Delaware state journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1870-1883, 1880-12-02

the loss amounted TO S25, 300; you must de-
duct the amount lost from natural causes in
1878 we lost about S1,0O000O of risks.
The new jurors were discharged until Mon
day morning, and the court, at /. 10 a. M,
took recess until O'Clock.
Court reassembled at o'clock, and the
case of the Delaware State Fire and Marine
Insurance Company w. William I. Croasdale
was resumed.
r. Harry Young, affirmed-Am connected
with EVERY EVENING; have charge of the
composing room am superintendent or fore
man of the room have held that position
| since June 1879 my duties are to take charge
of copy and prepare it for composition cut
| it up in takes that is into bits for the COM
positors all copy coming into the composing
room passes through my hands in this way
| this work was part of my duties in 1877, '7S,
| 70 and 80 up to the present time editorial
matter had on it distinctive mark | know
the handwriting of Mr. Croasdale editorial
| copy in these years was generally in the hand
| writing of Messrs. Croasdale, Bell and Hum
phry. Witness attention called to several
| articles in EVERY EvESINGl; he identified
them as editorial matter, but could not recol-
lect in whose handwriting the original copy
| was.
Cross-examined - Messrs. Croasdale Bell
and Humphry were not the only persons in
whose handwriting editorial copy was received
| in the composng-room during the years mem
| toned there were editorials i'll other hand
| writing, but did not know whose it was ; the
bulk of the editorial matter is sent up in wri-
ting machine print that Is, it is written on
writing machine, and cannot be said to be in
| any persons handwriting. Mr.. Croasdales,
| Mr.. Bells and Mr.. Humphreys handwriting is
all that can remember having recognized
| Redirect can recognize handwriting
with which am familiar, but cannot name
any one who wrote editorials for EVERY
EVENING other than those 1 have already
| mentioned.
William I. Croasdgle. recalled-Mr Lore
| proceeded to ask the witness a question when
| Mr.. Bates objected, on the ground that the
| defendant could not be used as a witness
| against himself.
The Court decided that the defendant in
| his capacity as a witness could be questioned,
| but that he had the right to decline, at his
| discretion, to answer any question, the
answer to which might criminate him or sub
iect him to penalty, or that might have
| tendency that way.
Examination then proceeded and witness
attention was called to several editorials in
EVERY EVENING, upon which the allegation of
libel is based.
Mr.. Lore-Now, Mr.. Croasdale, l ask you,
| did you or did you not, write those articles
Witness-I decline to answer.
| John r. McFee sworn-Am insurance COM
missioner of the State OF Delaware. Certified
| copies of the authority under which the Della
ware State Fire and Marine Insurance Com
papy does business in this State were shown
| to witness and identified by him.
Mr.. Lore then announced that the plaintiffs
here closed their case.
Mr.. Bird addressed the court and asked for
| nOn-suit on the ground of an utter failure
of proof to connect the defendant with the
publication of the alleged hbelous articles.
| There is, he said another suit pending in this
court by the plaintiffs in this case against the
Every Evening Publishing Company, and they
cannot retain their standing IN this case by
simply proving only what they would have to
prove in that case. The evidence against this
defendant must be almost as strict as in a
criminal proceeding. Now they have proven
their case against the Every Evening Publish
ing Company so far as publication is con-
cerned but have they proved that this defend
ant wrote these articles of which they COM
plain? 1t is in evidence that Mr.. Croasdale was
frequently absent from town and on such
occasions contributed no editorial to EVERY
EVENING. Their own witnesses tell you that
other people write editorials for this paper.
| The only testimony that even tends to con-
meet Mr.. Croasdale with the authorship of
, these articles is that he il editor-in-chief of
the paper. 1t is not as though he were editor
|, and proprietor he is simply the editor. en-
, ployed as such while the proprietorship is
another matter. He is sued here as private
citizen and just the same IN | would be had
written these articles for EVERY EVENING and
suspicion as to the authorship had fallen
| upon me. therefore, unuer our plea OF moi
| guilty we ask this court for non suit.
Mr.. Lore, in reply contended that there
had been sufficient proof to warrant the case
being given to the jury. He reviewed the
testimony at length, and claimed upon the
theory Of exclusion, that he had traced the
. authorship of the libel to the defendant I;
:. that as there were but three editors of the
> paper, by showing that two did not writeit the
a third of necessity must have written it. He
: argued that the testimony of Mr..
{ Young was cumulative upon this point
3 and said that the Court upon
+ a precisely similar point had declined in the
case of William L. Croasdale VS.. William
2 Bright, to grant non-suit and he could not
see how it could consistently make an oppos-
! ing decision in this case.
q MIR. Bates rejoined, saying that his duty to
I his client demanded OF hm to ask that the
q case go no further. The question was a
= simple one. The plaintiff having presented
q no evidence against the defendant that will
Il warrant the case going before jury we are
d entitled IN law to non-suit. There is NO
r evidence in the case with which to go before
r jury. We are, however, willing to so and
q try this case upon its merits upon our plea of
' justification, but l feel that it is due to my
i client that make this application for nom
Il | suit My learned friend on the other side
h misstates the testimony of the witnesses All
v the witnesses examined upon the subject
!, testified that there were Others besides
l
e editorial matter. Mr.. Young said that the
handwriting of Messrs Croasdale, Bell and
Humphry was all that he could recognize the
other handwriting he did not know. As to
d the decision upon an application by counsel
4 for non-sut in the Bright case, Mr.. Bates
q held that the ground of opposition to the
y application in that case was entirely dssimilar
h to that in this one. In the Bright case the
defendant was shown to have approved the
Il sentiments expressed i'll the lbelous article
q while here there has been no sort of direct
=. connection established between the defendant
n and the alleged oifense. We repeat that we
q do not feel that it would be just to our client
N that he should be held responsible before a
jury for an oifense of this kind without any
n better proof of it than has been offered il
this case.
n The Court decided that some evidence had
been introduced in the case, and that, in it,
k opinion, it was to that extent proper subject
for the consideration of the jury.
. MR. BIRDS OPENING ARGUMENT.
Levi c. Bird, Esq, then addressed tho jury
as follows:
!, Ge,atenen Of he Jury: The plaintiffs hav,
n closed their case, and it now devolves upor
10 this defendant to lay his case before the jury
,e Up TO this moment you have heard only tn,
y plaintiffs testimony. You know nothing saw
" what you have gathered from the reading o
. the pleas. of what the defendants case is.
Ie He stands here upon three defenses a
re least, The first. upon the record of thi
Is court, says that he is not guilty; that he dit
III not write the libels. That you Just heart
III III their Honors say was question for you t
III deal with.
7 He next stands upon the plea that he dit
III write them and that they are true. every wor
es of them aud, when their Honors came +
re charge you, they will tell you there is nothin
re inconsistent in mans pleading "not guilty
wv in question Of this kind and their justifyin
them at the same time.
He pleads again in this case that there
an utter absence of malice, and upon that h
Ill will offer to prove that these articles wer
:, proper for public information.
Gu When we come to argue this case we sha
. rely also upon the plaintiffs failure to max
OF his proof in this case.
e We say this company is fraud. We sa
-, so now at the bar of this court and we wi
Ile prove it at the bar Of this court. We say it
,te rotten and has been rotten ever since its ii
ny ception that it was born in fraud conceive
Is in fraud and lives in fraud to-day and we wi
We prove it.
de We shall prove to you at the very first il
=. PRODUCTION into this city. they went to Dow,
ltS and got charter and put in that charter Il
II names of fixe or six reputable men, who
SOS they had never said word to about it an
,ry these men never knew they were the nco
ne porators until they saw it in the papers.
nus We shall show you that the first secreta
Nj of the company, Mr.. James H. Myers, can
here from some place in Illinois with a lett
of introduction to George b. Money, of Del
ware City that he went down to Dover al
ice got a charter and put il in the names of fl