Los Angeles daily herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1884-1890, 1886-05-27

shall tell the jury what they shall hear.
say he shall not, aud when he put a gag
in my mouth he deprived me of my
rights. The defendant then read al ex-
tract from Trial by Jury, explaining
how a picture looks as seen from several
standpoints. A jury is in the same po-
sitioh; they must hear both sides OF the
story. This we were not allowed to do.
They want to go back to the time of JET.
| freys. If the Jury do not protect me. l
believe the Court will send me to jail
| for the rest of my life. And for whaty
To crafty the private spite of a lot OF
eonspirators, "BaIdwin, Unruh and the
Honorable Carpet Baggeri" The
right Of self defense pervades all ma
ture. Ali animals have power OF self
defense. If b. goes on the street
and yillifies A, the latter has a right to
say B is a greater william. Here the
Major got into the Baldwin matter and
Judge Fitzgerald interrupted him witha
contradiction and some confusion en-
suedl.
I wonder il Baldwin had anything to
do with this. Mr.. Knox testified here.
| Now what did he sayf Some of my
questions he answered. Some he did
not. He sat dumb until an objection
was got in aud ruling OF the Court so
that he could not answer. 1.-THE Judge
here interpoaed an interruption, saying
| Knox did not answer because the Court
forebade him. There was some discus
sion here between the Court and the
speaker. II the Court has wronged me
then / appeal to you to protect me.
William Penn was once tried 50.
The Jury said he was guilty Of
preaching in Grace Church street. That
was ne offense. They we're starved
to make them bring in verdict They
brought in verdict mot guilty" The
Court fined the jury forty marks man.
| The Court fined Penn for contempt Of
Court. The Major went into his past
record little bit. The worst Of it all
was more easily endured than the ordeal
of Yesterday. II am talking to jury,
and if / eau say anything to give them
a good opinion of me or bad opinion
of the conspirators against me have
right to do it. They may crush out
Horace Bell, but they cannot crush out
| the Porcupine. | called him carpet
| pet-bagger That was lie; that was a
mistake. 1t was mistake to call him
honorable. |, too, fought on the Union
side, but did not go down to pick the
bones of the dead after the war.
The testimony of Emerson was
then analysed by the Major. and
after that the testimony of
Judge Brunson As to the law library,
we offered to examine Wells ia the law
here before you. Why did they not let
us do ity Wells career was again
sketched by The Major. Wells rose and
said the statement was lie. This was
repeated. Here followed a scene be-
tween the Court and all the lawyers in
the case The Major went on with
Wells career in China The Court
again interrupted him and forbaie him
to comment on anything except the case.
The Major closed here at LOS.
j. G. DAILY, ESQ.,. was the next speak
er. The law of libel is different from
that OF other crimes only in that the ag.
gressions of the Courts has been cur
tailed by statutes several times. What
waslareeny acentury agoisso now. What
was murder then is murder now. 1t not
so with libel. 1t has no fixed status in
law. The publication to be libel must
be done maliciously. 1t must carry an
injury with it. II it has been without
injury flowing from it then it must be
assumed that there was no malice in it.
Then you cannot convict him. Mr. DAILY
took up the evidence. and after analyz-
ing it claimed that the prosecution had
presented nothing more than the mere
article with their allegation that it is
libelous. He appealed to the jury as to
what impression the article had made on
their minds when they read it at the
time of its publication. He asked If they
thought 1t would do Mr.. Wells any great
injury, or IL they had laughed at it as a
story. He argued that there was no
evidence to show that there had any in
Jury flowed from the publication, by
which Col. Wells was damaged in the
least. Ii there has been no injury flow
ing from the case then the malice cannot
be presumed. You cannot go behind
the article to find what does not appear
on its face. That is their own position.
The article may be inveetive, it may be
levity, but it is not malice. The attor-
ney then read the article as it appeared
in the paper. MFR. DAILY argued there
was nothing Injurious in calling the
prosecuting witness an Honorable car
pet.bag Congressman" He took the
same view of the whole article, reading
it clause by clause and commenting on
each as it went along. Atvarious stages
he appealed to the jury's personal expe-
fience in the premises. asking if they had
conceived any worse opinion OF Mr..
Wells by reason of the article in ques-
ton. He read later on that Col. Wells
- -e.
gresham" and claimed that in the whole
article, wherever he is called a carpet
Dagger, any opprobium that attaches
ordinarily to the word is saved by
some epithat that is respectful.
Mr.. DAILY spoke until 1907 P. NJ.
After the jury was dismissed the
Court retained the attorneys tor mo-
ment, during which he imposed fine of
$50 on Col. Wells for saying Horace
Bell said what was lie in the presence
OF the Court. Col. Wells explained to
the Court that in all his professional
career such thing never happened to
him before. He acknowledged that the
utterance was wrong, but said he had
sat for many days and suffered much
insult, leaving his case in the hands Of
his counsel. Here for moment he for.
got himself. The Court cut the apology
short and stood adjourned for the recess.
AFrERSoos SESSION.
When the court reassembled at 2i20,
the hour at which the court reconvened,
the room was crowded full as it has
been at all stages of the two trials. As
soon as order was called Col. Wells paid
his fine of $50. The jurors names were
called and all found in their seats. W.
T. Williams, Major Bells counsel. pro-
ceeded to close the case for the defense.
He claimed that in every case Of crime
there must be joining OF act and in
intent, or sof criminal negligence. No
man can be found guilty OF crime un.
less the people show that the act was
done with criminal intent. In the libel
case of Thos. Jefferson against news
paper for libel, Hamilton took this view
of the matter. [fhe attorney here read
from the argument Of that distinguished
lawyer on this head. He also read the
law of libel from the Penal Code of Cali
fornia. On malice another legal author
Ity was quoted, to the effect that the de-
PENDANT must have known the things
published to have been untrue at the
time of publication, or It was to be pre-
sumed that these was no malice in the
case. Bishops criminal law was then
quoted at great length.
In ordinary cases you are supposed to
be bound by the law as laid down by the
Court. In libel cases you are not so
bound. You have taken no oath that at
all binds your conscience. The only
oath you have taken is to try the case
according to the evidence. In this case
you are the exclusive judges OF the law
III this Court undertook to instruct you
as to your duty in this case he would be
liable to impeachment. and he ought to
be impeached. The defense of the
great and lamented Emmett question
il even the defense OF that pure patriot
was ADLER than that of the old soldier
and patriot, Horace Bell. Here the
speaker got onto the Baldwin trial again