Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 09.pdf/30

 Legal Reminiscences. not the substance of the libel. The third plea, which simply justified the publication under the chancellor's order, was held to be a good answer to the declaration. The seven remaining pleas were held to be bad on different grounds, not necessary to enumerate here. But although the third plea was held to be, prima facie, a good answer to the declaration, it by no means followed that a party could make use of such an order to justify a malicious and unnecessary libel. Was the publication in this case warranted by the practice of reputable solicitors? Was so extended a publication by such solicitors deemed necessary to give a proper notice? These were questions of fact to be deter mined by the jury. It was claimed to be the practice of reputable solicitors to publish only a concise statement of the sub stance of the bill. If such was the practice, and the defendant had exceeded it, he was liable for the excess if it was libelous. Whether there was such an excess was the issue finally left to the jury. After a spirited trial the jury found that the publication was unnecessarily diffuse, and that the surplus age was false and libelous. They returned a verdict for the plaintiff — damages one dollar! This verdict appears to have been acquiesced in by all the parties, neither of whom could have claimed the victory. The character of the plaintiff could not have stood very high, if it could only be damaged by such a libel to the extent of one dollar; and the jury must have considered that the defendant had a moral if not a legal justification, or they would have mulcted him in heavier damages. If any are desirous of following this litigation into all its details, they may consult the seventh volume of Vermont Reports, p. 372, tenth ib. pp. 321-353; twelfth ib. 485, and thirteenth ib. 460. The recent death of Eugene Field, beloved of so many children, will lead many to desire to know the subsequent history of the parties to this extraordinary litigation. The attempted marriage of Roswell M. Field to Mary Almira Phelps took place in Putney, Vt, on the I5th of October 1832. She was at that time engaged to be married to one Jeremiah Clark. Forty-three days after the Putney ceremony, and without waiting to have it declared invalid, as it was afterwards on the ground that there had been no cohabitation, Miss Phelps and Clark were married. Clark survived the marriage but a few years, when he died, leaving Mary Almira a widow. In June, 1839, Roswell M. Field left Vermont and took up his residence in St. Louis, Missouri, where he rapidly rose to eminence in his profession, and became one of the leaders of the Bar. He was the inventor of the famous Dred Scott case, and conducted it in all the lower courts, where it was so man aged as to present the important questions afterwards so much discussed and so fully decided in the Supreme Court of the United States. In the year 1839, Miss Phelps, then the widow Clark, followed Mr. Field to St. Louis and offered to renew their former intimacy. Mr. Field had had quite enough of her family, and sternly refused to hold any communication with her. Her ultimate experiences are unknown to the writer. In St. Louis Mr. Field appears to have been engrossed in his profession, and al though of fine address and popular manners took no interest in politics. For almost ten years, little is known touching his domestic life. On the 3Oth of May, 1848, he married Miss Frances Reed of Dummerston, Vermont. It is praise enough for any wife to say of her, as all who knew her say of Mrs. Roswell Field, that she was a typical Vermont woman. The fruit of this marriage was two sons, Eugene, born Sept. 3, 1850, and Roswell M., junior, born Sept. 1, 1851. Five years after the birth of her youngest son, Mrs. Field died. The death of a New