Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1885-09-10
The Hale-Armstronx Libel Case.

fhoCkEDINGS IN THE POLICE COURT TODAY.
To-day, at one O'Clock, in the Police Court,
Judge Smell, there was quite an interested audi
ence to witness the examination of Wm J.
Armstrong, Of the Free Press on the charge of
| libel in having in that paper OF the 18th of Au-
gust published, under the head of THE Hoo
200 Doctor an article of and concerning DIR.
w: n. Hale. Mr.. K Coyle, assistant district
attorney, appeared for the government and
Messrs Z; A. Walter and ID. E. Cahill for the de-
fendant, Armstrong.
could plead the truth in justification of the
oftense charged, and he read the act of Febru-
airy 70, 1865 tsec. SAP, that in all prosecutions
dence in Justification. This act is so broad that
IL applies to every conceivable prosecution for
Mr.. Walter read on the same subject from
Latrobe's Justice" They allege the truth of
the article, and ne was satisfied that If the
duped by this man he would not send the case
MI. Coyle Said the section quoted con-
tempiated courts where the general issue could
be pleaded, and this court was not such an one
that this was not a trial couIt-and the testi-
mony could be admitted here.
Mr. Cahill maintained that Congress, I'm
passing the act referred to, intended y revolu-
ton as to libel cases, and contemplated that the
OF libel there should not be a question of prob
able cause but they intended that the defense
might be made at once. The old law was the
greater the truth the greater the libel.
The court said he would not object If he
thought it was competent. He had had some
experience as to libel: He had tried several
cases, and in two acquitted, but in one he was
about to act, and it was taken up and the court
above laid down the law. He cited the case of
garded purely as infamous. The old common
law notion had been superseded by the act of
1865. He read this section, ana said that the
language applied to court which could acquit
While he would be glad to dispose of the case.
he could not do so.
George N. Garrett testified that he WAS a
nrintpr QmnlnUad at na rhv' OH,
where The Free Press is published. Witness
identified the paper 0he Free Press) and said
being printed; knew it was DR.. w. II. Hale re.
fesrsd 70 (P1 Poi! ting him QUIT.
Witness: No, sir.
The paper was offered in evidence
The court asked whose name was at the head
OF the paper and was answered w. J. Arm
strong, proprietor.
Dr.. John A. Rowland testified that he saw a
and purchased the paper.
Cross-examination-Witn knew the prose-
cutor to be VIM. H. Hale. Witness was phys
cal school, Cincinnati. Witness was not a
practitioner here, nor did he belong to q medi-
cal society OF the District.
Henry hale, was a physician and journalist;
s mad lived here three years; knew Arm.
Tben he whose Gs SnsWP S% nothing
before the publication Armstrong called
on him in regard to an advertisement OF his
which he had some weeks before ordered ont
Armstrong asked him for $40, and he told him
IL he had q bill to make it out. Armstrong be-
came angry and said that he believed what had
been said by q certain party was true and thar
he would drive witness out Of the city. The
next day he sent q bill.
Crossexamined-Was born in Belfast Sep
TENDER 5th, 1852; came to this country when
Fl years old; graduated at the American MeSi-
cal College Eclectic school at Cincinnati Wit
ness was not DIR. Carson; had never travelled
under that name. There is DIR. Carson i'm his
house, and witness opened his mails DR.,
Carson and himself were not one and the same
ness to counsel "
"You lie," was the reply OF Mr.. Cahill ..and
are a perjurer and swindier" --N
The hearing OF testimony was still in nnoorass
when our report closed.