Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1884-10-09
The Alleged Libel Against the "Bee.u

his official acts while acting as clerk n-the
/ Surveyor Generals Office, was called for
exa nination before Justice ]. c. Tubbs
Yesterday afternoon at o'clock, to which
time it was postponed upon telegram
| from Horace Stevens, who was absent from
! the city when the case was set Tor eXamln-
alton on October ID. In order that Mr..
Stevens might be present subpoena was
served upon him, notifying him that the
case would be examined October Sth at l
| p. NJ.
When Justice Tubbs called the case for
hearing Yesterday, City Attorney Anderson,
acting as District A ttorney and K. Brown,
Deputy District Attorney, appeared Tor the
prosecution, and c. L. White for defend
ants Mr. Stevens failed to put in an ap-
pearance, although only few moments
| before he was in the immediate neighbor-
hood of the Court The City Attorney at
once asked for an attachment for him,
which attachment was granted and placed
| in the hands of an officer AT 2:05 o clock
| the officer returned without the witness,
and stated that he was informed that Ste
vens intended to go TO San Francesca at
| $50 p. NJ.
Defendants counsel stated that large
number of witnesses were IN attendance,
and demanded that the examination pro-
coed. The Court so ordered.
The City Attorney then called J. j:
| Glaclen, who testified that Charles and
| Valentine McClatchy were proprietors and
publishers of the Bee at the time the al
| legged libelous article appeared; that the
same was published in the Bee at the in
stance of and with the full knowledge of
the proprietors that he knew Horace
Stevens, and knew he was a candidate for
office, and had been clerk in the Surveyor
Generals office. The prosecution then of
| fered in evidence a copy of the Bee contain
ing the alleged libelous article, Of date of
September /, 1884.
Defendant then called II. l. Wiley, Sur
| veyor-G eneral, and offered to show that the
statement contained III the article pub
| lished was true.
The City Attorney objected to the testi-
mony, on the ground that an injurious
publication is presumed to have been ma
liciously made, if no justifiable motive for
making it appears and that the only ques-
ton for defense is that of honest intent in
place of malice. The Court overruled the
objection.
General Wiley stated that he discovered
defalcations about March 1st last, and spoke
to Stevens about the matter. and that his
| Stevens actions would ruin him. Stevens
| then admitted the acts, and offered to go to
Controller Dunn and assume the entire re-
sponsibility. Stevens then signed the docu-
ment set forth in the article published,
which was only to be used in case of neces-
sity. Stevens then paid up $956-the de-
ficiency-and | allowed him to resign. The
fact of an amount so much larger than
usual being reported caused Controller
Dunn to make some inquiries, and the re-
suit was that / had TO make a supplemental
report and explain the whole matter, which
brought ont the confession of Stevens and
caused the same TO be annexed to the sup
Elemental report. ] never authorized the
Bee to publish the article, and did not know
of it; the reporter obtained it from the
Controllers office l tried to suppress its
publication, as | had trusted Stevens, and
always believed him faithful until this af-
fair.
John p. Dunn testified that he is Con-
trOler of State; that the report shown him
was official, and part of the records of his
office. The report shows the supplemental
report of General Wiley, and discloseS
1856 deficiency
Report offered in evidence
The City Attorney objected to the intro
duction of the report, for reasons given in
the objection to Willeys testimony. OBJ
lection oYerruled.
Mcssrs. Angler and Twitchell testified to
the signature of Horace Stevens; and
Angler testified that he had, with Gen.
Wiley, examined the accounts and found
the alleged deficiency Of 1886. This testi-
mony was admitted against the objection
of the City Attorney.
V. S. McClatchy testified that he had no
malicious intent in publishing the article !;
that the same was a matter of public record,
and was simply presented as news. That
he believed it to be trne, and as Stevens
was q candidate for an important Office
that the public should know of his transac-
tons while holding public trust. Here
the defense rested.
Mr.. Anderson then asked that the case
be taken under advisement until Mr.
Stevens could be produced.
The defendants counsel objected.
The Court stated that Stevens had been
notified, and that the case had been con-
tinued over on account of his absence, and
that he could not see what effect his testi-
mony would have in the case.
Mr.. Anderson then Srgued that the pub
hcatiOn must be presumed to have been
| malicious, and that even if some of the
article was true in fact, if the publication
was made for the purpose Of iniuring
Stevens the charge of libel would lie He
| cited recent case decided in New York.
where a newspaper published complaint
| filed in magistrates court beforea warrant
was issued, wherein it was held that such
a publication was presumed to be ma
| licious.
c. L. White contended that the truth
could be no libel, and that this was mat
ter of public record, and was published by
the Bee without any malicious intent, and
was published for good motives and for
iustifiable ends, therefore the defendants
must be discharged.
The Court seemed TO take this latter view
of the case, and discharged the defendants.