Delaware state journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1870-1883, 1880-12-09

editor OF the paper Are you to hold man
liable simply because he is employed as an
agent of the paper to do editorial work he ID
one of at least three editors you have seen
here. II has been shown to YOU that he is not
even the managing editor; that much
editorial matter went to the composing room
In the handwriting of Mr. Bell Mr.. Humphry
and several hnudwritings unknown to the
foreman. Upon such testimony az that CAN
Won say to yourselves that you know, from
the evidence adduced in this case that Mr..
Croasdae was the author of those articles.
1t was shown also that the defendant was
frequently absent, often for a day or two, even
for a week or more. and it il within your own
knowledge that his presence il not necessary
to the issue of this paper because You
have seen him sitting here before YOU Tor
seven days. in this court room, while you
know that the paper il being gotten out and
published say; therefore, that other per-
SONS wrote editorial matter, and that he was
not the managing editor, responsible for the
make up of the paper ; and you will have the
instruction of the Court that YOU are not at |
liberty to draw any inference from the refusal
of Mr.. Croasdale TO answer question which |
had no right to be put. Mr.. Croasdales |
refusal to answer this question, under the |
advice of his counsel was u privilege which he |
had II right to exercise.
The plaintiffs have brought suits against |
Mr.. Croasdale and the Every Evening Pub
lishing Company, and if they had tried the |
suit against the Every Evening Publishing |
Compauv Mr. Croasdae would have been |
competent witness to tell you how, and when |
and where he got the information contained
in these alleged libelous articles but these
gentleman tried to shut this defendants
mouth al to the publication OF these articles
in this newspaper, and they have shut it up
closer than they had intended to. [Inter-
rupted by Mr. lore, who said that il Mr.
Bates WAS going to discuss that matter he
| a
that he understood that Mr. Lore had dis
,lissed it in the morning and he was only
counseing the Jury not to draw inference,
Fhe Court: ARGUE the case from the fucts
proven before the iury."l
Then gentlemen, no much for this matter
If the connection OF the defendant with the
| publication of this matter. To nv mud it Is
| clearly an absence of proof on the subject
| uliiclent to satisfy your minds certainly not
,nch proof az to warrant man being held
| " II iury to have committed an uffense which
| lnder the laws uf this State il a criminal
olfense.
Rut again. in addition to the proof of pub
| icatiou this plaintiff is compelled to prove to
| your satisfaction. malice. Their sole reliance
| To prove malice s upon the publication OF
| these articles. | propose to 20 over these
| publications. and discuss them an 20 along
| propose to trace M the whole history of this
| ;Umpany and. at each time when one of these
| publications. was made to show what wa,
the condition of that corporation and the
circumstances under which that publication
vas made.
| Are the expressions strong in some of these
,rticles2 Possibly they may be. But i'll view
| # the facts which have been brought before
You. [ am willing to submit to YOU whether
my expression III any one of these articles is
| 100 strong. in reg ird to the condition of thi,
corporation whether anv honest or honoru
| jls man knowing the fucts which have been
| proved before Won al part of the defense
| IN this case whether any man would not only
pe Justified in the Use OF strong language in
relation to a corporation of which such fact,
IRE true. but whether he would not. il he
we're in a postiou in which he could throw in
The way Of a single human being. who was
ukely to be deceived by this corporation.
| yhether he would not be- derelict in his duty
If he did not make known these facts in M
strong language as he was CAPABLE of.
secondly. | submit to you that during all this
fine these seriea of facts we're going on. that
the conductors of this Newspaper knew ali
Won now know concerning them--eyery bit of
| ,r il and asl, Won what Won would think of
he conductor Of A newapaper who ,hould
| have poaseasion of such f,cta as have been
| nrnnpht tn the bar of this court in evidence
before Won. and who wonld be silent regard.
ing them. Pause a moment. and consider
, | ,yLat ynnr oninin, ,vould he of any man WIN
,huuld know the facts which have been
uroyed before Won. and co1cenl them
Now. between these parties which are ar
r,iUned b.re V, n / ura n, trv thia i.sua What
ira the facts. which are nroyedY I ask you
In cnu.ider them seriouslv and detinitrly
+ l,onl, Mt fine circum.tances proven here II ,d.r
which thi. corporation was orraniZed TAX.
thn tir.t olimnse of IL which accnrdino Ia
r the Testimony of Rollins. read TO Won In a
t | deno.tinn when Nvpr. who was secretarv nf
: Ihe comn,ny from the time of its or,r,niza.
! tinn nm tp hit Jnnuarv a neriod nf nearly n
5 Gear after the lnst nf these articles was writ.
ten. when Myers came 10 Delaware 10 pet A
! chartvr-ret Il charter-not To engage in The
. insurance blsiness bnt to get charter with
ali that that implies. A charter waa obtained
1 and the incnrnnrut,,rs geuerallv. M vou have
. heard knew nothing of IL / believe there
] | yrr,, hnt nnp nr two of tbe entire marty vhosp
: names unnenred on theact of incnrpnrntion VIII,
! knew anything nbout il Mt the time Some of
| ,hp,n nrrped la act. thr.e nf than did heromr
directors. mt wlthdrrw. Mr. Ash. in one
= ,nouth-nnt SATISFIED with the assets. Mr.
: ,lenyur in one mnnth-not satisfied with the
L ,.s,,ts. Nr Price in thirty dnys-unt satiaied
yIth the assets' OF that ORGANIZATION ~,
nave n rlnnr and d,fiuite ,rrount frnm Mr.
t ;enr,,e Il Money Nuw th,r. are two mr.
Il thrnn f,rt. that vnu will tala nm and ranoomber
: IN re,rnrd Ia The i,rgnniz,ti,, 'rhe trst l.
Il rbnt nnt n, s,n,I, dollar nf munev was then or
afterwards. No far na The eyidence roe4. naid
7 lnto this corporation What is the ordinary
Il Method of starting corporation? The cor.
J. | lOfaturH get together ana put III money that
u Is to be used in the business. aud they then
u eek substantial investments for their capital.
y he organization OF tins company was directed
II uy Myers. How he did ii is stated here
IN one Of these articles which nv learned
y friend has put into the case himself, in which
- the plaintiff makes the defendant say to Won
II that Myers stated that thus concern was born
III sin aud conceived III iniquity. | dom
y. Hnow whether Myers ever SAID that or not
u tnd don care whethoryou believe 1t or not,
- out the TACT remains that such statement
" vas put III evidence. Now, Myers never leii
:, TINS company until january, lSSU. There
" :, was All effort all through the examination ol
- the wltcSs III TINS case TO throw everything
=. IN Myers. Let us give the devil his due, am
remember that Myers was retained III thi'
~ concern until January 18th, lo5O, and that
- the date at which he left this coucern wa'
u iater by nice or ten months than any single
" publication of which complaint Is made II
u tins Case. Therefore, one fact which yol
:, Hlll put III your minds and fasten peg in Il
" hold 1t there Is that, whatever may be sud Oi
=, :, 'lyers ur whatever may be done to throw
~ upon him the blame OF what il wrong III th
"A corporation. Myers was connected with till
!" corporation by the voluntary acts OF thos'
~ ~ who now appear as its defenders up to n lont
Il time after the publication OF the article tina
i is complained of.
l. Now. tell you, do not propose to hay
~ , much to say about Myers perhaps the les
=, tne better He was the manager he was no
~ ~ ouly connected with this company bu
IN throughout the whole period covered in thes