Los Angeles daily herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1884-1890, 1886-05-21
THE LIBEL CASE.
Results of Yesterdays
PrOtracted Proceedings.
LEGAL LIGHTS LONG LINGO.
The Evidence all Before the Jury.
What the Court Proposes
To Do.

ther progress of the trial of Major Hor-
ace Bell on the charge of criminal libel
for his article published 10 the Poreu-
pine of February 9th, touching visit of
Col. G. Wiley Wells to the Baldwin
Hotel. The article is known as "Was 1t
his Wifel" At 1905 A. NJ. the jury was
called and all found present. The Court
then attended to some other matters
and at 1910 Major Bell took the stand
to continue his testimony. Judge Fitz-
gerald here moved to strike out certain
evidence given the day before, and
cited his authorities in support of the
motion. W. T. Williams replied to the
motion, quoting at length from Bishop
as authority to substantiate the position
he took. 1t was 1920 when this attor-
ney finished his argument. J. c. DAILY
argued the question further from the
standpoint of the defense. His address
consumed ten minutes. Major Bell
took up the argument in his own behalf
and talked little law. When he had
finished the clocks hands pointed to II
Am. The Court proceeded TO set forth
his views on the matter, and read from the
law books to sustain his views. He then
decided to grant the motion to strike
out the evidence given by the Major on
the D. evious evening. The court ex-
pounded his view of the constitutional
provision Of 1879, and of the act Of the
Legislature of 1880, teaching the duty
of jury in libel cases. The court also
discussed the nature of the testimony
given and which the motion looked TO
having stricken out. The defense ex-
cepted to the ruling and Major Bell took
an exception to the long ruling of the
court as tending to influence the jury.
At l1:l0 the Major again took the
witness stand. Judge Fitzgerald in
sisted that question and answer be put
and given catagorically. The article
headed "Delectable" was attempted to
be taken up. Here the attorneys again
got into their legal points as to the in
PRODUCTION Of this article, which is not
the one ON which this suit ia brought.
All the other articles named in the
HERALD yesterday were then referred
to and attempted to be brought in be-
fore the jury in order to show they were
true and published without malice. The
defense had introduced these same arti-
Giles in order to establish the fact of NAL
ice in the Majors mind. Judge Fitz-
gerald argued that the defense could in
troduce nothing in the way of testimony
until they had first proved the truth OF
the article. "Was il His Wife ?"-the
one on which the suit is based. The
Court ruled that this was the proper
course to take.
The defense took an exception. Coun-
sci for defense took up all the articles
seriatim and got the ruling Of the Court
excluding each, and taking an exception
to each ruling. The morning wore
steadily away, like tide. waiting for no
man, and when those points were all
settled in due course of "the laws de-
lay" it was IL ;25 o'clock. The one article
''Was il His Wife," was declared to be
in evidence already.
The witness asked leave to read the
article and proceeded to show what part
thereof was true. The article begins:
ut is claimed that was not
the carpet bagger's wife," The Major
stated that such claim was set up and by
the family of the lady. The prosecu-
tion asked that the testimony so given
be stricken out. The motion was grant
ed. Here went on q discussion again
between the attorneys. Major Bell
claimed it as his right to state the matter
as he pleased. Judge Fitzgerald stated
that the objections OF the State were
purely legal and that the testimony
should be put before the jury in proper
legal form.
Major Bells attorney thea inquired
into the history Of witness. He stated
that he came to California in 1852,
when he was 10 years old; that he went
into the laudable occupation Of farmer,
and ia this lost all he had. He then
went into the less laudable business OF
practicing law. The witness stated
that he had eleven children, ''the finest
family in the State" A question was
esked as to an attempt of Colonel Wells
to get Judge Hines attacked in the Por-
capine. Objected to; sustained. He
was then asked il the suit was not
brought at the instigation of Baldwin
for the part Bell had taken in the suit OF
Perkins VS.. Baldwin. The defense OBJ.
iected; sustained. The Court then in
structed W. T. Williams not to ask
such palpably improper questions. He
exonerated Mr.. Williams of any inten.
tional desire to trespass on the court. Mr..
Williams here stated that the examipa.
tion would be here closed. Major Bell
wished to go on and testify. The State
objected to the witness going on regard
less of any question they could object
to. Mr.. Williams therefore took the
matter up again and the witness was
asked the plain question II the article
were true. Mr.. Bell said simply yes it is.
Here Mr.. Williams again closed the ties.
timony. The Major went on. The de.
Tense wished him restrained from talk
ing as he pleased. The State asked il
he knew Of his own personal knowledge
il Col. Wells took some person
TO Beast Baldwin's den who was not his
wife. The witness said he never said he
had. He did not know whether he had
or not, and did not care fig. He said
he had taken his wife; he said on the
authority of her family it was not his
wife. He gave the two stories for what
they We're worth. On motion of the
State, all this was stricken out excepting
the bare statement that the article was
true. This closed Major Bells personal
testimony, and il being ll;45 recess
was taken until P. N.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
At POS the roll of the jury was called
and all being present the case was pro
ceeded with. Mr.. w. T. Williams, to
make the record correct, called on Major
Bell to state If he thought the matter
published to be true, and read the ques.
tion--being objected to by the defense
he proceeded to read ruling of Mich.
iRan court in libel case. Judge Bear
don took up the matter and argued at
length the question before the court. The
court stated that he had this morning
attempted to give reasons for his ruling
that the defense objected to his so do.
ing. He would not then give his rea.
sons, but would rule in favor of the OBJ
lections raised. The District Attorney
asked if witness meant to say that the
woman at Baldwins table was not his
wife. Major Bell wished to explain at
length what he meant. This he was not
allowed to do, so he said he could not
make that statement of his own knowl.
edge as he had not been present at the
time.
Mr.. Pritchard, foreman of the Porcu.
pine composing room, was called as
witness. This witness not being in the
room, Miss Louise O. Perkins was put on
the stand. Witness stated that she had
dined with Mr.. Wells in Mr.. Baldwin's
private dining room at the Baldwin;
that there were present Mr.. BALDWIN,
Mr.. Wells, Mira. Wells, Mrs. Dexter,
Anita and herself. The question was
put II she had been introduced to Mr..
Wells, This was objected to and the
objection sustained. Exception by de-
Tense. Witness stated that she had also
met Mr. Wells at the private residence
and also on the street, and that he rec.
ognized her. This testimony objected
to. Mr.. Williams tried in many ways
to get at the matter OF their meeting
k..e eh a 49,, - ,.,1a1 tba ,ua.tfa,, e,,A -