Daily Republican., 1880-12-03
THE LIBEL CASE.
ContinaatiOn Of the Argument IN
she Case Of ansCranse COMPANY
w. Cransaaie-Mr. Bates Follows


Mr.. Lore.
Specially reported Tor the Republican.
New CAsrLE, Dec. 1.-The balance .
Mr.. Lore's argument made in court thii
morning 10 the case Of the Del. 8. +. 4
MI. Co. vs. W. 7. Croasdale is, in brief
as follows
The defendant has not sustained bis
plea OF ia ustincAtlon. He has come her,
on that plea-not the sneak now, wht
declines TO answsr-but man wht
says he did II. They have tried Il
prove that the insurance company val
q fraud, and have not dots it, and
they tried to show that It's reputation
was tad and failed. Ii IL was bad
what is the wonder Even George
Richardson said II was not = fraud and
he 10 an insurance man. Only among
Insurance. msu It was said TO have a
bad reputation. Hit had a bad repu
tation It is not surprising, considering
the persistent attacks made upon Il.
Closing, the point was taken up that
the Insurance Company, not being q
fraud, demanded and was entitled to
vindieatiop. They had in truth been
robbed OF their business and lost heav.
lily through these libels but It has been
shown that the Company paid all just
claims and only contested those 10
doubt. As to damages, he said, they
had proved every dollar alleged in the
nsrr as loss. No amount could bring
back the fair fame the company had
before the attacks were commenced.
Col. Whiteley stated a few authori'
ties upon the plea Of justification made
by the defense. These pleas are de-
murrable, they cannot be substantially
true and entirely true. 1t will net do
for the company to be proved in some
respects a fraud, and not in others. The
truth OF the alleged libels must be prov
ed In toto as they Srs written.
Nr. Bates followed, and nrst address
ed the Court with reIese 30 tue Law
in the case. To show libel hS submit.
ted the plaintiff must prove two
things; lst, the actual publication OF
libel 2ad, malice. In this case the
defendant is no. the proprietor Of a
newspaper but the mere editor. The
Law books are barren Of instances in
which a man simply an e1itOr has
bssu found guilty OF libel. Malice is
also an imF ortant element in this case:
it has not been proved.
Court there adjourned for dinner
and reassembling Mr.. Bates resumed
the argument addressing the jury.
Mr.. Batss coneurrSd with Mr.. Lore
in what he had said about the freedom
Of the press, and said that the case was
Dne Of importance and affected every
man, woman and child in the commu.
nifty. Yon are called upon to determine
whether William T. CroasdAle publish.
ID libel or rather several liDels. 1t
10 first necessary for you to determine
he vas responsiblslor spub,
and shis is barren Of proof.
We're these libels published by him :
The Plaintiffs say they were composed
IS well as published by him. There Ia
\ salt pending against the publishers
,f this newspaper, and ifyou were try
ing that case the fact that this libel
published from the Office Of the Pa
per in question would be sufficient proof
against the defendant, but in this case
ae is the mere editor, and there is no
proof that he wrote and published the
ibels. 1t has bseu shown that there
lre other editors Of the paper, and, in
Iced, q managing editor under whose
supervision the papor Is made mp. 1t
las also bssn shown that the defendant
vas at times away and had nothing to
10 with what appeared in the paper
Turing his absence.
The sounsel for the plaintiff have at
empted to show that MIR. Croasdsls re-
used to answer any questions about
he lbsl, and they hsvs drawn the In.
srsDce that he did it to keep from
himself. The court will
nform YOU that this is mater with
Vhich you cannot deal that you can
rot draw infersnces. |! would only be
proper to call Mr.. Croasdale as a wit.
less in this case -gainst the publishers.
We shall In the course OF our argu-
uents shew that there was an utter
sck Of malice in the publication of
hsse alleged libels,-in other words
10 submit that they were done for the
'ublic good. The publishers Of this
lewspaper knew all about this company
hat you now know, and what would |
on think Of any newspaper which
new all this and yet failed to warn
he people against Buch a fraud
The counsel then took up the history
( the insurance company, commencing
nth the incorporation when q number
men were named as directors with
ut their knowledge. These gentlemen
fterward resigned, not being satisfied
'.th the asses. How was the company
rgauiEeli Not = dollar was put in 1t,
nd the assets were nearly all fraudu-
Ut Nov Mr.. Myers has ts'n made
y the plaintiff to say to Mr.. Croasdals
lat the insurance company was "born
/ sin and conceived in iniquity."
hat Is his own admission. He was at
le head Of the organization which was
rought into existapco in this man.
or, and yet he continued in the organ
alton clear on until date some time
ter than the publication Of the last ar
Gle denouncing the concern. As |
i'd there was no money in the concern
first. The assets were mortgage
$50, 900 on Dauphin county land. I
Mr.. Money, the President, went up
see the land, and you all know what ,
8 found there He came heme dissat. Z
fed with the property and resigned.
/ q little while nearly every Delaware I
an had dropped out Of the insurance
mpany and Myers and his man Hol- '
stsr we're left alone in Delaware City 8
their glory. In the statement of |
ecsmbcr 3lst, 1875, sworn to by Ny