下载文档原格式
第1篇一、引言法律大讲堂，旨在为广大民众普及法律知识，提高法律意识。
今天，我们将通过一个真实的案例，为大家解析法律问题，让法律走进我们的生活。
二、案例背景本案当事人为甲、乙两人，甲为原告，乙为被告。
甲与乙系邻居，因土地纠纷引发诉讼。
甲主张乙侵占其土地，要求乙归还土地及赔偿损失。
乙则辩称，甲的土地系其合法取得，不存在侵占行为。
三、案件审理过程1.一审一审法院审理认为，甲、乙双方土地界限不清，导致纠纷。
经现场勘验，法院确认甲土地面积确被乙侵占。
根据《中华人民共和国物权法》相关规定，判决乙归还甲被侵占的土地，并赔偿甲经济损失。
2.二审乙不服一审判决，向二审法院提起上诉。
二审法院审理认为，一审法院认定事实清楚，适用法律正确，遂驳回上诉，维持原判。
3.再审乙不服二审判决，向再审法院申请再审。
再审法院审理认为，甲、乙双方土地纠纷存在历史原因，且双方均存在过错。
经调解，甲、乙双方达成协议，乙自愿将侵占的土地返还给甲，并赔偿甲部分经济损失。
四、案例分析1.物权法的相关规定本案涉及的主要法律问题是物权法的相关规定。
根据《中华人民共和国物权法》第三十九条规定：“所有权人或者其他权利人有权要求返还原物。
”本案中，甲作为土地所有权人，有权要求乙返还侵占的土地。
2.侵权责任法的相关规定本案中，乙侵占甲的土地，构成侵权行为。
根据《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》第十六条规定：“因侵权行为造成他人损害的，侵权人应当承担侵权责任。
”乙应当承担侵权责任，赔偿甲的经济损失。
3.土地纠纷的处理本案中，甲、乙双方土地纠纷存在历史原因，且双方均存在过错。
在处理土地纠纷时，法院充分考虑了双方的过错程度，依法作出判决。
这体现了我国法律在处理纠纷时的公平、公正原则。
五、启示1.加强法律知识学习本案提醒我们，要树立法律意识，加强法律知识学习，提高自身维权能力。
2.尊重他人合法权益在日常生活中，我们要尊重他人的合法权益，避免侵权行为的发生。
3.合理处理纠纷在遇到纠纷时，我们要依法维权，通过合法途径解决问题，维护自身合法权益。
重庆仲裁委员会庭审笔录第一次开庭案由：担保追偿权纠纷开庭时间：2017年X月X日上午9:30时至11:30时开庭地点：第X仲裁庭首席仲裁员：XXX仲裁员：XX 仲裁员：XX仲裁庭秘书：XXX申请人：重庆XXX股份有限公司法定代表人：张三代理人：XX被申请人一：重庆XX科贸有限公司法定代表人：被申请人三代理人：XX被申请人二：重庆市XXX担保有限公司法定代表人：李四代理人：XXX被申请人三：XXX 代理人：XXX被申请人四：XX 代理人：XXX：本会受理的重庆XXX股份有限公司与重庆XX科贸有限公司、重庆市XXX担保有限公司、XXX、XX担保追偿权纠纷一案，现在开庭。
：根据本会仲裁规则的规定，申请人选定XX担任仲裁员，被申请人未选定仲裁员，也未委托本会主任指定仲裁员，本会主任依法指定XX担任被申请人仲裁员，由XXX担任本案首席仲裁员，与XX、XX共同组成仲裁庭。
一、查验双方当事人和代理人的基本情况：申请人：重庆XX股份有限公司，住所地重庆市渝北区XX路X号X 幢，法定代表人张三，董事长，统一社会信用代码91500000XXXXX580L。
委托代理人：XX，重庆XX律师事务所律师，一般授权。
被申请人一：重庆XX科贸有限公司，住所地重庆市渝北区XX街道XX大厦1幢6-3，法定代表人被申请人三，执行董事，统一社会信用代码91500112XXXXX210U。
委托代理人：XXX，重庆XX律师事务所律师，特别授权。
被申请人二：重庆市XXX担保有限公司，住所地重庆市渝北区XX路5号12-1，法定代表人李四，统一社会信用代码91500000XXXXX8194。
委托代理人：XXX，男，汉族，19**年*月*日出生，住重庆市垫江县桂溪镇XX街3号3单元7-2，身份证号码511002XXXXX1812。
系公司员工，一般授权。
（未到庭）被申请人三：XXX，男，汉族，19**年**月**日出生，住重庆市渝北区XX路XX号1幢3单元5-2，身份证号码510226*****2937。
庭审提纲及庭审笔录第一篇：庭审提纲及庭审笔录一、法庭准备阶段书记员：，请当事人诉讼代理人到庭。
现在宣布法庭纪律：（一）不得录音、录像和摄影；（二）不得随意走动和进入审判区；（三）不得发言、提问；（四）不得鼓掌、喧哗、哄闹和实施其他妨害审判活动的行为。
（五）新闻记者旁听应遵守本规则。
未经审判长或者独任审判员许可，不得在庭审过程中录音、录像和摄影。
（六）对于违反法律规则的人，审判长或者独任审判员可以口头警告、训诫，也可以没收录音、录像和摄影器材，责令退出法庭或者经院长批准予以罚款、拘留。
(七)对哄闹、冲击法庭，侮辱、诽谤、威胁、殴打审判人员等严重扰乱法庭秩序的人，依法追究刑事责任；情节较轻的，予以罚款、拘留。
二、请主审法官入席三、报告审判员，当事人均已到庭，请开庭主审法官：现在开庭，首先核对当事人身份。
原告，你的姓名、年龄、职业、住址？有无代理人？原告：王顺，男，1961年7月23日生，汉族，个体工商业户，住济南市历下区大明湖路148号。
原告代理人：全权斌，山东倡议律师事务所律师，一般代理。
原告代理人：李忠诚，山东倡议律师事务所律师，一般代理。
主审法官：第一被告姓名等项？被告1：济南新兴石化实业总公司（以下简称第一被告）住所地：济南市历城区王舍人镇路家庄东,法定代表人：周乐成职务：总经理被告代理人：受被告告委托，山东鲁圣律师事务所的指派，一般代理被告2：济南石化（集团）股份有限公司（以下简称第二被告）.住所地：济南市历城区王舍人镇路家庄东.法定代表人：冯益民职务：董事长被告代理人：菅强辉受被告告委托，山东圣贤律师事务所的指派，一般代理主审法官：根据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百四十二条、第一百四十三条、第一百四十五条的规定，宁安市人民法院民事审判庭今天在此依法适用简易程序审理原告秦亮与被告张军为消费者权益保护纠纷一案。
本案由本院审判员司马燕独任审判，本院书记员郭风担任记录。
有关当事人诉讼权利和义务本院已书面告知，不再重复。
庭审记录模板模拟法庭庭审记录时间：地点：案件：审判长：审判员：书记员：原告：代理⼈：被告：代理⼈：宣布法庭纪律，核对当事⼈⾝份。
审判长：下⾯本庭根据《中华⼈民共和国民事诉讼法》第四⼗六条的规定，交待回避权。
审判⼈员有以下三种情况，可能影响案件公正审理的，当事⼈有权⼝头或书⾯申请他们回避：1、是本案当事⼈或者是当事⼈、诉讼代理⼈的近亲属；2、与本案有利害关系；3、与本案当事⼈有其他关系，可能影响对案件的公正审理的。
现在询问当事⼈是否申请回避？原告：被告：法庭调查审判长：原告：审判长：被告：审判长：原告：审判长：被告：原告代理⼈：审判长：原告代理⼈：被告：原告代理：被告：原告：被告：审判长：陪审员1：原告：陪审员1：原告：陪审员2：原告证⼈：审判员2：原告证⼈：陪审员2：原告证⼈：原告代理⼈：原告证⼈：被告代理：原告证⼈：被告代理⼈：原告证⼈：被告代理⼈：原告代理⼈：审判长：原告：证据：这是2009年，被告写的保证书证明：：被告于2009年写了⼀份保证书，保证2011年，也就是今年⽣⼀个孩⼦。
原告证⼈：杨梦桦审判长：被告代理⼈：审判长：陪审员1：被告证⼈：审判员1：审判长：陪审员1：被告：审判长：陪审员1：原告律师：被告证⼈：原告律师：被告证⼈：原告律师：被告证⼈：被告律师：被告证⼈：被告代理⼈：原告代理⼈：审判长：被告证⼈：陈昭君法庭辩论：审判长：原告对于案件事实还有什么要补充的么？原告代理⼈：审判长：被告⽅呢？被告代理⼈：审判长：双⽅当事⼈在事实⽅⾯没有补充，事实调查结束。
下⾯围绕争议焦点进⾏法庭辩论。
⾸先由原告作辩论发⾔。
双⽅相互辩论。
原告：被告：被告：原告：被告：陪审员2：原告律师：被告律师：审判长：原告：审判长：审判员1：原告：：陪审员2：被告：审判长：现在宣布休庭10分钟，合议庭对本案进⾏评议，10分钟后继续开庭，宣布对本案的裁判结果。
休庭。
书记员：全体起⽴！请审判长、审判员退庭。
书记员：请审判长、审判员⼊庭。
庭审笔录时间：年月日地点：人民法院第法庭审判长：沈建国审判员：孔磊人民陪审员：任翠兰书记员：记：原告朱杭诉被告皋城市长阔出租车公司违约赔偿一案，法庭审理即将开始，请肃静！记：传原告（诉讼代表人）、被告（法定代表人）、到庭就坐。
记：请原告委托代理人（或法定代理人）、被告委托代理人到庭就坐。
记：先查对当事人和其他诉讼参与人到庭情况。
原告（诉讼代表人）：委托代理人：被告（法定代表人、诉讼代表人）：委托代理人：委托代理人：记：现在宣布法庭纪律：（1）根据《中华人民共和国人民法庭规则》第九条、第十条、第十一条、第十二条的规定，诉讼参与人应当遵守法庭秩序，不得喧哗、吵闹，相互间不得进行谩骂、侮辱等人身攻击。
发言、陈述、辩论须经审判长许可。
诉讼参与人违反法庭秩序的，审判长应当警告制止；情节严重的，可以责令退出法庭直至依法追究刑事责任。
（2）旁听人员必须遵守下列纪律：①不得录音、录像和摄影；②不得随意走动和进入审判区；③不得发言、提问；④不得鼓掌、喧哗、哄闹和其他妨碍审判活动的行为；⑤不得使用传呼机、手机等通讯工具。
（3）新闻记者旁听，未经审判长许可，不得在庭审过程中录音、录像、摄影。
（4）对于违反法庭纪律的人，审判长可以口头警告、训诫,也可以没收录音、录像、摄影器材，责令退出法庭，或经院长批准予以罚款、拘留，严重扰乱法庭秩序的，依法追究刑事责任。
记：全体起立，请审判长、审判员（或人民陪审员）入庭。
记：报告审判长，本案原告及其委托代理人、被告及其委托代理人已到庭，法庭准备工作就绪，请审判长开庭。
长：全体人员坐下。
宣读各方当事人出庭人员名单。
长：各方当事人对对方出庭人员有无异议？原：被：长：经核对，各方当事人及其诉讼代理人均符合法律规定，可以参加本案诉讼。
长：（敲击法槌）皋城市朝安区人民法院人民法院民事审判庭现在开庭。
根据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第120条之规定，皋城市朝安区人民法院今天在这里公开开庭审理原告朱杭诉被告皋城市长阔出租车公司违约纠纷一案。
李庄二季冤案庭审实录（全版）[陈有西按]感谢杨学林律师和他的优秀的助理，能够把如此珍贵的庭审实录完整地展示出来。
建议每一位从事刑事辩护、刑事审判、刑事诉讼立法的人们，都认真地看一看。
这就是我们中国当前的《刑事诉讼法》框架下的法庭审判真相。
可以清楚地看出强权公诉可以在如何虚假的基础上进行，他们照样可以说得头头是道。
我们的法院是如何配合检察院违背举证和质证的规则，帮助检察院隐瞒证据的薄弱环节，用法庭驾驭权强词夺理，不让辩方展示无罪的证据，以表面上的走完程序，来实质上实现既定目标的冤判。
可以看出一个没有陪审团制约的合议庭，可以如何丧失公允的立场而肆无忌惮。
一个依法抗辩的律师可以如何被指责成违反法律对法庭不恭的律师。
被告和律师是在怎样的环境下艰难地抗争。
可以知道，李庄第一季的冤案是如何判出来的；可以知道，中国的这样多的刑事冤案，那么多的涉法上访，都是如何产生出来的。
对于没有机会观摩庭审的刑诉法修改的参与人、社会各界的人士，看了这样的庭审记录，一定会有更深的思考。
我还想特别说明的是，这样的案件，不只是重庆在发生。
中国的所有的刑事审判场景，都是这样的。
中国的刑事审判中存在的问题，绝不是一个李庄案的问题，绝不是一个重庆的问题，而是我国继承苏联的专政模式而设计出来的整个刑事诉讼制度性的问题。
李庄案的意义，就在这里。
李庄案件有两点为当代中国作出了独特的重大的贡献：一是从来没有一个刑事案件有这样多的各界、各层次的人关注，这样长的文章能够有耐心看完，能够收藏研究，产生这样大的持久的影响；二是从来没有一个案件，能够有这样的全景式的实录展示，能够全部记录下来公开。
感谢中国的新一代律师，感谢信息时代的互联网技术。
这种公开化将大大开启民智，大大加快中国的民主与法制的进程。
建议所有有兴趣的读者，尽快下载收藏本文。
同时欢迎转发、转载。
李庄“漏罪”案庭审记录（一）（二）（三）（四）杨学林杨学林按：该记录为辩护人助理在法庭上所作的记录，庭后又根据记忆进行了补充。
曾格案件名词解释曾格案件是指1979年1月在中国四川省宜宾市发生的一起重大刑事案件。
案件中，以曾格为首的一伙犯罪团伙作案数十起，涉及抢劫、持械杀人、强奸等极其严重的犯罪行为。
曾格是一个从小就走上犯罪道路的青年，他在犯罪团伙中担任头目的角色。
他勾结一些有犯罪前科的人员，组成了一个恶势力犯罪团伙。
他们专门选择晚上、荒僻地段或是无人注意的地方进行犯罪活动，且手段残忍，作案手法多样，给社会带来了严重的危害。
其中最为震惊的一起案件是曾格团伙在1980年3月在宜宾县大安镇的一家农村饭馆发生的持械杀人案。
在这起案件中，曾格为了逃避抓捕，竟然杀害了5名饭馆员工。
这一事件使得曾格团伙成为全国公安机关追逃追捕的首要目标。
后来，曾格团伙成员相继被抓获，并于1980年至1981年期间接受法庭审判。
在这起案件中，曾格团伙犯下了十分严重的罪行，案件发生后，举国震惊。
这一案件引起了社会各界的高度关注，也对中国司法体制和刑事法律的完善提出了一系列的问题。
它揭示了中国社会的一些问题，包括对犯罪人员的处置、对少年犯的教育和康复等方面的问题。
曾格案件也引起了关于犯罪心理学、刑事侦查、法律适用等方面的研究。
它对中国的刑事司法制度改革产生了深远的影响，同时也促使了对犯罪预防和打击犯罪的进一步探索。
曾格案件的发生对中国社会产生了一定的冲击，同时也对中国的刑事司法制度改革产生了深远的影响。
这一案件的发生使得中国社会关注了对犯罪人员的处置和救助，对预防和打击犯罪提出了更高的要求。
它也揭示了中国刑事司法制度中存在的一些问题，促进了对其改革的努力，提高了对犯罪行为的打击力度，保护了社会的安全和秩序。
被告人孔建荣故意伤害案庭审预案【起诉书摘要】2008年3月27日10时许，被告人孔建荣在本市闵行区华漕镇吴家巷村吴西9号其住处，因拒收由上海市闵行区房屋土地管理局房屋拆迁管理所执法工作人员唐振辉送达的《房屋拆迁裁定申请书》等相关文书，而与唐振辉发生争执，用拳头击打唐振辉面部，将其打伤，并将污水泼到唐振辉的身上。
被告人孔建荣被公安机关当场抓获。
经鉴定，被害人唐振辉遭受他人外力作用，致右侧上颌骨骼突骨折，鼻骨粉碎性骨折，构成轻伤。
第一部分讯问提纲被告人孔建荣，鉴于你以往在公安机关及检察机关讯问时多次供述犯罪，认罪态度较好，在今天的法庭上对起诉书指控的事实无异议，下面公诉人将就起诉书所指控的故意伤害的主要事实进行发问，希望你能够如实回答公诉人的提问：一、被告人孔建荣，你所居住的华漕镇吴家巷村吴西9号什么时候开始动拆迁的？（这里是因虹桥交通枢纽工程而动拆迁，已经有一段时间了。
）二、案发当天，也就是今年的3月27日上午，闵行区房屋土地管理局、动迁办、派出所等单位和部门的工作人员到你家时是否向你告知了他们的身份？（他们一共来了3－5个人，我知道是拆迁办的人，以前我见过的，其中还有一个是派出所的闻警官，被我打的那个男子向我介绍了自己的身份。
）三、他们是否佩戴或向你出示工作证等证明自己身份的证件？（他们的胸前都挂着工作证，我还对着工作证拍照了。
）四、他们是否向你告知了来你家的目的？（其中一个人，就是我打的那个人说今天他们来是为了给我送达有关拆迁的告知书。
）五、你是否接收了这些告知书？（没有，他刚说给我送达告知书，我就把他的话打断，说他们向我发放告知书程序是不对的，我不要看，也不要他们给我告知书。
但对方一定要给我，并要将告知书放下，我就拉住那个人不让他放告知书。
之后我和这个人就吵起来了，吵了没几句，我火大了，就一拳打在那个要放告知书的人脸部。
）六、你是否阅看了向你送达的告知书等文书的内容？（没有看。
）七、你原来供述说拿着照相机给这些工作人员拍照，为什么这样做？（我就是要说他们不对，我对着他们胸前挂的工作证拍照，说要去告他们，我以为这样他们就能走了。
庭审笔录范文庭审笔录开庭时间：2019年6月18日开庭地点：尤溪县人民法院法庭组成人员：审判长付永康、审判员余晓月、黄祥飞，书记员谢周培书记员：请当事人、诉讼代理人入庭。
书记员：查明当事人、诉讼代理人到庭情况，核对证件。
书记员：请肃静，现在宣布法庭纪律(略记)。
书记员：全体起立，请审判长、审判员入庭。
书记员：报告审判长，原告肖亮、原告代理人李仁尚、被告肖鹏、肖哲、被告代理人周铭熠、姜能果已到庭。
原告(被告)提供的证人肖梁、赵林在庭外候传。
庭前准备工作就绪，请开庭。
审判长：现在核对当事人、诉讼参与人基本情况。
审：原告姓名等项?原告：肖亮,男,1967年出生，汉族，农民，住福建省尤溪县城关镇下村村53号。
是被继承人肖立的次子。
审：原告委托代理人的身份及代理权限?委托代理人：李仁尚，律师事务所律师，代理权限以授权委托书为准。
审：被告一姓名等项?被告一：肖鹏，男,1986年1月13日出生，汉族，农民，住住福建省尤溪县城关镇下村村53号，是被继承人肖立的孙子。
审：被告一代理人姓名等项?被一代：周铭熠，方圆律师事务所律师，代理权限以授权委托书为准。
审：被告二姓名等项?被告二：肖哲,男,1984年月日出生，汉族，农民，住住福建省尤溪县城关镇下村村54号，是被继承人肖立的二哥的儿子。
被二代：姜能果，方圆律师事务所律师，代理权限以授权委托书为准。
审判长：原告对被告出庭人员有无异议?原告：无异议审判长：被告对原告出庭人员有无异议?被告一：没有异议。
被告二：没有异议。
审判长：经审查，原告、被告及其委托代理人出庭符合法律规定，可以参与本案庭审判长活动。
审：尤溪县人民法院民事审判庭第一庭依据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百三十条第一款之规定，今天依法公开审理原告肖亮与被告肖鹏等继承纠纷一案，现在宣布开庭。
(敲法槌)审：本案由审判员付永康担任审判长、与审判员余晓月、黄祥飞组成合议庭，书记员记员谢周培担任本案记录。
审：有关当事人诉讼权利与义务的规定，庭前已以书面形式告知双方当事人。
行政庭审笔录地点：[地点]审判官：[审判官姓名]书记员：[书记员姓名]当事人：[当事人姓名]代理人：[代理人姓名]法定申诉机关：[法定申诉机关名称]案号：[案号]背景根据《行政诉讼法》的规定，[法定申诉机关名称]对[当事人姓名]提起行政诉讼，请求撤销被告行政机关作出的[行政行为]。
本次开庭审理旨在审查相关证据和听取双方的陈述和辩论，确保争议能得到公正和公平的解决。
出庭人员出庭人员如下：审判官：[审判官姓名]书记员：[书记员姓名]当事人：[当事人姓名]代理人：[代理人姓名]法定申诉机关代表：[法定申诉机关代表姓名]庭审过程第一部分：起诉人陈述审判官：[审判官姓名]，请起诉人发表陈述。
代理人：尊敬的审判官，我代表[法定申诉机关名称]起诉本案，请求庭审撤销被告行政机关作出的[行政行为]，并追究其法律责任。
审判官：请确保提供充分的证据和相关材料支持您的陈述。
代理人：当事人[当事人姓名]于[日期]向本申诉机关递交了申诉书，称被告行政机关以[理由]作出了[行政行为]，该行为严重违反了相关法律法规的规定，并给当事人造成了经济损失和不良社会影响。
第二部分：被告答辩审判官：请被告行政机关发表答辩意见。
被告代表：尊敬的审判官，我代表被告行政机关针对起诉人的诉讼请求进行答辩。
审判官：请您就被告行政机关作出的[行政行为]提供相关证据和合理的解释。
被告代表：被告行政机关在作出[行政行为]时充分考虑了相关法律法规的规定，并且该行为是合法、合规的。
第三部分：证人证言审判官：请诉讼双方和法定申诉机关代表提供需要传唤的证人，并对其进行询问。
第四部分：辩论与结案陈述审判官：请双方进行辩论，并发表结案陈述。
第五部分：判决审判官：本案经过公开、公正的审理，法庭将择期宣判。
记录结束本次行政庭审笔录以书记员的签名和日期作为证明，保留在法庭档案中。
特此记录结束。
Trial RecordFrom Zenger's A Brief Narrative of the Case and Trial of John PeterZenger (1736):On Tuesday, July 29, 1735, the Court opened. On the motion of Mr. Chambers for a struck jury, pursuant to the rule of the preceding term, the Court were of the opinion that I was entitled to have a struck jury. That evening at five o'clock some of my friends attended the clerk for striking the jury; when to their surprise the clerk [Harison], instead of producing the Freeholders book, to strike the jury from it in their presence as usual, produced a list of 48 persons whom he said he had taken out of the Freeholders book.My friends told him that a great number of these persons were not freeholders; that others were persons holding commissions and offices at the Governor's pleasure; that others were of the late displaced magistrates of this city, who must be supposed to have resentment against me for what I had printed concerning them; that others were the Governor's baker, tailor, shoemaker, candle maker, joiner, etc.; that as to the few indifferent men that were upon that list, they had reason to believe (as they had heard) that Mr. Attorney had a list of them, to strike them out. And therefore they requested that he would either bring the Freeholders book, and choose out of it 48 unexceptional men in their presence as usual, or else that he would hear their objections particularly to the list he offered, and that he would put impartial men in the place of those against whom they could show just objections.Notwithstanding this, the clerk refused to strike the jury out of the Freeholders book, and refused to hear any objections to the persons on the list; but told my friends that if they had any objections to any persons, they might strike those persons out. To which they answered that there would not remain a jury if they struck out all the exceptional men, and according to the custom they had a right to strike out only twelve.Finding no arguments could prevail with the clerk to hear their objections to his list, nor to strike the jury as usual, Mr. Chambers told him that he must apply to the Court; which the next morning he did. And the Court upon his motion ordered that the 48 should be struck out of the Freeholders book as usual, in the presence of the parties, and that the clerk should hear objections to persons proposed to be of the 48, and allow of such exceptions as were just. In pursuance of that order a jury was that evening struck to the satisfaction of both parties. My friends andcounsel insisted on no objections but want of freehold, although they did not insist that Mr. Attorney General should show any particular cause against any persons he disliked, but acquiesced that any person he disliked should be left out of the 48.The Trial BeginsBefore James DeLancey, Chief Justice of the Province of New York, and Frederick Philipse, Associate Justice, my trial began on August 4,1735, upon an information for printing and publishing two newspapers which were called libels against our Governor and his administration.The defendant, John Peter Zenger, being called, appeared.MR. CHAMBERS, of counsel for the defense. "I humbly move,Your Honors, that we may have justice done by the sheriff, and that he may return the names of the jurors in the same order as they were struck."MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. "How is that? Are they not so returned?"MR. CHAMBERS. "No they are not. For some of the names that were last set down in the panel are now placed first."MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. "Make that out and you shall be righted."MR. CHAMBERS. "I have the copy of the panel in my hand as the jurors were struck, and if the clerk will produce the original signed by Mr. Attorney and myself, Your Honor will see that our complaint is just."MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. "Clerk, is it so? Look upon that copy. Is it a true copy of the panel as it was struck?"CLERK. "Yes, I believe it is."MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. "How came the names of the jurors to be misplaced in the panel?"SHERIFF. "I have returned the jurors in the same order in which the clerk gave them to me."MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. "Let the names of the jurors be ranged inthe order they were struck, agreeable to the copy here in Court."Which was done accordingly; and the jury, whose names were as follows, were called and sworn: Thomas Hunt (Foreman), Harmanus Rutgers, Stanly Holmes, Edward Man, John Bell, Samuel Weaver, Andries Marschalk, Egbert van Borsom, Benjamin Hildreth, Abraham Keteltas, John Goelet, Hercules Wendover.' Mr. Attorney General' opened the information, which was as follows:Case for the ProsecutionMR. ATTORNEY. "May it please Your Honors and you, Gentlemen of the Jury. The information now before the Court, and to which the defendant, Zenger, has pleaded 'Not guilty,' is an information for printing and publishing a false, scandalous, and seditious libel in which His Excellency, the Governor of this Province, who is the king's immediate representative here, is greatly and unjustly scandalized as a person that has no regard to law or justice; with much more, as will appear upon reading the information. libeling has always been discouraged as a thing that tends to create differences among men, ill blood among the people, and oftentimes great bloodshed between the party libeling and the party libeled. There can be no doubt but you, Gentlemen of the Jury, will have the same ill opinion of such practices as judges have always shown upon such occasions. But I shall say no more at this time, until you hear the information, which is as follows:"Be it remembered that Richard Bradley, Attorney General of the king for the Province of New York, who prosecutes for the king in this part, in his own proper person comes here into the Court of the king, and for the king gives the Court here to understand and be informed:"That John Peter Zenger, of the City of New York, printer, being a seditious person; and a frequent printer and publisher of false news and seditious libels, both wickedly and maliciously devising the administration of His Excellency William Cosby, Captain Genera] and Governor in Chief, to traduce, scandalize, and vilify both His Excellency the Governor and the ministers and officers of the king, and to bring them into suspicion and the ill opinion of the subjects of the king residing within the Province, on the twenty -eighth day of January, in the seventh year of the reign of George the Second, at the City of New York did falsely, seditiously, and scandalously print and publish, and cause to be printed and published, a certain false, malicious, seditious, scandalous libel entitled The New York Weekly Journal.""In which libel, among other things therein contained, are these words, 'Your appearance in print at last gives a pleasure to many, although most wish you had come fairly into the open field, and not appeared behindentrenchment’s made of the supposed laws against libeling, and of what other men had said and done before. 'These entrenchment’s, gentlemen, may soon be shown to you and to all men to be weak, and to have neither law nor reason for their foundation, and so cannot long stand in your stead. Therefore you had much better as yet leave them, and come to what the people of this City and Province (the City and Province of New York meaning) think are the points in question. They (the people of the City and Province of New York meaning) think, as matters now stand, that their liberties and properties are precarious, and that slavery is like to be entailed on them and their posterity if some past things be not amended, and this they collect from many past proceedings." (Meaning many of the past proceedings of His Excellency, the Governor, and of the ministers and officers of the king, of and for the said Province.)"And the Attorney General likewise gives the Court here to understand and be informed:"That the said John Peter Zenger afterwards, to wit on the eighth day of April, did falsely, seditiously and scandalously Print and publish another false, malicious, seditious, and Scandalous libel entitled The New-York Weekly Journal."In which libel, among other things therein contained, are these words, 'one of our neighbors (one of the inhabitants of New Jersey meaning) beingin company and observing the strangers (some of the inhabitants of New York meaning) full of complaints, endeavored to persuade them to remove into Jersey. To which it was replied, c that would be leaping out of the frying pan into the fire; for,'says he,'we both are under the same Governor (His Excellency the said Governor meaning), and your Assembly have shown with a vengeance what is to be expected from them.' One that was then moving to Pennsylvania (meaning one that was then removing from New York with intent to reside at Pennsylvania), to which place it is reported that several considerable men are removing (from New York meaning), expressed in terms very moving much concern for the circumstances of New York (the bad circumstances of the Province and people of New York meaning), and seemed to think them very much owing to the influence that some men (whom he called tools) had in the administration (meaning the administration of government of the said Province of New York). He said he was now going from them, and was not to be hurt by any measures they should take, but could not help having some concern for the welfare of his countrymen, and should be glad to hear that the Assembly (meaning the General Assembly of the Province of New York) would exert themselves as became them by showing that they have the interest of their country more at heart than the gratification of any private view of any of their members, or being at all affected by the smiles or frowns of a governor (His Excellency thesaid Governor meaning); both of which ought equally to be despised when the interest of their country is at stake."'You,' says he, 'complain of the lawyers, but I think the law itself is at an end. We (the people of the Province of New York meaning) see men's deeds destroyed, judges arbitrarily displaced, new courts erected without consent of the legislature (within the Province of New York meaning) by which it seems to me trial by jury is taken away when a governor pleases (His Excellency the said Governor meaning), and men of known estates denied their votes contrary to the received practice, the best expositor of any law. Who is there then in that Province (meaning the Province of New York) that can call anything his own, or enjoy any liberty, longer than those in the administration (meaning the administration of government of the said Province of New York) will condescend to let them do it? For which reason I have left it, as I believe more will.)"These words are to the great disturbance of the peace of the said Province of New York, to the great scandal of the king, of His Excellency the Governor, and of all others concerned in the administration of the government of the Province, and against the peace of the king, his crown, and his dignity."Whereupon the said Attorney General of the king prays the advisement of the Court here, in the premises, and the due process of law against the said John Peter Zenger."To this information the defendant has pleaded not guilty, but we are ready to prove [Zenger's guilt]."MR. HAMILTON. "May it please Your Honor, I am concerned in this cause on the part of Mr. Zenger, the defendant. The information against my client was sent me a few days before I left home, with some instructions to let me know how far I might rely upon the truth of those parts of the papers set forth in the information, and which are said to be libelous."Although I am perfectly of the opinion with the gentleman who has just now spoken on the same side with me, as to the common course of proceedings meant in putting Mr. Attorney upon proving that my client printed and published those papers mentioned in the information yet I cannot think it proper for me (without doing violence to my own principles) to deny the publication of a complaint, which I think is the right of every freeborn subject to make when the matters so published can be supported with truth."Therefore I shall save Mr. Attorney the trouble of examining his witnesses to that point. I do (for my client) confess' that he both printed and published the two newspapers set forth in the information - and I hope that in so doing he has committed no crime."MR. ATTORNEY. "Then if Your Honor pleases, since Mr. Hamilton has confessed the fact, I think our witnesses maybe discharged. We have no further occasion for them."MR. HAMILTON. "If you brought them here only to prove the printing and publishing of these newspapers, we have acknowledged that, and shall abide by it."MR. CHIEF JUSTICE. "Well, Mr. Attorney, will you proceed?"MR. ATTORNEY. "Indeed, Sir, as Mr. Hamilton has confessed the printing and publishing of these libels, I think the jury must find a verdict for the king. For supposing they were true, the law says that they are not the less libelous for that. Nay, indeed the law says their being true is an aggravation of the crime."MR. HAMILTON. "Not so neither, Mr. Attorney. There are two words to that bargain. I hope it is not our bare printing and publishing a paper that will make it a libel. You will have something more to do before you make my client a libeler. For the words themselves must be libelous that is, false, scandalous, and seditious or else we are not guilty."He observed upon the excellency as well as the use of government, and the great regard and reverence which had been constantly paid to it, under both the law and the Gospels. That by government we were protected in our lives, religion, and properties; and for these reasons great care had always been taken to prevent everything that might tend to scandalize magistrates and others concerned in the administration of the government, especially the supreme magistrate. And that there were many instances o f very severe judgments, and of punishments, inflicted upon such as had attempted to bring the government into contempt by publishing false and scurrilous libels against it, or by speaking evil and scandalous words of men in authority, to the great disturbance of the public peace. And to support this he cited various legal texts.From these books he insisted that a libel was a malicious defamation of any person, expressed either in printing or writing, signs or pictures, to asperse the reputation of one that is alive, or the memory of one that is dead. If he is a private man, the libeler deserves a severe punishment, but if it is against a magistrate or other public person, it is a greateroffense. For this concerns not only the breach of the peace but the scandal of the government. What greater scandal of government can there be than to have corrupt or wicked magistrates appointed by the king to govern his subjects? A greater imputation to the state there cannot be than to suffer such corrupt men to Sit in the sacred seat of justice, or to have any meddling in or concerning the administration of justice.From the same books Mr. Attorney insisted that whether the person defamed is a private man or a magistrate, whether living or dead, whether the libel is true or false, or if the party against whom it is made is of good or evil fame, it is nevertheless a libel. For in a settled state of government the party grieved ought to complain, for every injury done him, in the ordinary course of the law. And as to its publication, the law had taken so great care of men’s reputations that if one maliciously repeats it, or sings it in the presence of another, or delivers the libel or a copy of it over to scandalize the party, he is to be punished as a publisher of a libel.He said it was likewise evident that libeling was an offense against the law of God. Acts 23:5: Then said Paul, "I wish not, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people." 11 Peter 2:10: "Despise government. Presumptuous are they, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities."He then insisted that it was clear, by the laws of God and man, that it was a very great offense to speak evil of, or to revile, those in authority over us. And that Mr. Zenger had offended in a most notorious and gross manner, in scandalizing His Excellency our governor, who is the king's immediate representative and the supreme magistrate of this Province. For can there be anything more scandalous said of a governor than what is published in those papers? Nay, not only the Governor but both the Council and the Assembly are scandalized. For there it is plainly said that "as matters now stand, their liberties and properties are precarious, and that slavery is like to be entailed on them and their posterity." And then again Mr. Zenger says, "The Assembly ought to despise the smiles or frowns of a governor; that he thinks the law is at an end; that we see men's deeds destroyed, judges arbitrarily displaced, new courts erected without consent of the legislature; that it seems that trials by jury are taken away when a governor pleases; and that none can call anything his own longer than those in the administration will condescend to let him do it."Mr. Attorney added that he did not know what could be said in defense of a man that had so notoriously scandalized the Governor and the principal magistrates and officers of the government by charging them with deprivingthe people of their rights and liberties, taking away trial by jury, and, in short, putting an end to the law itself. If this was not a libel, he said, he did not know what was one. Such persons as will take those liberties with governors and magistrates he thought ought to suffer for stirring up sedition and discontent among the people.He concluded by saying that the government had been very much traduced and exposed by Mr. Zenger before he was taken notice of; that at last it was the opinion of the Governor and the Council that he ought not to be suffered to go on to disturb the peace of the government by publishing such libels against the Governor and the chief persons in the government; and therefore they had directed this prosecution to put a stop to this scandalous and wicked practice of libeling and defaming His Majesty's government and disturbing His Majesty's peace.Mr. Chambers then summed up to the jury, observing with great strength of reason on Mr. Attorney's defect of proof that the papers in the information were false, malicious, or seditious, which it was incumbent on him to prove to the jury, and without which they could not on their oaths say that they were so as charged.It is a commonplace of legal thinking that in a jury trial it is one thing to have the facts on your side, another thing to have the law on your side, a third thing to have the judge on your side, but best of all is to have a respected lawyer. Zenger clearly had the last as well as the first - and his strong points were far weightier than his weaknesses with the jury.Case for the DefenseMR. HAMILTON. "May it please Your Honor, I agree with Mr. Attorney that government is a sacred thing, but I differ widely from him when he would insinuate that the just complaints of a number of men who suffer under a bad administration is libeling that administration. Had I believed that to be law, I should not have given the Court the trouble of hearing anything that I could say in this cause."I own that when I read the information I had not the art to find out, without the help of Mr. Attorney's innuendos, that the Governor was the person meant in every period of that newspaper. I was inclined to believe that they were written by some who, from an extraordinary zeal for liberty, had misconstrued the conduct of some persons in authority into crimes; and that Mr. Attorney, out of his too great zeal for power, had exhibited this information to correct the indiscretion of my client, and at the same time to show his superiors the great concern he had lest they should be treated with any undue freedom."But from what Mr. Attorney has just now said, to wit, that this prosecution was directed by the Governor and the Council, and from the extraordinary appearance of people of all conditions, which I observe in Court upon this occasion, I have reason to think that those in the administration have by this prosecution something more in view, and that the people believe they have a good deal more at stake, than I apprehended. Therefore, as it is become my duty to be both plain and particular in this cause, I beg leave to bespeak the patience of the Court.""I was in hopes as that terrible Court where those dreadful judgments were given, and that law established, which Mr. Attorney has produced for authorities to support this cause, was long ago laid aside as the most dangerous Court to the liberties of the people of England that ever was known in that kingdom - that Mr. Attorney, knowing this, would not have attempted to set up a star chamber here, nor to make their judgments a precedent to us. For it is well known that what would have been judged treason in those days for a man to speak, has since not only been practiced as lawful, but the contrary doctrine has been held to be law.""In Brewster's case for printing that subjects might defend their rights and liberties by arms in case the king should go about to destroy them, he was told by the Chief justice that it was a great mercy he was not proceeded against for his life; for to say the king could be resisted by arms in any case whatsoever was express treason. And yet we see since that time, that Doctor Sacheverell was sentenced in the highest court in Great Britain for saying that such a resistance was not lawful. Besides, as times have made very great changes in the laws of England, so in my opinion there is good reason that [other] places should do so too."Is it not surprising to see a subject, upon receiving a commission from the king to be a governor of a Colony in America, immediately imagining himself to be vested with all the prerogatives belonging to the sacred person of his princes? And, which is yet more astonishing, to see that a people can be so wild as to allow of and acknowledge those prerogatives and exemptions, even to their own destruction? Is it so hard a matter to distinguish between the majesty of our sovereign and the power of a governor of The Plantations?' Is not this making very free with our prince, to apply that regard, obedience, and allegiance to a subject, which is due only to our sovereign."And yet in all the cases which Mr. Attorney has cited to show the duty and obedience we owe to the supreme magistrate, it is the king that is there meant and understood, although Mr. Attorney is pleased to urge them as authorities to prove the heinousness of Mr. Zenger's offense against the Governor of New York. The several Plantations are compared to so manylarge corporations, and perhaps not improperly. Can anyone give an instance that the head of a corporation ever put in a claim to the sacred rights of majesty? Let us not, while we are pretending to pay a great regard to our prince and his peace, make bold to transfer that allegiance to a subject which we owe to our king only."What strange doctrine is it to press everything for law here which is so in England? I believe we should not think it a favor, at present at least, to establish this practice. In England so great a regard and reverence is had to the judges that if any man strikes another in Westminster Hall while the judges are sitting, he shall lose his right hand and forfeit his land and goods for so doing. Although the judges here claim all the powers and authorities within this government that a Court of King's Bench has in England, yet I believe Mr. Attorney will scarcely say that such a punishment could be legally inflicted on a man for committing such an offense in the presence of the judges sitting in any court within the Province of New York. The reason is obvious. A quarrel or riot in New York can not possibly be attended with those dangerous consequences that it might in Westminster Hall; nor, I hope, will it be alleged that any misbehavior to a governor in The Plantations will, or ought to be, judged of or punished as a like undutifulness would be to our sovereign."From all of which, I hope Mr. Attorney will not think it proper to apply his law cases, to support the cause of his governor, which have only been judged where the king's safety or honor was concerned."It will not be denied that a freeholder in the Province of New York has as good a right to the sole and separate use of his lands as a freeholder in England, who has a right to bring an action of trespass against his neighbor for suffering his horse or cow to come and feed upon his land or eat his corn, whether enclosed or not. Yet I believe it would be looked upon as a strange attempt for one man here to bring an action against another whose cattle and horses feed upon his grounds that are not enclosed, or indeed for eating and treading down his corn, if that were not enclosed."Numberless are the instances of this kind that might be given to show that what is good law at one time and in one place is not so at another time and in another place. So that I think the law seems to expect that in these parts of the world men should take care, by a good fence, to preserve their property from the injury of unruly beasts. And perhaps there may be a good reason why men should take the same care to make an honest and upright conduct a fence and security against the injury of unruly tongues."MR. ATTORNEY. "I don't know what the gentleman means by comparing cases of freeholders in England with freeholders here. What has this case to do with actions of trespass or men's fencing their ground? The case before the Court is whether Mr. Zenger is guilty of libeling His Excellency the Governor of New York, and indeed the whole administration of the government. Mr. Hamilton has confessed the printing and publishing, and I think nothing is plainer than that the words in the information are 'scandalous, and tend to sedition, and to disquiet the minds of the people of this Province.' If such papers are not libels, I think it may be said that there can be no such thing as a libel."MR. HAMILTON. "May it please Your Honor, I cannot agree with Mr. Attorney. For although I freely acknowledge that there are such things as libels, yet I must insist at the same time that what my client is charged withis not a libel. And I observed just now that Mr. Attorney, in defining a libel, made use of the words 'scandalous, seditious, and tend to disquiet the people.' But, whether with design or not I will not say, he omitted the word 'false.'MR. ATTORNEY. "I think that I did not omit the word 'false.' But it has been said already that it may be a libel notwithstanding that it may be true."MR. HAMILTON. "In this I must still differ with Mr. Attorney. For I depend upon it that we are to be tried upon this information now before the Court and the jury, and to which we have pleaded 'Not guilty.' By it we are charged with printing and publishing 'a certain false, malicious, seditious, and scandalous libel.' This word 'false' must have some meaning, or else how came it there? I hope Mr. Attorney will not say he put it there by chance, and I am of the opinion that his information would not be good without it. But to show that it is the principal thing which, in my opinion, makes a libel, suppose that the information had been for printing and publishing a certain true libel, would that be the same thing? Or could Mr. Attorney support such an information by any precedent in the English law? No, the falsehood makes the scandal, and both make the libel. And to show the Court that I am in good earnest, and to save the Court's time and Mr. Attorney's trouble, 1 will agree that if he can prove the facts charged upon us to be false, 1 shall own them to be scandalous, seditious, and a libel. So the work seems now to be pretty much shortened, and Mr. Attorney has now only to prove the words false in order to make us guilty."MR. ATTORNEY. "We have nothing to prove. You have confessed the printing and publishing. But if it were necessary, as I insist it is not, how can we prove a negative? I hope some regard will be had to the。
