Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1883-02-03
GUITEAU,s BONES, AGAIN.
Two Libel Suits.

REV. DIR. HICKS SUES THE STAR AND THE NRw YORK
GRAPHIc-H1s MODEST DEMAND FOR $7O,oOO DAM
AGES.
Last evening C. P. Culver and Messrs. Crittenden
and Mackey for W. w. Hicks entered suits for
600 each against the New York Graphic Co. and
THE EVENING STAR Newspaper Co., for libel in
the first case in the Graphic's article OF January
10th last, headed ''Hicks' CHASTITY Legacy" in
which it is stated that the plaintiff demanded
$4,000 from the governme MT for the bones, and In
w pstc attonsy ns e0Rh nffs Tne
declarations are quite voluminous and set
forth that the plaintiff is citizen Of good repute,
OF the Church Of the Tabernacle; that he was the
spiritual adviser of Charles j. Guiteau, who was
Gu On June 5Stn as ana taat under author
remains OF Guitean, and that on the 10th of Janu-
s ary he lex executed paper transferring az his right,
General, .. 8. army, in which was a pr6viso
that the bones OF Gu1teau should never be
eT has ang and he
from Gen. Crane, or any other person, any sum
whatever, nor does he expect any valuable con-
ing this, contrving and wickedly and maliclously
Intending to injure his good name, fame and
credit, and to bring him into public inramy aad
OF the District and to cause it to be suspected and
believed by them that he had been guilty of
Guteau, and that he had tried to sell the body OF
Guieau for the sum of $4,000, and demanding
$4,000 before he would allow the bones to be artic
ulated, contrary to the provisions OF the paper
writing, and to vex and harraSs him did, on the
days aforesaid, publish the false and malicious
ltbelS.
The bill quotes the article from THE STAR OF
January 20th last, as follows:
Guiteau's Bones.
AN ALLEGED PROPOSITION TO SELL THEM UNDER THE
TERMS OF THE AssAssINs wILL-wHAT DISTRICT
ATToRNEY coRKHILL SAYS ABOUT 1.-THE BJNEs
PRESENT NoBoDY's BONES
reporter as to report that the government had been
asked to pay fSr duitea1's bo1ss. repoains in
Il am heartily tired; said Sr corkhii ''of being
desire or poston thing Do ~ fas the
remains maj Of r. the : assassin,
team" asked the reporter:
.Dr Hicks" said the district attorney claims that
obas M HI hs
The Win has never been prosted Il lies inert and dead
value %
sse Of the bones has e. much fh e them as
Reed Rec and some one else whom don't remember: Mr:
Have You heard G Inquired the reporter THAT Dr.;
allow the bones to be articuateds' '''0f' ne VIII
tS ss9 the Mr.
Of Of snd me e the
disgrace. anybody has any claim upon the bones it
is Guiteaus family. for the purpose 81 burying
will ought never to be probated."
PREPosTEROUs SUIT.
Readers of THE STAR will be puzzled to gather
from the above quoted publication in THE STAR
the ground for MI. Hicks absurd suit, charging
malicious libel against this paper, especially In
view Of the fact that THE STAR, On the oath OF
January, took the pains to publish in behalf of
Mr.. Hicks the following ample denial and vindi-
cation:
The Bones of (sutteau.f
REV. DIR. HICKS TITLE TO THEN-A 0RATUITOUS
TRANSFER TO SURGEON GENERAL CRANE.
Rev. Dr. Hicks, the spiritual adviser ef Guiteau who
executed on the 30th of June for the murder of
President Garfield denies emphatcally that there has
been bargain sale involved in the transfer the
bones to the government or that he asked e1
In the formal transfer OF the remains to government
particular hurry and deemed best that moth
ing be done until some months had elapsed after the
execution Six months having passed. and Dr.. Hicks
Of the remains but that under all the circumstances
the government the proper custodian. last week
made out the necessary transferring his interest
Surgeon General Crane of the army and that is all
be questionable if the socailed will Of Guieau
which has not been probated conveyed tle and II
DR.. Hicks relied only this paper the government
could hardly claim good title outside of possession,
which Is ni1e points Of law" Even Gas 10 claimed
with Mr. Woodward witnessed the execnton Of the So
called Wild Guiteau was not of sound and dsposing
mind capable Of making q valid deed or contract and
he left out q the case entirely yet Dr. Hicks had
much better title than that to the remains viz: the
brother and sister, to take charge the remains and
dispose OF them rs he should deem proper 1t il there
fore quite fmmateral, as the body is Concerned
whether the 80 called will is probated or not