Daily Republican., 1880-05-22

nE1xut LhpOh buAt-AnS S0uz0tt0'
and ..RepubIiean" Placed upsr
the witness stand-The Testlm.
ony I'm the Case-ArEument by rhs
counsel.
| NKw CASTLE, Del, May 20, 1880.
After Mr.. Bird had addressed the
jury in the Croasdals vs. Bright libel
suit, George W. Vernon was called IA
the witness stand.
Mr.. Vernon testified: ~ am the
proprietor of the Daily REPUBLICAN, q
newspaper published in the city Of
Wilmington each afternoon excepting
Sunday. On Nov. %, 1878, tho day
the article in question was published,
the REPUBLICAN,, to the extent Of
2,500s or 5000 papers, circulated
throughout the city, State, Peninsula
and various sections Of the country.
The paper had generally larger cir
culatioH on Saturday than any other
day. The communication which was
published had been furnished by Dr..
J. R. Tantum, and net to his know
ledge had the doctor nor the Della
ware State Fire and Marine Insurance
Company paid for its publication.
Mr.. Bird: "Did you send any mark.
ed papers to advertising agents out or
in the Slater"
Mr.. Vernon: ~ did not"
DR.. Tantum, the next witness, said:
II am the Vice President of the Della
ware State Fire and Marine Insurance
Company, and VIM. Bright is the Pres
ident. wrote the communication, and
thinking 1t would be all right l signed
William Bright's name toit. l called
upon Mr.. Bright, read the article to
him, told him was going to have it
published, when he said 1t was q coed
piece; did not tell him 1t contained his
signature. I do not know whether auy
money Las been paid for the publ!ca-
ton Of the article, or whether bill has
hcen sent asking for payment. When
l told Mr.. Bright l had signed his
name to the article he said he regret
ted it,"
Merris Taylor, an editor of the "Ga-
zstte," said that at the time of the pub
lication of the article the "Gazette' g"
circulation was between 1900 and
1000. The paperwas sent throughout
the country"
The Gazette" and Republican"
were ordered to be placed upon upon
ile as testimony.
Mr.. Richardson said: 81 am the
managing editor Of the aEvery Even-
ing" bnt was formerly connected with
the Baltimore "Evening Herald" II
have known Mr.. Croasdals for num.
Der Of years and his reputation as a
journalist and editor is regarded as
very fair.
Lemuel Malone was asked by Mr.. |
Bird to state what would result to an
editor by the publication Of such an
article in regard to him. Chief
Justice Comegys said that as the
witness could give only the supposed
amount he would object to the ques-
ton, for damages are things which
are sustained and not supposed to have
been sustained. Court adjourned.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Court reassembled at three o'clock. |
Lsmusl Malone, the editor Of the Sal |
isbury, Md, advertiser" was asked |
by Mr.. Bird !; what is Mr.. Croasdale's
as journalist and an edi-
tor 2"
Before Mr.. Malone could reply, Mr..
counsel for the defense said
that Mr.. Croasdale is the best editor on
the peninsula.
This admission on the part OF the
counsel for the defense decided the mat
ter. /
The witness was asked by Mr.. Bird to
state to what extent the complainant
would be damaged by Communication
Of the character Of the one published In
the "Gazette" and the REPUBLICAN
should they be believed. The Chief
Jnstice ruled the question as out of Or
Ter.
Mr.. Bird claimed that a consideration
If the complainant's good character
should bs admissible in the testimony
md cited the Parker vs.. Blackiston case
md referred to Harrington, Sd Massa-
,hnsetts, Townsend on slander and IL
oel on page 56; 9th Connecticut, page
"A; Benedict, page Is; aad lst johnson
'eports. =
The Chief Justice decided thata oonsid. !
'ration of this complainaEt's good char ,
.cter was admissible when a case was |;
lied as justifable but not when itswas =
lied not guilty.
Martha R. Croasdale, the mother of the ,
was called to the stand, '
md when Mr.. Bird questioned her re. !
,arding her and her sons support be- !
ng dependent upon his salary as An A
ditor, the Chief Justice ruled the y
uestion as out of order. y
The Chief Justice also said that a -,
nan having family should not be a
warded more damages than the man n,
Tho had no family. The Court would "
My allow the consideration of the +,
professional character :,
nd standing as a citizen. ~ ~
Mr.. Lore said that the fact of the u
ublication of the words of the oommu. ~ ~
ication must be proven by the defsn- cc 81
ant and If they were not denied the ~ =.
was responsible. The gen. ~
eman referred to section Az of I'd, .,
and section 1888 of I'd Town ~, ~
md. No No
Mr.. Lore claimed that all the utter. -,
nces of the witnesses did not prove W. w.
r. Bright the defendant, connected "
ith the libel. When Mr.. Tantum y,
nswered the questions asked him he a. a..
I'D distinctly that Mr.. Bright heard ~ ~
10 communication read and that he a.
new it was to be published. When
E told Mr.. Bright that he had signed
is nsme to it, that gentleman did not
nsure him, but In kindly manner