Los Angeles daily herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1884-1890, 1886-05-22


Then followed with the closing argu-
ment Of the prosecution at 2:4O. He
spoke nearly an hour. At the outset he
stated; l will use no pettyfogging, no
trickery, no shistering. | only ask for
the law and the facts. If ne is not guilty
then in the name Of Heaven turn him
loose, and will say Auen to your yer
dict. But am ashamed to know that this
Temple Of Justice, which next to the altar
should be held sacred has been so pro-
famed as It has been in this case. 1t has
been by the asking OF jurors II they
were church members, il they had any
regard for religion. l, like perhaps most
OF you Jurors, do not make profession
of religion. But respect from the bot
tom of my heart all sincere followers
Of the meek and lowly Jesus. | re-
spect that which is the cornerstone
OF our civilization. do not want here
to indulge in slush, or to drag in testi-
mony the Court ruled out. The law
and the facts is all want you to weigh.
He has published the article in question.
II is defamatory Of the character OF
citizen Of nine years standing among you
"a man Of fine standing in all respects in
this community. A man 1 would pre-
fer ten times over to any of those who
for private ends come in here and villify
him.
There are two or three points you
have to weigh First, is the article in
question libelousl Second, is il so on
its face; and, if not on its face, is il
libelous in an ambiguous and covert
manner9 Is il explained by the inuen-
do, and is the inuendo proveng If it is
libeIous beyond reasonable doubt, then
it is your sworn duty to convict, unless
it is proven to be true, and if true, that
it was published for good metives and
iusiihable ends. The attorney took up
each of these points and elaborated his
argument thereon in very forcible and
lucid manner, reading the definitions
and the law from the books as he pro-
eeeded.
He said: The object of this enact
ment against libel is to protect So
ciety. to prevent the people from taking
the law into their own hands. The gem
tleman who made the only speech to the
point on the other side--all the others
merely testified on the case--said malice
is an essential element OF crime. Now
the statutes OF California are merely
OF the common law. The
defense, in defiance of the law, in spite
of the ruling Of the Court, lugged in
here In their speeches what they pleased.
II we we're to judge by the methods of
the defense, they would put our army
in Flanders 10 shame in the way of
swearing, if they were permitted to tes-
tify.
After reading the article alleged to be
libelous Judge Fitzgerald said; 1t
takes merely any honest man of sense,
not lawyer, nor court to decide what
the nature of that article is. The arti-
Gle shows on its face that it is libelous.
win any honest man on that jury say
that article was not meant to bring this
man into contempt before his fellow
men? viii they say it was not meant to
harrass and annoy, to destroy the good
name professionally and socially of this
citizen? This defendant swore here
that he was friendly TO Col. Wells.
If had any such friends | would get
down on my knees and pray the good
Lord in his mercy to deliver me from
all such friends. Friendly and in the
did not care which story was true, or il
either OF them were. Then he gets
down to the bare proposition that it was
true simply that he heard the report.
Why, on that principle can go on and
trump up any report about any citizen
and thus destroy the peace of society.
The law is that the editor of paper
publishes all its utterances at his peril,
and he is held responsible for them all.
am willing to believe Major Bell heard
this story from some designing person.
Belief is not enough to justify a
of this sort. The truth of
the statement must be proved. Is there
an honest man on that jury who will
put his hand on his breast and say that
article is true-that Mr.. Wells went to
Mr.. Baldwin's dinner with some woman
other than his wife, that he went to the
"den Of beast" with a woman
"arrayed in diamonds, not his
wifeg What place, what times
do we live in If a private citizen can be
30 maligned. There is not an honest
man on that jury who can say that arti.
Gle is true. This last gentleman for the
defense who addressed you (Williamsl
made a speech which was physically
very powerful. He tells you this is the
case of Col. Wells against Horace
Bell. This is the case of the
State against Bell. The State against
Bell for endangering the peace Of this
The speech Of that gentle
mau was no argument. IL was testimony
all through. While he was speaking of
this great patriot" this grand old
man." / thought for moment he was
speaking Of Bismarck or Gladstone. All
that business has nothing to do with the
case.
These other articles were not read
here for you to judge the defendant
from them. They were introduced
simply to show you the amin us of Mr..
Bell. he said under oath he did not
care whether they were true or not.
That ought to show you the motive that
he had. II it does, you have put
one duty to do. You must find him
guilty irrespective Of the 10 years 10
iail spoken Of here. There is that
sDelectable" article. He calls Col.
Wells ''canting hyposrite." Inanother
he makes him out to be sort of lick
spittle to John Sherman. He calls him
a carpet Dagger, says he is no lawyer,
that he has big library bought with
money stolen in China. Yet he swears
be was friendly to the man he so speaks
of. He says this under oath. He says
be had no malice. lie speaks much, so
does his counsel, of his family; of his
being an old soldier. They ask you to
turn him loose on such grounds. You
are not dealing out mercy here. You
are not endowed with the pardoning
power. You are to try this case with
out reference TO the defendant
personally. You cannot so try
the case unless you violate your
oath. You are simply to decide: Did
he publish this article? Is it libelous!
Is it true? There your function ends.
There is no testimony here that it is
true. If you acquit in spite of the law
and the evidence, then you are RESPONSE
BILE, aud what ever flows from this con-
duet will rest on you. You are asked to
think of defendants family, his wife and
children. l ask you to think OF the
family of others. There are two sides
to that part of the question. | tell
YOU if you make farce OF
TINS ITlhl you Will NC vic iaoN JatJ c"hNh
upon to make farce of similar case.
Read the article yourselves. Do not let
one or two jurymen find verdict for
YOU all. Find verdict according to the
merits of the case. His belief of the
truth of the article is not sufficient
to Justify this defendant in its publica-
ton. He must prove it true. If man
assails private character he does it at his
peril. He assumes all the responsibility
Of it. What good could come to the
community by the publication Of this
article! What could it benefit the
morals of the community? The truth of
the whole matter is in personal hostility
personal feeling. The community
cuts no figure in the matter. He is not
an official false to public trust
shown up here. He is not candidate
for office. He is a private citizen. No
man shall drag my private character be
fore the public-true or not Upon this
trial depends much of great moment to
this community. Aciuit him and blast
tI,a GOOD mama of Colonel Walls. con.