Los Angeles daily herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1884-1890, 1886-05-26

pose the case OF a reporter who should
hear Of an incident and write it out for
his paper. He could not be imprisoned
for publishing such a report, even II it
should prove to have been untrue. He
had a right to make the publication that
had been made. and the Court with all
due respeot had no right to Judge him,
but the jury, who should be the judges
Of the law, after hearing the evidence.
He denied the right Of the Court to say
he should not make to the jury en- argu-
ment in his own behalf. He called at
tention to the constitutional amendment
with reference to criminal libel. and the
remarks of Col. Barnes, showing that
the Courts were inclined to lean heavily
on defendants in libel suits. The Major
was proceeding, when the Court said It
was waste of time to argue further in
this direction, as the Court had decided
as to the law in the case.
The Major was again put on the stand
and an attempt made by bis counsel to
get certain phases Of the case before the
Jury. but this was objected to at each
and every point by the prosecution.
The old ground so deliberately argued in
the previous case was gone over when
was to the effect that the truth OF the
arti sle--not the fact that the publisher
was told il was true by trustworthy per
soDs--but the ultimate fact which in this
case would be that Senator John Shers
man had spoken of Colonel Wells as
alleged. The only way to do this evi-
IDENTIFY would be to bring forward some
one who heard the senator say SO, OF get
the Senator to say himself he said so.
As the distinguished Ohioan was not to
be had the person who heard the thing
was TO be produced before the case could
be proven ON the part of the defense.
This view seemed to be the law in the
case, as the Court so ruled Judge
Fitzgerald was explicit that this was his
only solicitude upon this head. He was
not at all afraid to have all the facts in
the case laid before the jury. He would
willingly let all go in, but he would in.
sist that it be done by due course of
law. Many questions were a=ked the
Major by his counsel calling for the
same ruling Of the.Court. in order that
the defense might have their objections
entered
The MAJOR then made an offer to tell
way. The prosecution objected to this,
but the Court overruled their objection,
and allowed the defendant to do as he
proposed ii he would do it under the
previous ruling of the Court. The Major
accordingly set out to tell his story and
got part of one sentence out, when the
Court interrupted him for trespassiLg
on the rulings before given and refused
to let the witness say anything except
ing by question and answer, SO that
the prosecution might be able to inter
pose their objections.
Mr.. Geo. K. Long was called but was
not to be found. While he was being
sought the defendant came in with an
offer to show that this case is conspir.
acy on the part of K. j. Baldwin and
prosecuting witness. The Court in
formed the defendant that he could
make the offer but could not read ii in
the way OF argument to the jury, but
must be guided by the usual rules of
practice.
The prosecution here put in evidence
q great number Of diplomas issued by
many courts, allowing Col. Wells to
practice before them. They were OBJ
jected to by the defense and thrown out
as not being proper testimony in re-
buttal.
The complaining witness was then put
on the stand to rebuff the testimony of
Emerson as to the one point al
lowed to remain Of his evidence
that was touching the employment Of
Mr.. Wells or his friend Emerson in his
case with Baldwin. He swore il was
not true; that neither he nor his friend
were ever SO employed. He had drawn
a contract between abbot Kinney and
Emerson, Kinney being q client OF the
firm. For this Kinney paid him $40.
In rebuttal OF Major Bells statements
as TO his law books, he said when he
came here and went into partnership
with Judge Brunson that gentleman had
more books than he (Wells) had. They
had purchased great many while they
were in the firm together. When Bruu-
son became Judge he had sold to the
witness all the works. Nearly all the
books he had when he came here he
had before he went to China On
cross examination Mr.. Williams
asked the witness how long he had prsc-
ticed law in Mississippi. Col. Wells re-
pied: nine years.
Williams--Was not your practice
there before Negro juries?
A.-No sir. excepting such Negroes as
you.
Willisms-They were white juries
them
A They were such juries as were
impaneled by the courts. Some of them
were white and some of them were col
ored jurors.
Williams-Were there any Negro
judges in Mississippi?
The Court administered sharp re-
buke to Mr.. Williams for asking such
improper questions.
Tine crowded columns of the HERALD
precludes reporting the rest Of yester.
days proceedings at this time. They
will be given tomorrow.
The case recommenoes at A. NJ. to-
day, when argument will be presented
10 the jury. Each side is to have two
and half hours to discuss the law and
facts in the premises.