Poe’s libel verdict — New York newspaper court report, February 18, 1847 — reading text

Poe’s libel verdict — New York newspaper court report, February 18, 1847 The complete historical newspaper report of the February 17, 1847 trial, published the following day. It reports a $225 verdict. Preserved from the report reproduced as document 80 in Sidney P. Moss’s Poe’s Major Crisis (1970), pages 176–177. Only the underlying 1847 report is reproduced; the modern introduction, commentary and bracketed editorial interpolations are excluded. Allegations within quoted testimony are historical claims, not independently established facts. Locally preserved historical transcription, not an original newspaper facsimile. Typography is simplified; not independently proofread word by word against a printed copy. SUPERIOR COURT. — Before Chief Justice Jones. — Edgar A. Poe, vs. Hiram Fuller and A. W. Clason, Jr. — Mr. P. is known as an eminent writer and contributor to magazines, &c. Messrs. F. & C. are proprietors of the Evening Mirror. Mr. P. in an article published in Godey's Lady's Book, on literary men, made some mention of Mr. Thomas Dunn English, which caused that gentleman to publish, over his own name, one or two severe articles against Mr. Poe in the Evening Mirror. The sentences on which the suit for libel are founded are as follows: “I hold Mr. Poe's acknowledgement for a sum of money which he obtained of me under false pretences.” “I know Mr. Poe by a succession of his acts, one of which is rather costly. I hold Mr. P.'s acknowledgement,” &c. (As above.) “Another act of his gives me some knowledge of him. A merchant of this City had accused him of committing forgery, and he consulted me on the mode of punishing his accuser, and as he was afraid to challenge him to the field, or chastise him personally, I suggested a legal prosecution as his sole remedy, and at his request I obtained a counsel who was willing, as a compliment to me, to conduct his suit without the customary retaining fee. But though so eager at first to commence proceedings, he dropped the matter altogether when the time came for him to act, thus virtually admitting the truth of the charge.” Proof was taken as to the proprietorship of the paper, &c. Mr. Clason, who defended the case, moved that a verdict for defendant be taken as related to himself, as it had not been shown that he was a proprietor. This was objected to by Mr. Fancher, counsel for plaintiff, who testified that Mr. Clason told him that he (Mr. Clason) in fact owned the establishment, and that Mr. Fuller was but a nominal proprietor. The motion was denied. For defence a justification was put in, also that the character of Mr. Poe was such as not to entitle him to the favorable consideration of a Jury. The deposition of Mr. English, taken at Washington, was read. He states that Mr. Poe solicited of him the loan of $30 to get the Broadway Journal in his own hands, and promising to get Mr. E. a share of the profits; that Mr. E. lent him the money, taking his note, but Mr. P. never afterward offered to transfer an interest in the Journal, and deponent understood that the paper had not yielded any profits. As to the idea of forgery, Mr. P. had told him that a merchant of this City had designs upon a lady of their mutual acquaintance , whom he supposed Mr. Poe to have great influence with, &c. and the said merchant in order to get the lady against Mr. Poe had told her he was a forger. Mr. English, in that deposition, also stated “the general character of said Poe is that of a notorious liar, a common drunkard, and of one utterly lost to all the obligations of honor.” Mr. T. the merchant named, testified to having met with the party at the New-York House, where he put up — he was called upon by Mr. Poe in relation to what was said about forgery — witness immediately sought out the person who told him; that person denied that he had ever made any such charge about Mr. Poe, and I supposed, said the witness, that I had misunderstood him. I wrote a letter to Mr. Poe, informing him of the denial and retraction. This witness, also Judge Noah, and Mr. Freeman Hunt, testified as to the character of Mr. Poe. — Never heard anything against him except that he is occasionally addicted to intoxication. The respective counsel summed up the case. Mr. Fancher, on behalf of Mr. P. stated that Mr. P. has recently buried his wife, and his own health was such as to prevent him being present. The Court charged the question of the Jury to be whether the publications were true or not, or if there is mitigation in relation to them as to the character of Mr. P. The Jury returned a verdict for plaintiff of $225. — For plaintiff, Mr. E. L. Fancher; for defendants, Mr. Clason in person.