The daily gazette., 1880-12-04
From Yesterdays Late Edition.
THE SUPERIOR COURT.

THE LIBEL SUIT. MIR. BIRD CLOSES
FOR THE DEPENDANT.
Specially reported for the GAZETTE.
NEW CASTLE, Dec. 3.-Court met
at 10 O'Clock, this morning and the
libel suit was promptly taken up by
Levi q. Bird, Esq, who commenced
the closing argument for the defense.
He opened with the usual cOngratula-
tions TO the jury upon the "close of
this long and serious case" and
spoke pathetically of the probability
that this would be the last civil suit
tried in this old Court room, where
able lawyers had spoken. and judges
had dispensed law with an ability
not excelled by in the United States.
He next reviewed the evidence in
regard to the writing of the libel and
held that il was entirely inadequate
to connect the defendant Croasdale,
with the act.
Mr.. Bird argued that the jury
could not fall back upon their beliefs
Impressions in regard to this matter
but must depend entirel upon the
testimony as received from the wit
ness box.
Next ,Mr. Bird proceed, d to argue
on the plea of Justification, admit
ting, for the sake OF argument, that
Mr.. Croasdale wrote the libels. The
first question was Did he write them
in malice? for If he did not, no ac-
ton in law lies. He held that the
only evidence of malice at all. were
the publications, outside of which 10
witnesses had been called to prove
any malice on the part.of the defend.
ant. If the defendant had entertain
ed the malice charged, he would
! have spoken of it and the words
uttered could have been proved by
witnesses who heard them.
The argument was then directed Ia
the organization of the company, aud re-
terred to the fact that Money, Ash and
Cleaver had left in a very short time, be-
cause they were not satisfied with the
Company's assets. The character OF
Mr.. Ash was particularly referred to, as
showing The iDfalllbIlity of his judg-
ment in regard to the character of the
company, as a result of which he de-
cded to withdraw from his connection
with II. The insurance OF Mr.. Case.
stallion, aud the cool remark of Presi.
dent Henry on the death of the stallion
that the company had no money to pay
the insurance, was cited as an evidence
that the company was fraud, and the
compromise for 1915 oLly a device b,
which IL could be continued to defrauC
other people out Of their money.
Mr.. Muir's testimony was next re
viewed, aud his conclusion that the com
pany was founded upon fictitious basis
was commented upon as an evidenc,
that the Company was fraud. Tn,
examination by the committee of oihel
Insurance Companies was also consider
ed as evidence of the same fact.
There are not three better men in tbl
State Of Delaware than the men com
posing this Committee, and their evi
dence is entitled to weigh. Their ex-
animation was conducted IN A manner
behtting honest business men,and theil
reputation goes with their examination
and If their report is put down by tn,
jury, II is putting down the men them
selves and saying that they told lie.
In relation TO the DauphIn County
land, Mr.. Bird said that Mye's anC
IL blister swore II was worth $lS0, 900
and yet 1t was sold for $4,000 worth o
stock, and taking the value of this stock
on the basis at which IL was offered L
Mr.. Bradford, made the land wortl
about 81 per acre, just what the defen
dents witnesses swore ii was worth
All these points, Mr.. Bird said, wer
reviewed to show the'utler Il ck ( NAL C
Oh the part OF the defendant in declarln
the Insurance Company was a fraud
Mr.. Bird continued his argument a
length, referring TO the valuation o
the DuPage county land and othe
securities of the Company, particular,
during the earlier part of its existanc,
to prove the Company was fraud
He also read from the libel law of thu
, State, providing that where the libe
complained Of is true and "A matte
proper for public information, til,
jury may find for the defendant. Mr.
Bird continued his argument unit
the noon adjournment.
During the morning jury was EN-
pannelled and an inquisltion taken il
the witness room. The case was al
action of debt of the Every Evenin.
Publishing Company vs. Ralph s
Jennings, and there being no defens
Judgment was rendered for the plain
tiff for the amount in claim.