The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-03-15
LAW OF LIBEL,

A Laid Down Ia the County Court Sester-
day-some fine Legal sParring- Colonei
Ccawford's Irresistible Logic - Points
Made by the rosecution-steerisE in an
Unknown ses-.Iudee Burko's Decision,
lite. lite
The case OF the State OF Texas vs.. ]. T..
Smith, T., 5. Piouts, J, +. Elliott and W j..
Hall, who were indicted by former grand
jury, with having ibelled the Jury in the
case OF the State vs.. r. +. Cowart, charged
with the murder of J. NJ. Thurmoud, was
called in the county court yesterday, and
after an extended argument on tAe part Of
counsel, the indictment was quashed.
Messrs StemmOns, Field, Seay and Assist
ant County Attorney Marshall appeared
for the prosecution, and Messrs,
w. l.. Crawford, l.. r.. Smith aud
W. T. Strange for the defense. The case
has attracted. considerable attention and
been the subject of much gossip. Save one
or two, all OF the alleged siandered twelve
IurymeH were present TO press the case.
The defense entered a motion to quash
the Indictment ON the following grounds:
First-That under the statutes criticism
of the acts OF judicial and legislative bodies
does not constitute libel unless charge Of
corruption is preferred.
Second-lhe indictment is fatally delec-
tive in that 1t fails TO allege the manner in
which he libel was committed, whether by
written notice posted in some public place,
by publication In newspaper or other
wise.
Third-That the Indictment overlooked
the fact that in the article upon which it
ma kav.Y IA IN ola mazda
against any Juror; and also the fact that II
(the article) contained n qualifying clause
cxempting the entire Jury from the restrlc'
lions made.
Fourth That the indictment sought to
make single juror James G.. GaYinl the
object at which the assertions Of the article
were leyelled.
other points were made IN the able 0rgu-
ments of the defense, which the re-
porter Al this juncture will not specify, but
suffice 1t TO SAY that battle royal cnsued
between counsel on the points enumerated
above.
Mr. Iuoius Smith presented in well
chosen words the formal reasons why the
inii tment should not hold, He was fol.
lowed by Mr.. Robert Sedy, who presented
in IL tcrse manner the basis upon which the
Indictment rested, COntcnding that the
objections Of the counsel on the other side
did not affect the vitality of the instrument,
but rested UPON trivial grounds, which
recognized legal lights had deemed INSULT
Gent.
Colonel W. IT, Crawford then arose,
and in an argument replete
with profundity and cogent logic
met every issue raised by the
prosecution in manner thai Chal-
lenged the admiration not only OF the legal
fraternity, but of numerous throng of
spectators, Gradually warming to his
theme, the eloquent speaker passed on to
an exposition OF the liberties accorded jour
nalism in America, conclusively demon
strating the right Of this greatest OF tribu.
mis- to stand between the people and its
officers. Space forbids extended mention
OF this effort, but as forensic episode it
was impressive and convincing.
The prosecution was heard ON new sub
ject-matter introduced by the defense, and
then Colonel Crawford summed up for the
latter.
Judge Burke, after stating that
the law of libel was ono com
paratiyely barren of preCedents,
aud that he had listened attentively to each
side, said the defense had pierced to the
| marrow of the issue in their first reason Tor
quaqhing the indictment, and that accord
ing TO the statute referred to, he must
grant the motion. Thus ends trial not
! only interesting to this immediate vicinity
but the first of its kind in the state to clearly
define the prerogatyeS of the newspaper rs
the pu6lic's exponent.