The daily gazette., 1880-05-21
Specially reported for the GAZETTE.
NEW CASTLE, May 81, 1880.

Chief Justice Comegys and
Judges Houston and Wales on the
bench.
When Court opened the jury in the
Newark slander case was still out,
having been up all nj lat, with little or
no prospect of agreeing upon "a ver-
dict.
The attendance was much larger
than usual, on account of the interest
felt in the decision Of the Court in the
Neal case, and in the libel suit of
Croasdale VS.. Bright, which is 10 come
up to-day.
At 10 10 o'clock The jury in the
Newark slander case came down. and
reported that they had not agreed. In
answer to the Court the foreman said
there was no possibility of an agree
ment, whereupon the jury was dis
charged from further attendance at
this term of court.
1t rs understood that nine of the
jury held out for 81, 600 damages, and
three for only six cents.
The second panel of the regular jur-
ors, and the special panel of jurors for
the libel suits were called, and all ans
wered.
In the case of Mark NJ. Cleaver VS..
VIM. Beck, Cooper and Higgins coun-
sci, judgment was allowed for the
plaintiff, amount to be ascertained by
the Prothonotary; on the usual terms.
The case of Thomas Morrison was
announced as having been referred for
settlement to The following referees !:
Lewis W. Stidham, Il. Lewis Arm
strong and Samuel G.. Chandler, all
ex. Sheriffs.
At 10 25 Mr.. Higgins addressed the
Court further upon his motion for the
removal of he Neal case to the U. 5.
Circuit Court. AT the opening he dis
claimed any idea of having the case
removed to a tribunal where it cannot
be fairly tried and adjudicated, ard
that in the event of removal his client
would not escape the penalty provided
for the punishment of the offense he
has alleged to have committed.
Mr.. Higgins claimed that it had new
er been decided Dy the Counts of this
State that Colored men were eligible
rs jurors, or that the Levy Court were
unwarranted in excluding them from
service as such. He claimed that
when the law of 1849, qualifying cleo
tors as jurors, was enated, the consti-
lution distinctly stated that none but
white men were qualified as electors;
and That neither the consti utional pro
vision nor the statute lad been alter
ed since under under the authority of
the State.
Mr.. Higgins then reviewed at length
the objections of Attorney General
Gray to the allegations con aimed in
Meals petition, and to the motions for
the quashing of he indictment and of
the jury panels, by reason of the excln-
sion of colored men from the grand
petit juries, whereby The petitioner
claims he will be denied the full and
equal protection of the law.
Mr.. Higgins continued his argu-
ment until few minutes past eleven
O'Clock, claiming that colored men
were excluded from the juries in this
case, and by the laws Of this State.
In conclusion he said he was acting
solely for the interests of ms client
whose rights alone were at issue.
Then the libel suit of VIM. T.
Croasdale rs. William Bright was
started up. The list of witnesses
was called, and several of those sum-
moned by the defendant not answer
ing, attachments were asked for
them.
The following jury was drawn:
Aquilla Derrlckson, George NJ.
Bramble, Robert L. Cochran, John
{. Diehl, John L. Cheairs. Jacob
Chandler, John S. Eckels, Samuel
A. Armstrong, Robert ii. Cochran,
Jr., Jacob b. Cazier, Edward C.
Fennimore, Lewis L. Eliason.
The defendants announced them
selves as satisfied with this Jury and
made no challenges. Messrs. Sam'l
Nj. Cooper and Jonathan Groves
were drawn on this jury but were ex-
cused by reason of being over 20
years of age and therefore EXEMPT
by law. Joseph l.. Barrett and
Richard w. Cochran were excused
on account Of deafness and Henry
H. Appleton ON account of having a
very sick child at home.
III of the other jurors, special
regular and additional, were dis
charged until 10 o'clock Monday
morning.
Mr.. Bird, in opening for the plain
TIN stated that the defendants origi-
nally entered plea of justification
which had afterwards been with
drawn and plea of mot guilty" en-
tered, on which the case now stands.
MIR. Bird hen addressed the Jury,
stating that the case was one of the
most serious and important that ever
claimed the attention of the Court.
1t was a suit brought by Wm. T.
Croasdale, editor of the Erery Epen-
ing newspaper against VIM. Bright,
on account of most infamous
libel, for which, Mr.. Bird claimed
no amount Of honey could compen-
safe. This suit, Mr.. Bird said, was
not that of one citizen against
another, but Of the editor of a news.
paper against a man, who, as will be
proved, is at the head of a CORPORA
ton, which the editor believed to be
a fraud and which we will prove to
be fraud.
Mr., Bird then read the article on
which the actions for LIBEL were
based, which he claimed exceeded in
lniamy any libel ever published
against citizen of this State. Of
his client, he said he would prove
nm to be an intelligent, high minded.