reach ing a conclusion which would cover all the points to which Judge Collamer directed their attention. But they promptly agreed. The secrets of the jury-room are inviolate, but we may infer that the jury considered that the defendant had endured the affliction of a mother-in-law whose resources for irritation were exasperating. He had not always re stricted his observations upon her conduct within lawful limits — he would have been superhuman if he had. After the plaintiff had borne for a fourth of a century the natural shocks which her unequivocal ref lations with the deceased doctor must have produced in a staid New England commun ity, the bloom of her youthful innocence must have been so worn away that the sur viving remnant of her character could not have been very much damaged by the charge that she was the Doctor's mistress. On the whole case, the twelve came to the conclusion that the instructions of the court would be obeyed, the symmetry of the law preserved, the defendant properly pun ished, the rent in the plaintiff's character mended as well as it could be, and a whole some influence exerted upon the public mind by requiring the defendant to pay to the plaintiff one dollar in any kind of sound money. The only point on which debate may have arisen, was whether the amount should be one dollar or one cent. On this
