Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1889-06-27

in this case; what was said or done by the
defendant about or 10 said Henry Bostle-
man in reference TO the matters complained
Of in this case and the alleged publication,
either shortly before or after the publication
of the alleged libel; the object OF reason Of
such publication, il the State has satisfied
you beyond reasonable doubt that publi-
cation was made by the defendant. All or
any Of these matters or things may be taken
into consideration by you in determining the
guilt or innocence Of the defendant. As TO
what the language of the alleged publication
mean, or what the defendant meant by the
use OF any language he may have used, II you
find he did use any. in the publication COM
planned of, 1t is matter Of fact for you
from all the evidence and circumstances in
this case to determine.
You are the sole judges of the facts in this
case, and with the facts have nothing to do
and have no opinion as to the guilt or inno-
cence of the defendant, but as have before
stated, you are the sole judges of all the facts.
You may take the evidence as You have
heard it from the witness stand, and ! say to
you that IL you find the evidence conflicting
or contradictory il is your duty. as far as you
can, to reconcile the testimony Of all the
witnesses, or you may give such weight to
the testimony of any or all of the witnesses
as you think it merits. You may take into
consideration the bearing or manner of the
witnesses on the witness stand, his actions or
conduct while there, and the interest, II any,
he may have in the result of this case-you
may discard any part or all the testimony OF
any witness or you may accept part and re-
iect part if in your judgment the part SO re-
jected does not deserve to be considered by
you.
Gentlemen take this case, and from all the
testimony under the rules have given to you
it is for you then to say whether the defend
ant is guilty or not guilty of the charge made
in the information filed hereiu which read
to you. have prepared two forms of verdict
for you; you will appoint one of yOur number
foreman, who will sign your verdict and re-
turn it into open court.
The jury retired, and in twenty minutes re-
turned the following
VERDICT:
Tho s,o,o 80 Ohio In the Probate Court
me,,o'- NJ osaSo VI O".o' of said county.
aenry ooun'y' SS' June term, A. d. 1889.
The State Of Ohio Plaintiff o-,m,D., Action.
John J. Malley. Defendant.
We, the jury, find the defendant guilty as
he stands charged in the information.
CONRAD GRoLL, Foreman.
The defendant by his attorneys then filed
the following
MOTT On FOR NEW TRIAL:
In Probate Court,
The State of Ohio, Henry county, Ohio.
VS.. Information for crimi-
John j. Malley. nal libel. motion for
new trial.
Now comes the said John j. MalIey and
moves the Court to set aside the verdict here
tofore rendered in this case and for new trial
herein, for the following reasons, to-wit:
l. That the said verdict is against the
weight of the evidence in said case.
2. That the said verdict is not sustained by
sufficient evidence and is contrary to law.
8. Also for errors of law occurring at the
trial of said cause duly excepted to at the
time and prejudicial to the defendant in said
case in this, to-wit:
a. The Court erred in sustaining the
challenge of the State to s. R. Christman as
a juror in said case.
b. The Court erred in sustaining the chal-
lenge of the State to G. K. woodward as a
juror in said case.
G. The Court erred in Overruling the chal-
lenge of defendant to the array of the jury in
said case.
d. The Court erred in admitting testi-
mony objected to by defendant.
9. The Court erred in overruling the mo-
ton of defendant to arrest the testimony
from the jury and enter Judgment in his
favor.
+. The Court erred in its charge to the
Jury as whole and to the several parts there
of.
2. The Court erred in refusing to charge
the jury as requested by the defendant.
4. Also for the several errors of law oc-
curing at the trial and commission of each
and every, of which the defendant at the
time excected.
s. And for other manifest errors apparent
on the face of the record.
John !. MAILEY
By Julian II. Tyler and Campbell & Van
Campen, his attorneys.
This motion was argued on Friday last,
and which the Court overruled.
The Court then sentenced the accused to
thirty days in the county Jail and to pay
fine of $3.50, and to stand convicted until
costs and fine are paid.
On motion of the defendants attorneys
the execution of the sentence was stayed un-
til July LIST, to enable the presentation of a
bill of exception, and to apply to higher
court for leave to file petition on error.