The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1878-03-14


case of Mr.. Clark, the STAT barber"
charged with an assault and battery on
]. d. L liott, was called in the police
court at go Saturday morning. The
STATESMAN had announced the hour
that the show would begin, and the
house was packed before the cur
tain raised on the frat act. There
was considerable difficulty expert
enced in finding men to act as jury
men who were wiling to say sthatthey
were not prejudiced in the csses Some
ten or dozen men were rejected be-
cause of this fact, and the marshal was
over half an hour getting six willing,
lawful, upprejudiced jurors. He was
instructed to summons men not in the
court room at the time. To re.
heve the restlessness the mayor adj
journed court for ten minutes. One
of the attorneys for the defense then
got copy of the Police Ness and re-
tired to an aldeIman's desk and conf
menced reading up in the annals of
crime, blood and thunder. The case
was opened by Mr.. Wildly, the city at
torney, who read the complaint of Col.
Elliott, setting forth that MIR. Clark
has struck, beat and bruised him.
The complainant was the fret TO take
the witness stand, and his testimony
was the same that appeared in the
STATESMAN, except that he denied that
he promised to retract. He denied the
authorship and said that Mr.. Davis, his
local editor, had written the paragraphs
against Clark, and that he, Elliott. sell
dom read the locals in ais paper. This
was careless admission that the
State policeman, as charged by the
STATESMAN, is the local editor of the
Gazette; in other words, he draws q
salary as a member of the froRtler bat
talon, but uses his time IN editing
the Gd1ette-the organ. -Four witnesses
were examined, and all concurred that
the shaking of the barbarous editor by
the fat barber was vigorous, and the
abuse full and complete, but that not
a blow was struck or bruise made, as
was charged in the complaint. Mr..
Wildly opened the argument. He said,
forcibly, that the articles published
against Clark were of a libelous and
slanderous nature, calculated to ex.
asperate person, and that he
sympathizsd with Clark; but that it
was his duty to prosecute him, and he
asked the. jury to bring. in verdict of
guilty. Messrs. Pendexter and Ward,
who appeared for the defense, said that
never before IN their practice had they
heard q lawyer brand his client as II
slanderer and libeller and then ask a
Jury to bring in verdict of gnilty. on
healthy grinning. They made very
sensible and appropriate remarks on the
power for good or evil of the press,
and severely censured editors who
dealt in low, vulgar, personal abuse
and then attempted to shift the re-
sponsibiity of such publications on
their employees. either writers, print
ers, or roller boys. For the sake of
society, they said, the press should al
ways be high toned and dignifed, and
ever ready and willing to uphold the
best interests of the country and the
community. Both made brief
speeches, but their remarks were
well chosen, fluent, entertaining and
convincing. The jury rendered YER
dict of aequittal in both cases without
leaving the box. and the audience DEM
oAssrated It's approval OF the Jury's
convection Of right by applause. The
ssfat barber heretofore but slightly
known Ia Austin, stands vindicated
by jury and by public sentiment
OF the charge of committing coward
ly assault, and the testimony and the
verdict gave positive contra
diction 10 the assertion that
the STArKsNAS had wandered
from the truth in its report of how the
- fat barber shook the barbarism cut
of the editor on the seventh inst.
Perhaps = few more shakings may
bring an end to personal journalism in
this city. We know now, Il we never
did before, how public sentiment in
this city stands upon miscellaneous
" dirt-throwir q, ct as have an end
Of It. q -. t