Morning journal and courier., 1884-04-17
sTNGLE CORES TWO GENTS.
Thursday. April II. 1854.

OEIIVERED BIZ CARRIERS IN THE CITY, IL
GENTS WEEK, AZ CENTS MONTH, $500
YEAR. THE SAME TERMS By MAIL.
Thursday. April IT. 1884.
The Trials of Troup and Butler.
Charges OF Criminal Libel Being Pushed
by Postmaster Sperry-The story of
Ur1ah Hesp Introduced as Evidence
Against the Accused.
The cases against Alexander Troup and
Ed ward Butler, proprietor and editor of the
Union respectively, who are charged with
criminal libel against Postmaster N. D. Sper-
ry, was begun in the criminal side of the SUI
perior court yesterday. All parties to the
case were in court and large number of
interested listeners were present. The de-
PENDANTS were represented by Attorney Ham
llton, while Judge Blydenburgh assisted Mr..
Doolittle in the prosecution of the States
case.
On the opening of the court at 10 o'clock,
Judge Park rendered his decision on the
arguments made on demurrer by the de-
fendant's counsel Tuesday. He said as to
the first claim of the defendant that he
thought the point well taken, that each of
| the two counts in the case Zone bearing on the
statute of 1875 and one on the revision of
| 1890 was not based on separate and distinct
statutes, and he agreed with the defense that
the later statute repealed the former by i'm
plication. man could not be tried under
| two similar statutes for the same offense.
These statutes differ in the following word
| ing. That of 1876 says in substance: F'Any
person who shall write, publish, print, dis
tribute and publicly exhibit any indecent
matter concerning another shall be fined not
more than $500 or be imprisoned not more
than one year, or both" The statute of
1880 imposes this penalty upon person who
| shall publicly exhibit, post up or advertise
any abusive matter.
| one transaction. If the case can come under
| both these cases it seems to me that they are
| identical. So that think if the parties
found guilty on these counts they cannot be
| found guilty on the other. There can be
but one punishment. AS to the claim of
the defense that the plaintiff does not ex-
| plicitly state in what shape the bill was
| issued the court said the general rule was
| that the plaintiff did all that was necessary
| if he stated in accordance with the general
rule the words of the statute. AS to
| the claim that there was no libeIIous mat
|
| pairing Mr.. Sperry to Uriah Heep, $50 very
| humble" etc the court held that it did not
| apply. And as to the articles re Election on
| the civil service discipline and its statement
| that the postmaster ought to be cashiered,
the court said it was direct charge that we
did not have proper civil service It
doesn't mean sthing else As to the
charge relating to Governor Walters doing
| his duty, the court said it was complaining
! that the present governor didn't do his duty.
1T seems to me-" concluded the court,
| t'that these exceptions are not well taken
| and the demurrer Ia therefore overruled.'
with your honor's permission" said MIR.
Doolttle, 81 will now move to nolle the
second count Chat of 1880 and proceed to
| trial with that of 1875"
The motion was allowed. The action was
taken SO as to leave nothing open to the de-
Tense for exceptions. The complaint then
stood as drawn by Judge Blydenburgh before
| the City court.
Mr.. Hamilton thereupon moved that the
accused be discharged on the ground that no
such statute was now in existence. ''You
| can't do that" replied Mr.. Doolittle. GAN
| you can do is to strike the case from the
docket or demur, and your demurrer has
been o7erruled.'
| The court overruled Mr.. HamiIton's mos
| ton and he then entered bill of exception
| on the ground that the statute on which the
remaining count is founded has been repeal
ed by the passage of the statute OF 1880.
The impanneling of the jury was then pro-
cesded with. Mr.. Troup objected to Lester
Mallory, of New Haven, and Henry Sanford
of Bethany; Mr.. Butler objected to Augustus
Street. of GuilfoTd, and William B. Hunter,
of Madison. The defendants were then put
to plead for publishing the editorial in the
Union of the 9th day of last March alleged to
contain the certain indecent and abusive
matter" Both pleaded not guilty to the COM
plant.
General George Nj. Harmon was the first
witness called by the State. He said that he
knew Mr.. Butler, one of the defendants in
the present case. He went on:
81 met Mr.. Butler in the parlor of the
Quinnipiac club, and in little conversa-
ton that I had with him he said they had
Mr.. Sperry in tight place. Said I: Ii
that SOP Not caring to talk further II
reference to Mr.. Sperry l dropped the mat
ter there. On the next Saturday night
met him again at the same place, and hav-
ing then read the article in the Union
said to him: Mr.. Butler, l didn't quite un.
derstand the remark you made regarding Mr..
Sperry the other evening, but now that I've
seen the article 1 know what you mean.
| But, it seems to me, they read more like Mr..
replied: 'Oh, no, wrote the article my
SELF That is all know about it."
Upon the cross. examination the ger eral
said he read the paper of the Thursday be-
fore, which referred to the Birdsall Waller
matter. No lines were quoted from the arti-
Gle at the second conversation.
The next witness, Henry N. Whittelsey,
jr., said that he talked with Mr.. Butler, in
company with the preceding Witness on the
Saturday evening in question, when Mr..
Butler said that he wrote the article spoken
of.
At this point Judge Blydenburgh intro
duced copy of Dickens novel, David Cop
! oh !, laid in lie
| then produced a Webster's dictionary, and
pointed out the description therein given of
| Uriah Heep. Mr.. Hamilton objected to this,
| and, with Mr.. Doolittle entered into wordy
| war, which was but one of the many jangles
of counsel during the day. Mr.. Hamilton
| insisted that the whole book should be read
to the jury. The accused were being tried
before the constitutional tribunal of twelve
! jurors, and not before Noah Web
ster. The book should be read to the jury,
and the jury should form an opinion there
from. Mr.. Doolittle claimed that there was
no need of reading the book, and he had
| right to show by tho dictionary how the
| character of ''Heep' was generally and pub
licly understood. He cited an English case
in which the charge of Chief Justice Coburn,
| 1875, was as he was arguing. The defendant
was likened to the law firm of Cannon,
Quick & Snap in the novel, $1,000 a
1 Year. The court held that the definition of
use, was the public understanding of it.
1.-THE accused understood the meaning of the
words Urish Heep as Webster defines them"
said the court. 1 think the dictionary's
definition is admissible, but will keep the
matter under advisement for the present.
Webster defines Uriah Heep as follows:
A detestable character in Dickens novel of
'David Copperfeld, y VIZ o under the garb of
the most abjecs humility conceals diabolic
hatred and malignity. 81 am well aware"
quoth he, THAT I the 'umblest person
going, let the other be who he may. My
mother is likewise very humble person. We
live in humble abode, Master Copperfeld,
but have much to be thankful for. My
fathers former calling was humble; he was
sexton"
The State rested putting in evidence pend
ing the admittance of the dictionary as such.
Mr.. Hamilton objected to the laying in of the
work David Copperfeld" as evidence, I'M
less it was to be road to the jury. Mr.. Doc
little said, ''Well, the book has got in and
you can't except to it now"