Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1863-10-10


binder Of the State Department. and was prr-
s0nail{ acquainted with the defendant In tnis
sun. He (Mr. Carrington) offered this to show
was the author Of the libellous word . Contained
In the Indictment. eo1 '''n7o
Mr.. Bradley argued that the libe,,ous matter
charged here Is specific libel, i'm A snarit,c
form, and must be SO proved Mr. Rp edins
doubted whether Mr.. Darlington could nroIn,s
any dictum {he would not say authority, which
would allow MN TO prove anything but the
that certain Gbellous matter was Published in
I book called Diary from March, 1881. IN
November. 1862" and therefore the witness
was not competent to prove that the libellous
matter was in existence in q manuscript in
September, 1862, for the book described in the
Indictment had not then been published.
MIR. Bradley argued further that the fact tn at
defendant took proof sheets to Mr.. Chase and
requested him to bind them, does not prove
that he lthe defendant1 composed the matter.
composed the lib llous matter, and it was in
cumbent upon the prosecution to prove the
composition by the defendant MIR. Brady
argued that the notice given yesterday to pro-
duce the proof sheet spoken Of by witness was
The court said the only question was whether
notice given pending the trial was such j
reasonable notice as is required by law.
Mr.. Bradley read from works on evidence to
show that notice during trial was not q reas-
on able notice. He would also state that the
defendant did not have the proof sheets re-
papers in New York.
Mr.. Carrington argued that the question as to
whether the notice was given in reasonable
time was one to be decided by the Court He
(Mr. Carringtonl held that the notice was suf-
ficient, and that the prosecution could not know
OF the existence of that paper, and that Mr.
Gurowski should have it in his possession He
had traced the proof sheets in Mr. Gurowski's
possession, and he would prove that the defan.
dant's name was Adam Gurowski, and that ne
was the only one OF that name in this city.
w INN ,rta
ton should be settled on some general prin-
.ciples. 1t was impossible for the Court to
ira verse the special circumstances of this case,
but there was general principle that notice
to produce certain paper must be reason able;
generally before the term of trial. The Court
would not hold notice to party to produce
a paper which he had in his possession, TO be
unreasonable during the tendency of Il trial:
but it was not to be supposed that the defend
AM would carry around these proof sheets in
his pocket, or in his trunk, as he would a
greenback or a railroad ticket 1t was entirely
too troublesome and cumbersome, especially at
this time. The Court did not, therefore, con-
slider the notice to Mr.. G urowski sufficient
Mr.. George Randall, printer at Mr. M0,re,s
office, called and sWorn.-Witness knew Cunt
GuTowski. Mr.. Gurowski called at nv pla.e
of business and ordered a publication. ana
called afterW ards and told us to hurry it nm
This was in last August year.
The Indictment was here handed to witness
and he read the matter charged as libelIous.
Question by MI Carrington.-Have you seen
the libel charged in the Indictment i'll any pLo-
lshed book .~. @sra.
Ans. Answer saw that matter in the book plh,
llshed as ssDlary." Witness never read the
whole book. Saw it at Philip & solomon 5, aud
portion OF it recognized.
Mr. Bradley here objected to the witness tes-
Trying further, and the objection was sus-
tanned. =a.@~.
Mr.. ". Fl. Moore, printer, knows Mr.. q urow-
SKI. he ~ uroWskD called at my place of bus
ness, and left word for me to call at the State
Department. MIR. G.. told witness he wanted
him to print diary, and that he intended TO
rewrite it and publish it in the form OF a book
Mr.. Gurowski wanted the book printtd on let
ter paper with a wide margin, SO as to make
correction. No other person by the name of
Adam Gurowski ever called to see witness.
Ar. Bester, clerk in Franek T~ylor's book.
"DIary from March, 1861, to November, 1902
William Hunter, Esq, Chief Clerk of the State
Department, sworn.-Has been acting as Chief
Clerk OF the State Department. do not know
Adam Gurowski, and don't wish to know him
know him by sight. Have seen him frequently
in the State Department, but always avoided
him on account OF his previous character. lie
was employed as temporary clerk from April,
1861. What his business exactly was 1 cannot
say. The only thing ever knew him do was
from presumption that no one else in the
United States could do it. Never had a word
with Mr.. Gurowski. There is NO one else of
that name in the city.
Mr. Bradley said he would ask the Court to
instruct the jury that there was no evidence
that Mr.. Gurowsh was the composer Of this
libel. ......-~..
Mr. Darlington offered the book "Diary from
March, 1861, to November, 1862, - in evidence.
Mr.. Bradley objected, and recapitulated the
evidence and argued that there was no evil
dence that Mr.. Gurowsh was the au nor of
the alleged libel, and therefore could not charge
Mr.. Gnrowski with being either the composer
or publisher. The District Attorney has not
connected the defendant with the book, and
therefore why should it 60 to the jury: Mr..
Bradley would here say that Mr. euro wski
had no more to do with the publication Of the
book than he (Mr. b. had 1t was not neces-
sary to go into proof Of that now.
MIR. Darlington argued that the fact of Mr..
GuroW ski knowing Of the sale and Giro ulation
Of the book under his name, was not only
pT1md fdcie, but, conclusive evidence that he
was tbs author and publisher Of the book. He
argued that 1t was for the jury to say whether
Court TO say whether such evidence has been
offered. 1t has been fully proved that the de.
fendant was as an employee Of the State De.
partment, and that he was the only one of the
name of Adam GuroWski in the city. Ii IS
evident that the book was written by some one
in the State Department, and therefore tue book,
bearing Mr.. Gurowskfs name, was ample evi.
dence that he was the author. Putting ali the
facts together. the above mentioned and the
tact that Mr.. q urowski went to Mr.. Chase and
requested him TO bind certain papers and main
tain secrecy, was further evidence that the de.
.fendant the author of the book.
MIR. Bradley said this was the first time in
: the course of his experience that he ever heard
that man was to be charged with libel be-
cause his name appeared upon the pubiica-
ton. Mr.. b. argued that in a crimin II pro-
ceeding all things were denied, and ali things
Were to be proven by the prosecution. 1t was
the duty CT the prosecution 70 prove that Mr.
GErowski was the author OF that book, ana
that had not been core. Mr.. Bradley further
argued that there was no evidence whatever
to TX the authorship and publication Of the
book upon Count Gurowsk, and therefore il
was not proper TO give the book itself to the
: Judge Cartier said: The question now pre-
scented is whether the court will admit this
book or that portion OF it -naned IN the indict-
ment to be read in evidence TO tn. jury. II is
said to contain a libel agitanst Mr.. Hunter,
nublic func gionary, OF good reputation, as
well know from otficiaiintsrcourse The court
is not called upon to w"irh tho merits Of the
libel one way or the other, but to pronounce
simply upon the competency of the item of
testimony Is there proof that he Count Gu
volume or that portion of it relating to the libel
charged in the Indictment which was read to
the jury is the questions, and the only question.
1t is urged by the prosecutor that there is, and
there arc four or five items fproof Tor what is
assumed by him to be proof authorizing it to
go to the jury. It is conceded that it cannot