It's called get a book and do it yourself
Andrew Hamilton
Andrew Hamilton was his lawyer.
Andrew Hamilton defended him against his trial.
John Peter Zenger
because he is a man
Andrew Hamilton was John Peter Zenger's Lawyer in 1735.
In 1735 John Peter Zenger of the New York Weekly Journal faced charges of libel for printing a critical report about the royal governor of New York. Andrew Hamilton argued that free speech was a basic right of English people. he defended Zenger by asking the jury to base its decision on weather Zenger's article was true, not weather Zenger'sarticle offensive. the jury found Zenger not guilty. at the time the case attracted little attention but today it is regarded as an important step in the development of a free press in America.
No, no relation (or no close relation -- both did have Scottish ancestry). Andrew Hamilton, the Philadelphia lawyer from the 1735 Zenger trial, died in 1741. Alexander Hamilton, the Founding Father and Federalist, was born in 1755 and raised in the West Indies until age 11.
In 1735 John Peter Zenger of the New York Weekly Journal faced charges of libel for printing a critical report about the royal governor of New York. Andrew Hamilton argued that free speech was a basic right of English people. he defended Zenger by asking the jury to base its decision on weather Zenger's article was true, not weather Zenger'sarticle offensive. the jury found Zenger not guilty. at the time the case attracted little attention but today it is regarded as an important step in the development of a free press in America.
Peter Zenger
yes they are. research says that they went to the new world together as brothers.
The Zenger trial refers to the 1735 court case of John Peter Zenger, a New York printer charged with libel for publishing criticisms of the colonial governor, William Cosby. Zenger's defense, led by lawyer Andrew Hamilton, argued that truth should be a defense against libel, challenging the prevailing legal standards of the time. The jury acquitted Zenger, establishing a precedent for freedom of the press and the principle that truthful statements about public officials cannot be deemed libelous. This case is often seen as a foundational moment for American journalism and free speech.