Los Angeles daily herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1884-1890, 1886-05-27
THE LIBEL SUIT
Argued and Given to the
Jury.
RINGING CHANGES ON A BELL
The Second Case Closed and the
Jury Locked up to Con-
slider 1t.

IIle second case ClOSeu anu thc
Jury Locked up to Con-
slider 1t.
Taking up the case where it was drop
ped yesterday, briefly the evidence put
in consisted of an tfer on the part of Ma
jor Bell to submit great bundle Of pa.
pers in the several cases of E. ]. Bald
win VS.. Horace Bell, civil suits for dam
ages for libel. The purpose was to show
persecution and a conspiracy against
him. The Major wanted to read the
contents to the jury, but this was not
allowed.
He then offered in evidence files of the
Porcupne from the first number, pub
lished November IL. 1882, up to and in
GLIDING May I'D. He claimed that it
was a high moral publication. iworthy
Of the confidence and respect OF the
whole world, aud of all the people in the
world" Especially would he call atten'
ton to the motto at the head of the pa
per, claiming to be actuated by the SEN
timent it enunciated.
This was objected to and the obiee-
tion sustained. Parts of articles in it
were offered. with the same result. At
this stage George E. Long was found.
He said he had heard that Sherman had
made the remark in the obnoxious arti-
Gle concerning Mr.. Wells, and that he
had heard that gentleman called oily"
These answers were ordered out of the
evidence.
Hon. $. M. White was put on the
stand in an attempt to get testimony
from the Baldwin trial, with reference to
Col. Wells calling the Porcapine
"dilectable Sheet, introduced.
This was not allowed. ID. NJ.
Adams, Esq., was put on, but under the
rulings of the Court had to retire with.
out testifying. Tenders of other testi.
mony were made, but all ruled out by
the same rulings before given.
The defense took recess Of few
minutes to consult On their taking up
the case again they wanted to use the
articles in the Porcapine to explain each
other. From this TO the close by the
defense all the time was spent III vain
endeayors on their part to get evidence
10 which was ruled out by the Court.
JUDGE BRuSsos
Testified as to the size of his own library
before becoming associated with Colonel
Wells, saying ii consisted of about 1900
volumes; knew nothing about Bells Ii
brary then or now. but thought that of
Wells about equal 10 his own. Some OF
the latter's books were new and some
old. and some had been rebound.
Did you ever read those booksf'
asked Major Bell.
ibid / ever read themg" replied
Judge Brunson, with a peculiar smile,
Eyes. did"
Ibid Wells ever read themf' asked
the Major, Objection was made and
the witness stood aside.
L. II. EMERSON.
Question by Bell-Col. Wells has stat
ed that neither he nor his firm were
ever employed BY you or Abbot Kinney.
Ia that sof
The Court-You can't ask that ques-
ton.
Question by Bell-Wells has said you
are a man of bad character.
Objection sustained.
"How long have you been here and
what is your occupationf"
Objection overruled and witness an
swered that he had been in California
since 1855, and was now common la
IA. L. IrI I'll 1e5
taught school during that period.
"Wells says he never had anything to
do with your suit. nor with the letter
you had published in my pager.
Objection oyerruled and witness said
AT wrote the letter aud signed it. As
10 the lawsuit, the records will show"
"Then let them show when the time
comes. interrupted Judge Fitzgerald.
SIS it not true that Wells threatened
you If the letter was published ?" CON
Einued Major Bell.
Eyes, he threatened me. As to the
Kinney case, ii Is only hearsay with
me-"
Witness admitted that he had gone to
Wells about the letter before the publi-
cation, but objection was made to tho
question whether Bell had not wanted
him to have il published as against
Wells. The Court decided that this
was not relevant to the issues raised in
this case, and the witness left the stand.
Yesterdays PROCEEDINGS.
The jury was called at 9:35 and all
found present excepting H. Jevne, who
came in q moment later. At 9:37 Dis
trict Attorney Holton proceeded to read
the "dry and uninteresting" law OF the
State on libel. He read the statutory
definition Of libel, then the section on tho
punishment Of libel. The extreme pen
ally is $1,000 foe or Imprisonment in the
county jail for one year. 1t is not fine
and imprisonment The Court may i'm.
pose fine Of $4,000, or send the culprit
to Jail for one year. He may impose
fne Of 81, or imprisonment for one day.
In libel the jury is the judge of the law
as we'll as OF the fact. This is different
law from that in any other crime. The
new constitution of this State and the
legislative enactment Of 1880 designed to
give effect to the organic provision
which makes the Jury the judge of the
law in libel cases. This means that the
jury are to Judge II the article on which
a suit Is based be libelous or not. A
newspaper is given the right to
publish all judicial. legislative or pub
lie official proceedings, any debate
or speech made during such pro-
ceedings. But If the paper makes com.
lnents In such proceedings, such COM
ments are not privileged by being con-
nected with such privileged matter
Such comments stand and fall on their
own merit. To threaten to publish a
libel is a misdemeanor. The definition
OF malice in connection with libel was
read from the statutes OF the State. The
attorney next read the information
charging the offense including the article
SHERMAN ON Wells" from the Porcu-
nine. He commented on the language,
sentence by sentence, as he went along,
The argument claimed that the language
showed upon its face that the object of
the publication was not to give informa-
sion of an important or interesting fact
to the people, but to "vex, annoy and in.
cure" the person referred to. What you
are 10 do is; First, to decide il the de-
PENDANT did publish this article; second,
is II libelous per sc, that is, on its face,
plainly, or if it is not so per re, then, is
IL so by inuendo, or by some meaning to
flow naturally from the Ian
guage7 1t appears to me there
has been much waste of time here on the
part of the defense in trying to get stuff
before you that has nothing to do with
the case. They have tried to drag 10
here the Baldwin trial and other things.
1t is before you OF course, but it should
not influence you in your verdict. lap.
prehend it will not influence you. The
Court is the judge as to what is admissi-
bic as testimony What the Courtrules
out you cannot take into consideration.
II the Court has erred in his rnling there
is the proper remedy to come hereafter.
In An action for libel there is difference
from other criminal actions. If man
steals horse and that fact is proven, he
cannot justify the act in any way He
stole the horse. He is then guilty. In
NIL thara ara two parfs To the action