National Republican., 1873-03-07
4 MOTH ER LIBEL SUIT.
GRACE HCRDLE VS.. THE REPUBLICAN.
Tho Prosecution Defeated In tho First Legal
Skiruiish, and Allowed to Amend Their
DeeluraIion-A Statement Of the Cnsc.

Skiruiish, and Allowed to Amend Their
Deeluration-A Statement Of the Case.
The present SUIT against the RErrBncAN for
libel grows out Of nn article published about one
rear ago In relation to one Charles W. Butts,
who was charged with the most vile and disgust
ing practices with somc Of the female pupils Of
the First school district. Most Of our readers
viii remember the article in question, and 1t Is
not necessary to make further reference to IL,
Supreme Court Of the District Of Columbia. Hon.
D, X. Cartier, (holding Circuit Court, presld.
ing) Grace Hurdle Va. The NArioSAL RErrp.
LieAN' Counsel for the plaintiff, Hon. A. @.
Riddle and T, Miller; counsel for defendant,
Col VIM. A. Cook and Richard Harrington, esq.
The above entitled case being called yesterday
morning, tho following named Jurors were en-.
panneled TO try the same; Henderson Fowler,
Wm. II. Parker, George Becker, John W. Hote-
lcr, Robert A. Gn1ln, Charles Edmonston, Robt.
Taliaferro, Charles Kloman, Joseph Brooks
Henry o. Hood, Columbus o. Wall, Daniel W,
Bills.
orrSrd srEEcn or Mr.. RIDDLE.
The Jury being sworn, Mr.. Riddle opened the
case 70 the Jury In the following language!
Gentlemen OF tho lpryi This Z an action
Mr.. Hurdle foI his little daughter here (polntina
70 the plaintfO, against the publishers Of Inc
DAILY NArIosAL REFrBLicAS newspaper
The cause Of action l. set forth In this declara.
tlon, which will state the substance Of. II viii
probably be made TO appear, gentlemen Of the
jury, that this young gid, who Ia about ffteen
years OF age, OF who was At tho commencement
of this sui, about a year ago, was In ATTENDANCE
upon the public schools; that some difficulty
arose, and that au article was published, as we
Sn gHe "a Gs M ,Ss pHrpons
NeS severe chaiRe against a man by the name
Of Butts, who has no connection with this matter
further than IN speaking Of him, they speak In.
II Is alleged THAT he had dchauched the mind
o. one gal lmeaning the plaintiff, Grace Hurdle,
who sues by her fathef,l TO such an extent that
the trustees (moaning the trustees OF the public
schools) had expelled her lthe plalntifD from the
school to prevent the spreading Of her evil In.
1uenee. lie speaking Of this same man had In
dueed her 10 act the part Of q procuress, and TO
bring her companions to his room"
These arc ne charges, gentlemen Of the Jury.
We expect 70 show they were published Of aud
come une6asic, impure, and corrupt; and that 10
that extent she acted as a procufcss, leading
away and attempting to seduco her little asso-
Clates In your daily schools to visit with her the
placc where this man met them, as IL alleged.
| have no purpose, either now or at any time,
70 say anything about this matter further than
10 bring u 10 tho notice Of the court and Jury
II provo these facts, gentlemen, and II il i moi
q case that should meet the fair honest, and i'm.
partial Judgment Of Jury Of this District, then
i NhNt uNNuluH " Say uN way OIL nnN nnnpnl to
passions, or other considerations, one way or
the other This will be our whole case,
William 7. earn sworn for plaintiff; examined
by Mr.. Riddle:
q. Are you acquainted with the REPUBLICAN
newspaper In this city7 A. Yes, sir; l am very
well acquainted with II.
Q. Rave you had any connection with the
paper as TepoEter7 A. I have been connected
with the paper seven years.
Mr.. Riddle. submit. II the court please, this
paper, purPSrilng to be copy o. the REruBLi.
not eopy7 A. That seems to DO a copy OF the
RErrBLicAN.
Q. Who - tho proprietor and publisher Of the
REfrpLicAS7 A. William J. Mnrtagh.
q. DO you know what the daily Circulation Of
ms paper was year ago7 A. cannot say pos
iiiyelyi ! think about eight or nine thousand,
though am not certain about that.
Y. II had large circulation? A. Yes, air,
q. larger circulation than any morning daily
in the G,y? 4, think It has.
Mr. Riddle. now propose to read fne article
and offer the Objectionable part in evidence, The
whole article, OF course, will go In.
Mr.. Cook. u your Honor please, we object TO
the whole article being read In evidence.
The Couh, have not heard a statement OF
issues are,
aplea Of the genenl issuo-slmply lolnder In
issue.
Mr. Cook. would say that the objection we
nave 10 present at this point arises upon the form
The Court That have not heard read. heard
Its substance stated.
NJ. Riddle. It Is framed without. what We call
The Court. Or "lnnuendo.r
Mr. Riddle. II has "lnnuendoes" pointing TO
this GID, Of course. II the gentleman deslres, 1
The Court. No special defect in the declaration
IA brought to light In the issue taken IL must
be general defect, n any.
alton AZ no2n R Re reads tho
Mr. Riddle then read the declaration.
AZ tho conclusion OF the reading, Mr. Cook
said The deelaIatlon, as your Honor viii OBJ
serve, seis ont the composing and publication Of
an al Gle In which these words were contained:
"Having debauched the mind OF one girl 10
such an extent that the trustees have expelled
her from the school to prevent the spread Of her
evil influence, no induced her TO act the part Of
pTocuTess, and to bring hsr companions to his
room. When there he made the most obscene
and loathsome proposals, and allied the minds Of
the children with the most lOathsome ideas"
Now, your Honor will see that IN the part set
tofth as libelous there Is no reference TO any
particular individual by name. Tho expression
used u simply Zone HiFl,' and the pTUnoun
giIl."
Now, It Is true that there has, TO some extent
heen modification In this court OF the forms Oh
pleading which prevail At common law, but II Is
equally true that those forms will not dispense
with what Is essential In an action OF libel, a.
stated; for Instance, in Statkic on SANDER.
lllcte the counsel for the defendant read from
The following authorities In support OF his posi-
lloHs Isl anu ~ NOls. Nt Et1fkle on Evidence,
Townsend on slander and Libel, ist edition,
pages ia, 40, az as, 425; Taylor vs.. TiOtson,
Hlll, o0I; Holt on Libel, 2lI; Harvey Va. Comm,
Blaektord, 900; Maxwell VS.. Miller, 10 Wendell
And so the authorities proceed to an indeanlte
extent. Now, here there Is an attempt on the
part OF the plaltin TO prove extnnslc facts
resting upon mere lnnuendOes, but the authOTi-
ties say that inuuenloes are not the subject OF
proof unless they refer TO extIinslc fact or mat
ter any lnducement aveTment or collOquium.
Nhht u II that IL attempted TO be proved here
without eollOqulum, without Inducement, with
out setting forth Of aycTments7 That one
ButtA.had debauched the mind OF this plaintiff;
that she was expelled from tae public schools;
that she was dentaved aud corrupt, and acted AS
prOcuress for Butts, To do that II became es-
hential, in order that the declaration be framed
IN accordance with oil the authorities, TO aver
The existence Of Butts. To set out as an extrin.
SIC and independent fact that Butts had rooms
10 which children were taken for the purpose OF
G,on nuPllng thelT mofals and depraylng their
from school was attending Of the school, and
was expelled from particular school, designat-
ing u; But mere there are none Of these facts
the declaration the Oner Is to prove them all.
In the Ohio Criminal Law Reports perhaps the
whole doctfine Is more clearly stated:
"WheIe II Is necessary to explain a word by
reference 10 something that has preceded Ii,
either IN the libel or IN the Introductory part OF
the lndlctmenian innuendo is used. An lnnuendO
eau he made available In explanation only whore
has already been given In the charge
TO ground the explanation. The ONCE Of the
innuendO Is 10 direct to Its object the charge
made. II can neither enlarge nor restrain the
natural sense and import Of the words used; II
they do not convey the sense aud meaning when
their application Is explained, the innuendo can
not aid them. II Is the Otice Of the Introduction
10 connect the libel with CNtTinsic facts but II Is
the once Of tho inuuendO TO Only connect the |
Inherent pats Of the libel, or the libel with the |
Introduction lWarfen's Ohio Criminal Law, p |
j29 and y54
The Court There IS not any doubt about that
1octflnc, but there Is question Of pleading
hero that Is Important.
Mr.. Cook. Yes, That Is the point.
The Court. THIS declaration Is met by the plea |
n mot Ruiliy2'
Mr.. Cook, Yes, sir.
The CGuIt. You Will ind these cases you have |
,ited 10 have been decided on demurrer.
NJ. Harrington. No, slfi on motion for arrest
NJ. Cook, And some of them under the plea
of mot guilty"
The COnit. Turn to that case in Wendell and
zee u u was not decided on demurrer
M, Riddle. have followed exactly the rules
n this Court.
The Court. This matter Il important, and has
rot 20 no Proved for the article does not identify
Inybody. j. Ia blank In reference to identity.
I sets forth 4 condition Of things that might re-
ult In Identity, with the HnpeTadtIon OF other
acts, but nobody would know from the naked
cadlng Of the article what child was referred 10
o II.
Nc. Cook. have examined this case In Wen.
'el, and the pleading sol up there was tho gen.
raj issue, precisely The same as Is set up here.
The Court. How did the question come up7 |