Daily Republican., 1880-12-03
FIFTH EolrlDg
ARGUnEnT ToR DEEV.-

m. ~
uss -, Win n mis- Argument In n
Specially Reported for the Repabll,a,
Nav CASTLE, Dec. 3.-Tbe ,il,
OF ths D. s. Y. Il N. Insurapca Vr. y.
William T. Croasdals was rssU,., w.
medsately upon the OPENING y.
Superior Court this mospipg ~ "
G. Bird, Rsq., resumed tbs ara" rnu
for the defense. Gun
Mr.. Bird dwelt. in opening, uDon
Importance Of ths case, and inS"i t
In an eloquent passage upon thu @
the last which would BE- triad ~ 10
old court house, an appealei Vith ~
wsllknown pathos TO the iu,v |mu n,
ness In the verdict. He hsld ibo.. W.
was no proof 10 connect Mr.. C,o,'5
with the writing Of the sIlsvad nv
and, no matter what other ps.mls y
they could only consider the s,jl
az 1t came from the witness bov
plaintiffs we're doing the peouli,, ~
of trying to recover two se.s o, 5,m.
--one from the corporation fo, |s .
liOation, and the other from Crossi
for the authorship. It was i'm,
sible, be ipEeRiously ar.psd
say fairly that the d,f.ndsn,
written the articles. HE had Wi,
thsn,a whole series OF editorial ,,n
every one in the Every Evening ~
would have knoEn that be Wa
author, and especially would Yo,
the foreman OF the composing M
have been aware thai he Va,
authcr. And again Mr.. Croasi,s
away from the Office for whoa xssL
q time. The general plea /,
guilty" we deny that be wro,. N
and put the burden of proof uvOp
plaintiffs, and that burden hss \
too grea. for thsm-they have "A
far short Of proving the authorship
"Admit that he wrote thess s,jd
continued Mr.. Bird, "and for ths
Of my argument shall admi. tba,
wrote them, then he had a psriec, !
to do 1t. We shall show juStfcs,iol
cause this insurance concern iSsn,
fostering fraud. sin considering
phase Of The csfs, he said, the fr1t
sidsration Is that OF malice. Did
write them in malice' Libel and nd
so hand in hand. There has bfeu
malice shown. II the defendant
written all these articles in malice
II would have cropped out sil the
aud the whole town would have knd
II.
Here Mr.. Bird went ov.r .hs hi,I
Of the insurance company briefly
Money lett the company because be
lieyad It to be a fraud. Hyyr, d
here from the West and ha! il inl
pOrated with o lot Of mg1 usu,
directors who know nothing about
Mr.. Ash resigned because 10 slE,
examination, that it was q fraud.
fact Of tue insuranc. Of
horse Is enough 10 damn
They had no money 10
the policy OF $1,000 with, Snd Mr. H|
~ said 30 and they made patty
tlsment to save exposure. Mr v
liam Muer says he made an szsmlt
tion Of the concern and recommend
that the Insurance Comm ssiOner cl
II up because It was founded upOI
fictitious basis aud unworthy Of ere
The Insurance company uiHepres
ted its assets--lied abol. them anl
liar Is a fraud. The committee Of
surance men was composed Of SOM
the best Een in the State and their
idsnce Is entitled TO great vel
They were not prejudiced.
The examination made by these
showed the company to BE- fraud
you can't turn that report dJTn.
can't say it was a conspiracy, if@
best men in Delaware are cJnspnT
Upon that report they stake !aeit
utations.
Mr.. Bird referred to the Dang
county land, and swOre that i! V1sE
slS0. COO, and they gave $50 coos
Of stock, which even alter II cans
Wilmington was worth bu: : cents
the dollar and did not have e
After ali these things where I3Ils
Ice OF which have spoken 1t v
common Tumor that II was y
fraud, and it was every editors do
expose il.
Among other things the 10
county land, which We have F''4
be worth but 81 $50 is sEori
worth $5, 900. They have 10.
what our depositiens assert. wiz
this fraud they say Mr.. Cr1asi'h1
all these srticIeI in malice. hh
malice was 1t not malice in The
apce Commissioner and in the coa
ZEE OF the Insurance companle''
law of libel In this State WsS f'i
concluding this point
Mr.. Bird went on to argue 81
epgth and spoke of the Jn'.-'1
and fully reviewed the history o.
case. The publications were ilf
,ood and necessary for publc !nT
ion. The defendant did good 50
n the State of Delaware.
Daring the morning an iDqH1
by jury was taken in the ca''
Every Evening Pu blishing Co. vs.
J. jennings, and judgment aGaln,
lsf- nllnt WAS ascsrtained ana