The daily gazette., 1880-12-03
wrem Yesterdays Late Edition.
THE SUPERIOR COURT.
AGAIN THE LIBEL SUIT.
OPENING ARGUMENT FOR THE PLAIN
TIFF BIZ MR.. LORE.
Specially reported for the Gazette.


specially reported for the Gazette.
NEW CASTLE, Dec. 2.
Court met at the usual hour. this
morning, with full bench.
On motion of l.. 9. Bird, Esq, Aus
tin Harrington, Esq, was appointed
Commissioner to take testimony in the
case of Henry Daum vs. Lima Daum,
libel for divorce.
The case of Joseph b. Vandusen VS.
Enoch Moore, Jr., action ON a promis-
sorry note, marked for trial, was con-
tinued until next term.
The case of Thos. Conner vs. VIM.
b. Hickman, constable action for tres
pass, was settled by Judgment for de-
fendant for costs, ana the same settle
ment was made in the replevin case of
the Howe Machine Company VS.. Mary
Conner. In ID. M. Osborne 81 Co. VS..
James Nicholson, judgment was al
lowed for the plaintiff, with the usual
stay of execution, and also in the case
OF John w. Short vs.. VIM. Ii Lamb
sons Administrative.
This quite effectually disposed of
the trial list, and at 10 35 O'Clock,
Mr.. Lore commenced his argument for
| the plaintiff in the libel suit of the
Delawa'e State Fire and Marine In
surance Company vs.. VIM. T. Croas-
dale.
In opening he said this was case
that Involved the great question OF the
use aud abuse OF The press, and was one
ln which not only the character OF the
corporation plaintiff was involved, but
tbs private reputation of the persons
composing the corporation. lie also
| spoke of the difference between slander,
consisting Of words spoken In the heat
Of passion, aud libel, comprising calm,
deliberate utterauces thought out ana
written within the privacy Of the wri-
ter's sanctuary.
Mr.. Lore then took copies and files OF
the Every Evening, and read the libel.
GUS articles, with running comments
thereon, for about half an hour. He
next took up the connection Of Croas
dale with the writing of the libelous
articles, AMI argued that Cruasdale was
surely their author from the fact that
he was the editor-in-chief of the paper
was one Of the only three who wrote
editorials for the paper, and as the Other
TWO had declared from the stand thai
they did not write the libels, the Inevi
table conclusion was that Croasdalt
did. Mr.. Lore also reviewed the
position taken by the defense, in clam
ing to have published the li5els for tn,
public good, and then denying thei
authorship.
Mr.. Lore asked the jury to consider
carefully whether the condition ant
character of the company was such a.
to warrant the attacks made upon it
) aud proceeded TO review some of tn,
facts brought out by the TESTIMONY
showing that The condition of the com
pany, eyen after the attacks, was sucl
that RSod, careful business men with
drew insurance from other companie
and placed it in this. He referred par
tlcularly to the examination OF tn
company's condition by Insuranc
Commissioner McFee, and read tn
law, showing how the Commissioner
If he has reason to believe that an
company is insolvent, or has not suffi
cient assets, has power TO instruct th
Attorney General to compel such com
pany to show cause why its affair
i, should not be closed up. And vet
Mr.. McFee sworn TO do his duty, an
as capable TO discover fraud as Croas
dale or any other man connected wit
his paper, declared the company wa
not fraud and licensed it TO busines
in this State.
In conclusion, Mr.. Lore spoke of th
question OF loss, and claimed that th
evidence wa, conclusive that the Con
pany had sustained more than III
3 amount laid in the ndrr-S20,000. II
said, however, that this was not a que,
ton OF money the Company did n,
want the $4,000, they simply wante
their reputation vindicated that Lrut
and right might prevail. His addre.
lasted an hour and twenty minutes, an
during 1t all he suffered severely frol
sickness.
On account of Mr.. Lore's indispos
tion, Col. NhIeley asked permission
present the legal points OF the case
the court, as Mr.. Lore expects to mak
the closing argument, as Col. Whitele
vas absent during the earlier part
the trial, and dld not hear the tesLiponr
Ihe privilege was granted, and Co
Whlteley proceeded with his citations,
MIR. Bates followed for the defense an
cited many authorities with reference
the case, claiming that the publication
were not libels unless malice had bee
SHOWN, and that il could not be prove
That Mr.. Croasdale was responsible f
The publication of the alleged libels, b
ing mere editor. He continued uni
| the noon adinurnmant