The daily gazette., 1880-05-22
FIRST EDITION.
THE COUNTY COURTS.
An Afternoon with the Libel Suit.
THE PLAINTIFFS CLOSE RATHER
ABRUPTLY, AND THE DEFENSE
MOVE FOR NON-sUIT-ARGUME
ON THE MOTION.

ON THE MOTION.
Special dispatch to the Gazette.
NEW CASTLE, May 21.
In the libel suit of VIM. T. Croasdale
VS.. VIM. Bright, after the plaintiffs got
through with endeavoring to force DR..
Tantum TO admit that Mr.. Bright never
demonstrated with him for using his
name in publishing the libelous article
complained Of, Mr.. Albert l.. Richard
son, business manager of Erery Eoening
was put upon the stand and requested to
state the amount of Mr.. Croasdale's edi-
torial salary. He replied $1,000 per
year, but before the answer had fairly
left his lips, the defense objected to the
question.
The Court asked the plaintiffs If they
intended TO follow up this question with
proof showing that his salary had been
Affected by the libelous publication, aud
informed them that they could prove
their clients rank and standing In his
profession.
Mr.. Richardson said among journalists
Of his acquaintance Mir. Croasdale's repu-
tation rs an editor of skill and ability
was firet-class.
Lemuel Malone, editor and proprietor
Of the Salisbury, Nd, Advertiser, was
called to the stand, and the defense stat
ing they would admit Mr.. Croasdale's
editorial character and ability to be FIRST
class. Mr.. Bird said the plaintiffs expect
ed to prove by the witness what darca.e
1t is to an editor of newspaper to have
such an article published about him, ,un-
less it were promptly refuted in Court.
The Court asked Mr.. Bird ii he want
ed to prove by the witness what amount
OF damage the jury ought to give in this
case. This must be merely an opinion,
for this witness cannot tell how much
Croasdale was damaged. The Chief
Justice then asked Mr.. BIRD to cite his
authorities for asking such questions.
Mr.. Bates asked If he could inquire
of the witness what effect such publi-
cation would have on an editor in his
relations with business men.
The Chief Justice asked Mr.. Bates for
his authorities for such question.
Col. Whiteley said it was a mere mat
ter OF opinion on which editors differed.
James Gordon Bennett, the elder, nc
doubt was always glad to engage in O
| libel suit on account of the uotoriety and
| increased circulation 1t secured for his
/
paper.
Judge Houston said Mr.. Bennett did
not object to even whipping occasion
ally.
Mr.. Bird said if the plaintiff were
asked to admit that Mi. Croasdale'
salary had been reduced by reason o
the publication they could not do so.
With the point of the admission o
| ATalAnn1a akin tnnaaffloA
Court at 1.l5 o'clock, took recess unit
3p. m.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
On Resembling at 3 o'clock, Col. Ma
lone was recalled to the stand, and MI
Bates, for the plaintiff, argued that tn
plaintiffs had right to prove by thi
witness whose occupation was similar b
that OF Croasdale's the natural as the on
complained of to injure a man in hi
business.
The Court said they could prove tina
the natural effect of the dsparagin
words could be to affect the public cor
hidence in the plaintiffs reliability an
character.
Aftor considerable arguing, and find
ing they could get nothing out Of thei
| WlIIltAS III Vic way vi dh ODlhlOh
damages that would be appliable TO thei
case, the defense withdrew MIR Malone
Mr.. Bird then said the plaintiffs pre-
posed to call witnesses to prove Croa
! dole's character as citizen, and asked
the defense objected.
Mr.. Lore said the defense did object
,, The character of the plaintiff was pre-
! sumed to be good until 1t was attacke
! and when the defense attacked 1t,
\ would be time enough for the proof I
its excellence. Mr.. Lore quoted from 8
Harrington to show that where plea {
. not guilty is entered by the defense, IL
r plaintiff cannot give his character |
o evidence either for the aggregation
daHages or in support OF his averment
The character OF the plaintiff not bell
at.issue, and he cannot pl oduce eviden
In regard TO it until it is attacked.
The Chief Justice, after the discussic
had gone Oh several minutes, said u
law presumes the character of the plant
TO be good. His professional rank al
standing could be proved but his chara
ter Is no. at issue in the case.
The witnesses as to character we
not called but the plaintiffs mother M
Martha r. CrCasdale was put upon u
stand, and the plaintiffs said they wis
ed to prove by her that her son was b
sole support, and that his only source
revenue was the salary he received
n editing the paper.
y The Chief Justice said he could n
"a sc @ the use of it, man was to take ca
of his family, ami the law presumes
does so,
80 Mr.. Whiteley said the proposed pre-
Il had nothing to do with the case.
Mr.. Bird said he wanted to prove th
ne the plaintiff had no other means
al support than his position on the pap
The Court asked Mr.. Bird If he pI
n posed to follow this up by proving Il
81 su of money in this respect.
'h Mr.. Bates said 1t was proper to pro
whether the plaintiff supported on
On himself or family; maintenance OF
ay family tends to prove mans rank
the community.
es Col Whiteley-In other words, tina
cb married mau is better than a bachel
Mr.. Bates said it would be gra'
- offense to publish libel against n
!ai y! at the head of family than II he. had
III such responsibility.
The Court-Show your author
rn- for such a proposition. We ne
heard of q case, where man bee;
er- he had wife and family was EMIT
CO. lA