Daily Republican., 1880-12-07
The Libel Rull.

The verdict OF the jury IN 1aVor o.
Mr.. CroasdRle Was not unexpected by
those who hsd watched the proceedings
OF the trial all through from first 10
last. We have already stated the
company was born in sin and onosivsd
in iAIqui'y, but that since the compa
ny was removed from Delaware City te
WILMINGTON AMI there virtually rsor
ganizsd, there was no evidsnce thsi
any person had been defrauded, MOI
that any effort was made to impote
upon the public. There can bs No
doubt that the company when first or.
ganized was what is familiarly known
4s q "wild.cat concern" and tdat th'
man who organised It had no other end
in view than to impose upon the publiU
aud to insure property without givire
q guarantee that losses would be paid
All the real SrooksdnsSs of ths co1pa.
ny seems to have tsen committed while
1t Ras located at Delaware. City, and
before MesSrs. Bright, Tantum, Wood,
Hawkins and Johnion became connect
cd with 1t. There were two things
however which these gentlemen ne
elected to do, but those two thing.
have bssn fatal to the company. One
Of these tbinzs, was, that through .
mistaken feeling Of sympathy for the
origina'or Of the company they wer,
induced to continue him in their en-
ploy, thereby unintsntionally keeping
the company in as bad reputs ss 1t
enjoyed before It vas removed to this
city. The other neglect was a reas
ssssDent and rsmodsling Of the real
estate securities Of the company. In
regard to the value Of these real estate
securities our readers will recollect the
conflict Of testimony that WAS thrown
In shapslsSs mass into the witness
box. The ssls Of 3 portion Of some OF
these securities gave some idea OF the
true value OF some Of the lands and the
in these values initiated
against the honesty Of the gentlemen
who had taken charge Of the company.
1t will be seen that the verdict was
not In keeping with the charge Of the
Court 10 regard to expressed nAliee.
There are few who will not believe
that there was no malice expressed in
the articles which appeared in tho
Every Evening. Whether that paper
vas sincere or not in Its exposure OF
the company, 1t Is evident that the
jury favored large license to the press,
though at times that license wa,
abused. The press stands as defend
er and protector Of the rights Of the
people against wrong, and for this
,auss the evils Of the press are pa
.ientlv borne with on account OF the
protection it affords 70 society. The
Iseling against the press in this ooun,
try will never equal q feeling against
In this light thu verdict
Dt the jury may be accepted Is one IN
defence OF the Press more than one in
favor Of Mr.. Croasdals. As this suit
was against MIR. CfoAsd ale individually,
the Rvery Evening, Of which he was
the editor, was really not in the ques
tor, and it will bs noted that there
was q failurs to prove that Mr.. CEoas.
dale really wrote the articles which
he Was charged With writing. There
seems - have Deen at least three per.
sons aud a writing machine connected |
wi h TIE editorial department OF the
paper, bat none Of the evidence con-
nsct,d Mr.. Croasdsle with the wr ting
Of any of the articles. This no doub
had much to do in rendering thb YER
dict. In all probability the end is not
yet, and We may expect to hear the
nsnal motion for 4 new trial.