Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1885-11-13

ring to q report that DR.. Hicks had made O de-
mand Of the government for money for the
bones of Guiteai,; after THE STARS report
closed yesterday, the point was made by the
| article had been read, or that the persons who
teau's will.
DIR. Allen was recalled and testified that he
had read in TIE STAR what purported to be
the will Of Guiteau.
James Oregon. reporter Of THE STAR, testi-
threats used by him in the conversation with
Hicks, and explained that after Mr. Hicks had
to other newspaper men, they Shook hands AN and
parted friendly. As for the article complained
Of he knew nd thing Of It until he read it in the
with Mr.. Corkhill on the subjectmatter of the
bones and the disposition of them.
on Which, fIa cton ss based t h a ysith M
Goodwin, Of THE STAR, and that Croggon had
nothing " hatever to do with the matter to his
This closed the testimony for the day.
TESTIMONY TODAY.
This nj orning the plaintiff put in testimony a
note from Mr.. Croggon to Mr.. Hicks ironically
thankin Mr.. Hicks for courtesies.
Harry P: Goodwin, reporter of THE STAR was
the arti Gle in question. He wrote it on no ones
day he visited Col Corkhill and conversed with
from tais city as news matter on the subject.
Mr.. CT oggon knew nothing of the matter till
hs an the Of mo feeling
On S.ross-examinatiOn witness said he visited
Mr.. Hicks after the suit had been instituted, be-
under q misapprehension, and that If the facts
were explained to him he might drop his suit.
He called on Mr.. Hicks. stating that he was
empkSye of THE STAR. He told Mr.. Hicks the
facts concerning the publication, stating that
catie N in question. Witness said that in the
sion that ne intended 70 sue many papers
NJ. crosby 'e S SS editor of THE EVENING
STR, testified that MI. Croggon had never told
tned M e es he
publication OF any article concerning Mr.. Hicks.
A. the time of the publication the relations of
he knew nothing whatever of any ill-feeling be-
tween Mr.. Oregon and Mr.. Hicks.
MI VIM: r. Collins news editor OF THE STAR.
testified that he knew nothing of any ill-feeIing
between MIR. Croggon and Mr.. Hicks, and that
the article referred to was furnished by Mr..
Goodwin and not by Mr. Croggop.
This closed the testimony, and DR.. Culver ad-
dressed the jury for the plaintiff.
ARGUMENT ONLY ON ONE SIDE.
Dr. Culver read his address from manuscript,
portraying at length the infamy which he
claimed had been cast upon Mr. Hicks by the
publication OF a statement that he had made
merchandise of the bones of Guiteau, and dis
cussing at some length the laws of libel.
When DR. Culver concluded Mr. Sorkhill, OF
fence woulil submit the case without argument.
'rwo SERIES OF PRAYERS.
Mr. Coyls presented a series of prayers defn-
ing the law as applied to this case, as construed
by the defence. These prayers presented the
view that the plaintiff must, before he could re-
cover, prove that at least one person who knew
of the conditions of Guiteau g will. read the
article, and that il must be shown that the per-
son who brought about the publication was In
tained by Mr.. Croggon. If any were shown, did
not affect the case, unless it were shown that he
was in some way instrumental In bringing
about the publication.
Mr.. H. .. Claughton, for the plaintiff, also
submitted to the court number OF prayers OF
substan TALLY that the plaintiff was entitled to
recover, if the jury found from the evidence
that the article was libelous whether any actual
malice was proved or not that in finding yer.
dict they should take into consideration all
the facts Of the case, the will OF Gu1teaus &c
having malice towards DIR. Hicks contributed
to thi; publication, it constituted case Ior ex-
empltlry damages
CHARGE OF JUDGE cox.
Judge Cox, taking the prayers, said he would
state the law as he understood it in his own
terms. He said the substance of the complaint
was that the defendant had published an inn
putstion that DR.. Hicks had offered to sell the
of Ca ith. Such an imputation would undoubt-
eddy tend to bring man into disrepute. He
Thought such an imputatiOn would, in the
Quifed as an element Of libel malice, expressed
or implied. The only Importance of ascertain
ing: whether there was any expressed malice II e
were shown that the libel was published from
csfelessness or oversight, without actual malice,
PENDANT only the damages he had actually suf-
fered on account of the publication. The Judge
called attention to the fact that the publica-
simply repeated gossip between q reporter
and Col. Corkhin. The reporter asked
was true that DR.. Hicks had offered to Sell the
bones of Guiteau, and Col. Corkhill had replied
that he had been SO informed. 1t was true, the
ceaed in an INQUIRY. He noted that this publ.
cation did not charge any breach OF trust or
iibelous publication in itself. as it alleged no
mercenary motive or breach of trust. In order
to complete the proof one witness was brought
previous knowledge of the will of Guiteau,
prescribing that his bones should not be dis
posed Of for mercenary motives; me principal
ton of this Interview with Col. Corkhill was in
tended by the defendant to imply or convey to
the public an imputation that DIR. Hicks had
Violated his trust. The publication not being
an assertion of fact, the plaintiff was
required to aver that 1t meant to charge him
with improper conduct. 1t was left with the
jury to determine whether such was the inten-
ton. If they found such intention the jury
the pIaintiff was entitled TO- Evidence had
been offered to show that one of the reporters
OF THE STAR had some ill-feeling towards DIR.
Hicks. If it were shown that this reporter had
inspired the article complained OF, such fact
would form an element in making out a case
for exemplary damages. But it had been
shown that this reporter had nothing whatever
to do with this publication.
Counsel having asked a question respecting
the proof of publication, Mr.. Coyle said that the
jury must take into consideration the limited
character OF this publication as shown in the
proof.
Judge Cox said it was proved that one person,
DR.. Allen, had read it.
Everybody reads The STAR in this town."
said Mr.. ClAughton.
Mr.. Mitchell, a member of the jury, asked If
the publication OF street gossip alleging Inn
proper conduct was not libelous.
Judge Cox said that II 1t were published with
the view Of asserting or endorsing the street
rumor it would be ltbelous. It was question
court was privileged and could not constitute
libel, but IT the newspaper editor endorsed the
evidences or asserted it as fact 1t might consti-
tute libel.
Juror Mitchell inquired II the jury were to
measure damages by what was proved In court,
and the judge responded affirmatively.
The jury retired at noon.
a VERDICT OF ONE CENT DAMAGES.
The fury came In at Q quarter to two O'Clock,
and rendered . verdict for the plaintiff for one
cent damages.
The Sterling Case Decided.
ACTION OF THE CIVIL SERVICE CONFESSION
YESTERDAY.
The civil service commission took up the Ster-