Los Angeles daily herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1884-1890, 1886-05-22
THE LIBEL CASE.
Argument of the Case by
Counsel.
IT GOES TO THE JURY.
The Whole Ground of Fact and
Law Covered-What win the
Verdict be?

Verdict be2
AT 10 A. NJ. yesterday the case oil tine
People VS.. Major Horace Bell, on a
ch.roa of or;,,;nsl bbel testimonv In
wnicn appeared IN 'ne HERALD VI ye''
terday morning, was reopened In an ar
gument on the law by District Attorney
a. NJ uot,on Eso He Rad the
49, ia,
statutory dennition Oh eriminal iioei anu
the sections of the Code covering the
mint Deducing his views from these,
80 H. ;r ust
n' "en' oi W argue sA~s 49,
hnd three facts TO lustiiy tnetn III az
quitting the accused. First were the
statame,ts meda In the article ON which
~, Il.
Tue sun Is paseo 'ruei Anas 49,
ultimate facts true in themselves, and not
did he hear they were true, but was not
ahla q, ,soa ~ .r,,h nc the facts he
-, G.
received as such al second manu- oeo'
ond, were the statements, II true IN
themselves. published WITHOUT ulalict
and for oood and unsuitable
n.. ~.
ehds! upoien
an editor De toid ahy'n'pg' Inas no can
prove a rumor was aproau' mere y h''ie
restraint on wn5t nc eau puDiish'
report that may damage a man cnarac-
Ter should not De puoi,sneu unlii 'neIe
Is good ground ior taxing as iaGt'
IL untrue reports are maae OF man ny
the press the press must % heiu respoh-
siole-
.sxt raaJ and ibsn ths article on which
the suit was brought. The attorney
took up the matter Of the punishment to
follow conviction, and insisted that
this was not a proper subject /, r the
iurv 10 consider. The statute left that
win he court and fixed a maximum al
a fine Of $1,000 and imprison-
ment at one wear. or by both such fine
aud ip,nr.sonment The court might
tix the penaltv M a fine of 81. or if,oris.
onment Al one day. il he SO thought well.
II The maximum line aud Imprisonment
were 40 set and none of the fine paid.
then NJ one davis IMPRISONMENT for each
dollar fne the term is made out to be
over thirteen years.
Newspapers may publish judicial,
Ieoislatiye and other official proceedings.
and thew are not accountable for any.
th;ng there brought to the surface
All speeches made on such occasions
NAV he nublisbed as they are given.
But IL the paper publishing such matter
adds any comment of its own then such
comment does not become privileged Dy
oeng Attached 70 .ne prNheeeu NATTER
out stands OF iaiis on its owl heri's'
J. O. DAILY, ESQ,
Took mn the argument for the defense at
I0.lO Althouoh he act out with the
statement that he would abstain from
anv parade of useless learning, yet he
went into the whole history Of the law Of
criminal libel. from the period when it
was nnrelv in the hands Of ecclesiastical
courts. and punished BY penance and
nubl;c reparation 40 far as possible. and
followed n down through the civil
courts Of England. the Star Chamber.
JefFrevs' terrible judgments. the Bill OF
R;ghts into American law courts. to
tbe New Constitution of California in
1870 and fine enactment of the LepisIa-
ture Of 1850 to give effect to the provis.
inns Of the organic law on this head.
Mr., Dalv then went into the present
case. and made a very strong and elo-
usnt argnment In behalf of his client.
n was 10 N. before the learned attorney
had fnished. The Court then adjourned
N reas.emble atop. M.
.., ,,...,
I'M Afiln''oN 'A9' =,
Upon the courts reconveninR, az the
urgent request Oh nus associates, sir;
Daily went on with MS argument ana
spoke for lew minutes. At2'Oi Major
Bell proceeded TO SPEAK In ms own ae,
reuse. ne Ieau iroui pooA cahsu
trial by Jury. an eA'ract WHICH,
taxing picture ior an mus a'io,,, spose
OF now tue picture appeared uineren'iy
20 each person aecording 10 lhe point ol
opserVaion; ooieis win tlrv eesumony
In any case oeiore Jury ne prosecu'
uoh presents ono Fiew Vi sno oaSe. ine
deiense presents aho.ner view anu potn
are necessary W eo're9s uhueIs'anuins
OF tine case me speaker maze an ap-
phcstion OF TINS W cue case IN manu-
STATING 'nst 'he grea. power OIL the STATE
standpoint before the Jury, but that
when the defense tried to state the facts
from their point OF view they were moi
allowed 60 10 do.
Major Bell then went on to saw here
IA an Instruction We have drawn. and
asked the Court to give the Jury. Yes
terdav the Court stated that he would
instruct the Jury. To-day he states that
he will not, IThe Court here inter
rapted the Major with contradiction
of the last statement Continuing the
argument the defendant said; II mere
BE- a reasonable doubt in your minds
that I am guilty. | am entitled to-
verdict AT vour hands. Unless
thare IA no reasonable doubt Of
nv m;lt vou cannot convict me
I AZ not want 10 he convictad RI
10 No, want 10 90 10 ;a;l for tbirtaen
rears Wben sncb thing az that
.,sres man in the faee II aronses an
~. san.ahan.;ans m court CO.. fna
.s ssboo Or Jav in ;a;l for eacb AL.
IL ~ a. 10 tb;rtasr yaars in ;aiI Nov
90 H. 18th ~ az statsn,sn, II i
!. - NJ