St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-04-01
NOW IN THE JURYS HANDS
The Arguments Completed in the Welch
j Libel Suit.
BRIEF CHARGE BY THE JUDGE
In Which he Carefully Instructs the
Jury Regarding Reasonable
Doubt.

ing for the Welch LIBEL SnlU, county Az
torney Davis continued his argument
and spoke continuously until after IL
o'clock. He claimed that the defense
had utterly failed in the attempt to
prove the truth of the libel, and the
statement the defendant made
while on the stand, that Villas
admitted to him that he received
$4,000 of the surplus fund. was
utterly false. He then spoke of the
great wrong done Villas by this publica-
ton in the Home Diary, but said that
much greater wrong would be done if a
verdict of acquittal was rendered, for
that would be stamping the libel with
the seal of truth.
FOR THE DEFENSE.
Col. Sessions then began his argument
for the defense. He said:
..Why is it that this is the only case OF
criminal prosecution that has ever been
brought for libel? Never in the history
of this country has such thing taken
place before, and yet we know that this
court has been filled with cases OF libel
against newspapers of this city; cases
in which the libel has been clearly
established by evidence in court
and yet this public prosecutor here has
never had one of them indicted until he
had this defendant indicted, and yet ne
saws it is his duty to defend the rights
and punish the wrongs of the citizens OF
this county. Why is it then that w. f.
Villas did not bring his libel suit against
this defendant the same as the
taxpayers of this county would
have been compelled to have done
and to have borne his own expenses, In
stead of saddling all the costs on the
county? I will tell you the reason why,
because he did not dare appear in court,
for he would then have been put on the
witness stand. The county attorney
says the defendant lied when he SAID
Villas admitted receiving $4,000 OF the
surplus fund. Why did he not have
Villas deny then, as 1t is now 1t STANDS
uncontradicted? w. F. Villas
DID NOT DARE
to 90 on that witness stand, neither did
he dare to bring this suit himself, bnt
crept cowardly behind the state. and
made willing tools of the state officials
in causing this defendant to be in
dicted eight times for criminal libel, land
then expects the taxpayers OF this county
TO nav the expense of prosecuting him,
thinking that he would at least make it
cost the defendant several hundred dol
lars. although the county would prob
ably be stuck for double that amount.
This is the way the courts are used by
the rich, but the poor are forced to pay
their own expenses if they appear IN
court to protest against being wrOnged.
If the men who are forced to earn their
living by the sweat of their brow pro-
test against being wrOnged and appeal
to the courts for their rights, they are
treated in the manner that Villas threat
ened to have Seth Bartlett treated. You
will remember that he SAID Villas told
him that he was fighting rich corpora
ton which would spend $1,000 to his
500. and that they would drag him into
endless litigation that would ruin him.
This is the way these rich corporations
are using the courts of justice all over
the country to get rid of their victims,
after they have robbed them. When
this suit was brought by Seth Bart
lett, asking to have receiver
appointed, the books were then
in existence, and these directors knew
that if these books were taken into
court their villainy would be exposed,
and, consequently, as soon as they sue
ceeded in getting him to dismiss the
suit by paying him the amount sued for,
with the costs of the suit-and they even
paid his attorney-they then burned
the books, so that if another suit was
commenced by any of the other policy
holders, who
HAD BEEN SWINDLED,
they could then come forward and say,
why there was SO much money in the
fund, and there was so much in this one,
and if we had not destroyed the books
why they would show it. Now do you
think for single minute that if there
had been no rascallty In the winding
I'D of the affairs of this company
these few books which gave the
financial statement of the company at
the time the affairs of the company were
wound up and what became of the
funds of the company. But no, they
did not dare to let any one see those
books and they were so much afraid
that some one might see them that they
burned them up, according to their own
testimony, but the old books, giving
record of the business of
the company before the wreckers
got hold of it, were sold to the paper
mill as old paper. They did not care if
some outsider did get hold of those, but
the records of the operations of the
wreckers were burned. Now MI. Welch
said on the stand that when he asked
Villas, sHow much of the surplus funds
did you receiver he answered, L
received as my share $4,000, but [ am
sorry took it but when man gets S1S,-
600 in his pocket he hates to take it out
again and return it. Now this is not
contradicted, nor could they contradict
without putting Villas on the stand, and
that they did not dare to do"
Alt few minutes past o'clock Judge
Hicks delivered his charge to the jury:
He first explained what the crime of
libel consisted of, and then said that the
libel in this case was the charging of
WIZ. Villas with conSpiring with
others in wrecking the Madison
Insurance company and diyid-
ing the assets among themselves.
s.Now there are three elements in this
case; first, was the alleged libel pub
lished by the defendant? second, was
the alleged libel defamatory? and, third,
wasn't malicious?e The first is admitted,
and there is no evidence denying the
second, so both must be ans
wered in the affirmative and the
third must also be answered in the
affirmative, unless there is some justifi-
cation therefore. The only justification
in this case would be proof that the al
legged libel was true, or that it
was published for good motives
and for justifable ends. Ii from
the evidence you have reasonable
doubt as to whether the defendant was
justified, then you should give him the.
benefit of the doubt. The defendant is
presumed to be innocent unless the evil
dence is such that you believe him
guilty, and the libel is presumed to be
malicious unless found to be true"