The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1875-05-28
OUR LIBEL SUIT.
The Press i'm GOurt-Trial of the Case OF
Stephen Grant VS.. the Press-First Days
Proceedings.

Yesterday was the time set by Judge virgin
for the trial, and both parties were IN atteha
ance Hon. f. o. j. Smith and Messrs. Cobb
& Ray are counsel for the plaintiff, and Hon.
L. b. Reed for the defendant
When Judge Virgin called upon the PLAIN
tiff's counsel to proceed. they objected to the
pleadings filed by defendants counsel, on the
ground of their general character and lntmated
that they should be set aside and further time
given. Judge Virgin said that he had post
poned the case from time to time, and after
notice of two weeks had called the jury to try
the case. 1t must be tried now or not at all.
He said the plaintiff could move a demurrer
and he would hear him on that. The counsel
thought this was not best and the trial pro-
ceeded, but counsel objected to all testimony
under the general specification which the
Judge allowed.
The case was opened for the plaintiff by
Colonel Cobb, who stated that the charge con-
sisted of the publication of the following arti-
Gle in the Portland Daily PRESS on the 18th OF
August 1874:
"Mean assault Yesterday noon Stephen
Grant was engaged in cleaning one of the Gel
lars in the vicinity of Gorham's Corner. A man
named Charles Gillen was helping him; and 1t
appears that the latter having worked as long
as he agreed, was preparing to leave, when
Grant objected, snd quarrel ensued, in which
Grant struck Gillen in the eye with shower,
nearly cutting bis eye out. Grant was arrested
and will be tried this morning. He is hard
case and has the reputation of being the Dig
gest liar in the state"
The counsel then spoke in glowing terms OF
the PRESS as the leading paper ia the state
and having an influence second to none there
in. They claimed that the article was pub
lished in the PRESS on the 18th of August,
1874; that the plaintiff was the man meant In
the article; all of which the defendants ad-
mitted. The counsel claimed that the publl-
cation of the article tended to injure the credit
and fair fame of the plaintiff. The case of the
plaintiff was rested without putting in any
oral testimony.
The defence pleaded the general issue with a
brief statement that said alleged libel was
printed ard published without the knowledge,
consent or suspicion of said defendants; that
it could not have been prevented by any reas-
enable diligence; that il was without malice;
and that it was true in substance.
The opening by Mr.. Reed was very brief and
to the point. He said that they proposed to
put in evidence to prove that the article in
question was written by reporter who at the
time had not been employed on the paper but
a short time; that Mr.. Pullen, the edtor-in-
chief, and the city editor were out of town, and
that the article did not come to the notice OF
any of the editors; that when Mr.. Pullen re-
turned home he had an interview with Mr.
Grants counsel and offered to make proper
explanation, but was unable to, as Mr.. Grant
would not agree to the terms.
S. I. Pullen,the editor-in-chief of the PRESS,
was the first witness for the defence. He tes-
titled as follows: The Portland Press is own
ed by the Portland Publishing Company. The
stock of the company is owned Hon. John
Lynch, L. A. Foster, 2. A. Smith and myself.
| was out of town at the time the alleged libel
was published 1t was written by a Young re-
porter and should have been revised by the
city editor, but he was out of town. did not
have any malice against Grant, and in fact did
not know him at the time of the publication.
Cross e1anai7aation-Had seen Grant but had
no special knowledge of him at the time of the
publication. There are APO shares in the com-
pany valued at 500 each, par yalnss
E. P. Mayo, the reporter who wrote the al
legged libel, was the next witness. He testified
as follows: Reside in Portland and have been
employed as a reporter on the Daily PRESS for
something over year. In the course OF busi-
ness was required to submit ali articles to Mr.
McIntire, city editor. wrote the paragraph
complained of, and obtained my information
at the police station. 1 obtained all points at
the police station, including the terms "hard
CASE and biggest liar" When I went into
the station Gillen and Grant were there, and
Gilen's clothes were covered with dirt His
eye was cut and his face was bloody. Didn' t
know Grant and never heard of him until the
day met him at the police station. Had no
mali ,e towards him.
S-eranaiYaation--DoD't know whether
Ora MT was present or not when the words
'liar' and ''hard case" were used. Mr.. Nc
Intire was out of town on the day of the al
legged assault, and Col. Smith, although in
town, was not in the office when the article
was written: Never knew Grant nor had any
malice against him. 1t was in the afternoon
when 1 was at the police station.
Charles Gilen, the young man who, 1t is al
legged in the article was assaulted by Grant,
testified as follows: l know Grant and was at
work for him on the afternoon of August 18th,
1874. 1 agreed to work until my father, who
was employed by Grant, should return. When
he returned started to leave the cellar where
I Was at work, but Grant objected and quar-
rel ensued. Ora at raised shovel and struck
me in the eye, cutting the organ nearly out. l
was laid up for some time aud have nearly lost
the sightof the eye.
CroSs-eranaindtion-In the quarrel Grant
struck me with the shovel. do not remember
whether the shovel was full of dirt or not. The
affair happened about four or five o'clock in
the afternoon I think. 1 was going for Grant
when he struck me.
Mr. Kdder, the Recorder in the Municipal
Court, was called to show that Grant paid
fine of $40 and costs for the alleged assault.
The cross. examination showed the facts that
Grant pleaded 7.oIo contendere and that Mr.. Lar.
rabee acted as counsel. There was no trial.
Col. o. A. Smith, associate editor of the
PRESS, was the next witness He testified as
follows: did not know of the existence OF
the article in question until saw it in the pa
per the morning that it was published. Had
no malice against Grant and did not know him
1 reproved the reporter for the publication.
No questions were asked by the opposing
counsel
T. o. Lambert was next called lie testified
as follows: Reside in Deering and know the
plaintiff. His reputation is bad.
The counsel for the defence at this point pro-
duced the following paper, which was identi'
fed by witness as belonging to him:
PORTLAND, Oct. 18th, 1873
1, Stephen Grant of sDeering, in the county
of Cum berland and State of Maine, voluntarily
state that wrongfully accused Zacheus o.
Lambert of said Deering, in pubic and at sew
eral times and in presence of a number of per
sons, of stealing hay from me during the sum
mer of 1873. l now desire to state publicl,
that said Lambert never stole any hay or any
thing else from me, at that or any other time
that had no reason for making said accuse
sation and that l regret that the same wa
made. OTEPHEN URANT'
Attest. John G. Cobb.
This paper was given to witness in part set
Element of a suit that he (witness) had com
| menced against Grant for SANDER. The wit
ness further testified that Grant paid him 81
| in money and all the costs.
Cross esdntindtion-I have" heard Edwin
| Cobb, Charles Cobb and Amos Abbott say tina
| Grants reputation for truth and veracity was
| bad. have also heard Lewis Grant say that h
t., foa "a. @o1I