The daily gazette., 1880-11-27
THE SUPERIOR COURT,
THE LIBEL SUIT TAKES AN.
OTHER DAY.
THE PLAINTIFFS CASE RESTED AND

Va w Hllhiu DTlgnC'5 teetl.
mony In the libel suit, to-day, Dr.
j. II. Tantum, Vice President of the
Delaware State Fire and Marine In.
surance Company, was called to the
stand. He testified that losses to
the company during the last three
years had been partly computed by
him in thorough manner; as far az
he went, the loss was S25, 500.
Thought it would run up to $40, 900.
This falling off was after the attacks
by the Every Evening during the
years '7S, 10 and $50.
No other reason assigned by per-
sons for not insurlng in the d.
5. + and NJ. Co., except the attacks
in Every Evening.
Cross-examined.-In computing
the loss, based it on those policies
that had been withdrawn, and on
those which had lapsed. In 1873,
lost about ST. 900, 600 worth of risks.
Court then adjourned until
O'Clock p. m.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
On the reassembling of Court, at
3 o'clock, r. Harry Young, foreman
of the Every Evening composing
rooms was called to the stand. He
said part of his duties was to dis
tribute copy to the compositors,
whereby he became familiar with
the handwriting of Messrs. Croas-
dale, Bell and Humphrey, Of the edi-
torial staff. The editorials on which
the libel was based were then shown
him, with view to inqulring if he
knew who wrote them.
"Mr. Lore" said the Chief JUS
tice, did not Mr.. Humphrey say he
did not write those editorials p''
"Then, if Bell and Humphrey
did not write them Croasdale did,"
Mr.. Lore, however, questioned
the witness, who said he did not re-
nember in whose handwriting the
editorials were.
On cross-examination witness said
that matter marked editorial in
other handwriting than that OF
Messrs. Croasdale, Bell and Hum
phrey was frequently sent up to the
composing room. He could not re-
member that any OF the editorials in
question were in the handwriting OF
either of these three men.
Mr.. Lore then called Mr.. Croas-
dale to the stand, directed his atten-
ton to the editorial articles in the
copies of Every Evening in evil
dence, and said:
"Mr. Croasdale look at those edi-
torials in the papers spread before
you. Are you the author of any Of
them.
Mr.. Croasdale-I decline tc
answer.
Johu r. McFee, Esq, Insurance
Commissioner of this State, wal
called and shown certificate ISSUED
by him to the Del. S. F. & M. Co.
authorizing it to do business in thi'
State. He was questioned particu-
larly in regard to it, and the plain
tiff offered it in evidence, no objec
ton being made.
The plaintiffs here rested thei
case.
A NOEAUIT REFUSED.
On behalf of the defendant Mr.
Bird made motion for non.suit
on the ground that no evidence hat
been produced connecting Mr.
Croasdale with the writing of tn
libels.
In reply Mr.. Lore said if the de
fendant had rested on his plea o
mot guilty." he might with pro
prlety make this motion. But Their
are other pleas IN the record, il
which he admitted the truth of tn
libel and justified it. The testi
mony proved that Croasdale wa
editor-in-chief of the paper, and tha
he, Bell and Humphrey wrote edi
torial articles. Bell said he did no
write the lioels. Humphrey said h
did not, and they were the only tw
outside of Croasdale who could hav
written them. The testimony point
to him unerringly and inevitably
Mr.. Lore said that in the case o
Croasdale Us. Bright, at the las
term, where the plaintiffs witnesse
acquitted Bright OF connection VIII
the libel, the Court had refused t.
keep the case from the jury.
Mr.. Bates said the sole TACT on whlcl
the plaintiffs rested their case was tina
Croasdale was edtor-inchief OF Tn
, paper, vet they proved that editorial mat
ter in many other persons handwrltln
. frequently appeared In the paper. Ther
was mo evidence whatever to show tina
, Croasdale ever saw the articles wlitten
The Chief Justice, after brief con
sultation with the associates, said he di
moi think the plaintiff should be non
suited. IL was not the practice to allow
non suit where the plainlln supmitte
. any evidence that ought 10 60 10 u
. iury for them to consider. Therefore, II
!. deemed IL best to let the case 90 the Jur
for them to determine.
THE DEFENSE OPENS.
Mr.. Bird opened for the defense. ID
5 said the defendants pleas were; is
8 that he did not write the libels; I'd, thi
IL Ina did write them and that they wei
a trne. He said he would prove the Con
v many was fraud, rotten from its lneel
: p,;nn That IL was chartered with IL
!, names of men as corporators VINO o'u n'
}, know their names were so USED.
s Continuing. Mr.. Bird proceeded :,
2 detail at length the facts the defense IL II
q tended to prove in support OF tile
l. cbarye that the Company was irai'
nlent c concern, unworthy.of the pupic'
In concluding, he said the delen'
would relv ON the plea of justifeatloini'