Robert Mayo v. Thomas J. Smith and F. S. Myer

Robert Mayo v. Thomas J. Smith and F. S. Myer. In an action upon the case for a libel, the damages wore laid at twenty thousand dollars, and the plaintiff in his affidavit averred damages to the same amount; the Court required the hail to justify to the amount of five hundred dollars only. Case for libel. Damages laid at $>20,000. The plaintiff’s affidavit to hold the defendants to special bail, stated that the defendants, on the 26th of March, 1839, “in a certain newspaper, called The Metropolis, in the publication of which the said Smith and Myer were then and there concerned, published of and concerning” the plaintiff, “a certain false, scandalous, and malicious libel, headed Dr. Mayo and the Intelligencer,” which said libel is hereto “annexed,” &c. “And this deponent also saith that he is informed and believes, that said Smith has no intention of remaining in the District of Columbia, but is about to depart from said district for the southern States. He further saith, that by the publication of said libel he hath incurred apd sustained damages to the value of $>20,000.” Mr. Hoban and Mr. Key moved for leave to appear for the defendant without special bail; or that the bail demanded'should be mitigated ; and cited Jones v. Kelly, 17 Mass. Rep. 115, and 2 Wheeler, 54. Mr. jR. S. Coxe and Messrs. Brent & Brent contended that the affidavit of the plaintiff was conclusive ; that the libel is atrocious. The affidavit is positive that the defendants published it in the newspaper in which they were concerned, and that the plaintiff has thereby suffered damages to the value of $20,000. The plaintiff’s counsel cited the case of Barrett v. Bimonton, in this Court, at May term, 1826, (2 Cranch, C. C. 657,) where bail was refused in an action for a malicious arrest, only on the ground that the action in which the plaintiff was arrested, was not then terminated; and the case of McDonald v. Little, in this Court, at the last term, (not reported,) and the case of Doyne v. Barker, at November term, 1834, (4 Cranch, C. C.,475,) in which bail was required, in slander, in $700, upon an affidavit of the plaintiff’s belief that she had suffered damage to the value of $3,000. [MAJORITY — (Thruston, J.,] The Court (Thruston, J., absent,) in the present ease, said they would be satisfied with bail who could justify in $500.