Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1892-08-03
NE IS HELD TO ANSWER.
Commissioner BOFfell Sends The Par
sons Libel Case
yoRIsvrslIGAroSm TnEGRaNO
JURY.
,.,o,sl NELSON'S Bond Fixed at Ss5O.e
County Attorney Murphy Writes
All "Open Letter."

psraous against BdltoT W. A'Nlr"hi VI
A.. T,i5,Ne. was concluded late yes
,s,Jay afternoon before Commissioner
Norrell.
IN, witness on the aend when the
Nrvs went to press was Deputy shrr-
AZ tac,n. Next came Justice Gee,
,rho testified that Van Wicket, on
,he,,lal OF tho case Of Palmer Va. Elsie
81 omar ia his court, described him
,elfas q riiarI ut the ponitcntlaty.
p,n swan, the marshaps clerk, said
he had no account II any money re-
crivsd from Mcfltl.in while lac was Ia
charge Of the oiiiccm.
El,le ~. Omar Ms ncxet called.
sb, was ",triisinyly n'a,;ired,aud wore
.biue skirt and rel waist. McEriaine,
the witness stated, "roomea" at her
her house for about three weeks whale
in Van wlcso's charge.
Colonel NELSON, thr defendant next
took the stand. he stated that the re-
rerler-who was careful maa-mud-
ed hin copy Of the article contnin-
Ing the slIrgod libel on Marshal Par
,,ps, aud he believed it 10 bc truth
fol report. lie jid not attach amy
great Importance 10 tho article when II
was handed to him; published 1t as a
matter Of news ami not bocaaae he hal
my malice, though personally he
dii'uf IKE Niarshal parious; he HIM
,elf had been United states Marshal;
Jidnr know Marshal parsuna took
,,eus TO procure his removal while he
vas mnrshal; might have had some
feeling at that time toward the mar.
,ha; never had talk with Janney 70.
sardiug aGhinese Raniuling hOuse In
plum alley which was run on property
belonging 10 Marshal Parsons.
DEPUTY Marshal Charles GOodsell
having testified In regard 10 dates anu
smnuntB IT money received for sorvi-
ees, this closed the evidence.
Attorney Critchlow then proceeded
with his argument On tho part 0f the
prosecution, nnd took tie opportunity
Afforded him NJ again quietly dealing
Judge Powers n rebuhe. Counsel dls-
cursed carefully the Inv bearing upon
the subject OF criminal libel and said
there was no denial made ly the de.
fendant of the publication OF II. He
Insisted that malice hni been fieeping
IN the defendants breast since lie WIS
forced out " the mArshaps Office, anu
that the criminal law had not rigurS
engugh to punish such libel. News.
IaHfs were not above the law, aud
he libel complained ofin this Instance
srfnng from - lying, malicious heart,
Judge l'owuTl followed. lilo said
the question was narrowed down ~ 10
whether Marshal Parsons. received
money corruptiy, and argueFthat the
article charged no corruption In Ofilur.
IL was the duty OF JOUR
nslist TO keep tue public post.
ed ON tho d0ings OF public
officers. The press was something be-.
sides u mere disscminatOr OF news.
Far more good was done through the
criticism ~ public officers than harm.
IL had been proven that money dropped
into the pocket OF the MARSHAL or sOmp
one under him, and the defendant Nsl,
son, he argued, should be vel at liberty.
The closing Argument was mado lay
Attorney Arthur Brown on the part OF
the marshal.
Commissioner Norrcll, In giving hls
decision, said: The question here IL
whether the Defendant has been guilty
OF utlering libel. The complaint AL
legea criminal libel. Tho investiga.
ton has been confined 10 what the
court thought was the main fact In the
charge, thnt tho United States marshal
received double pay Tor tho service OF n
guard. That IL, thEt h. received 81
per day for tho services OF that guard
whlleIho was In charge Of o prisoner,
aud ttat the government at the same
time paid him s75 mouth.
The question now In whether that IL
llhcl. The court IL clearly OF the
opinion that 1t In. Another question
u, whether the publication was jf,Sii-
fled. Counsel aryued firm very differ.
ent promises. Tho defense claimed
that " II had probable cause 10 be.
lievo this accusation true, II hal u
right TO publish II and that II war not
libelous. | am, however, rather in-
clinsd TO think that there was probable
not m thorough an investigation a. b
ia truth before the publication a. There
should have been. The prosecutions
argues that the allegation must be
Ir9yen true 10 be n Justification. The
court does not hold exactly with eithuF
file. ! am In considerable doubt ~
70 what n jury would DO Ia such n case,
Tut nm under tho belief that there
hasn't been that proof produced that
would establish u defense for the
publication Of such a charge. This h
not trial court; this II a committing
court. As the court has said, he has
doubts ~ 10 what Jury would DO Ia
tuoh n case, and II this were trini
rnuEi the defspdRnt would ot course bo
given the benefit OF those doubts, hut
nun Inclined TO think that there ie
evidence enough to hold this defendant
TO the action OF the grand Jury, and
lie court 10 rules.
Tho defendants bond was nxed at
$3.50.
ANOTHER OPEN LITTER.
The iolllwlng appears In this morn.
lng's Ir'buH6 Mt u sequel 20 something
Of yesterday;
AN OPEN LETTER 10 o. W. TOWERS.
Hon, o. W. PowEns.
Sir-ln roply 10 your production In the
sslt Lake Tribune Of this date have to
That my reply to your letter was de-
hgered by mo To Mr.. Critchlow for
delivery to yon. Why II was not daliv-
court.
have no reply to make TO tho rest Of
your screod Il Hos below the plane TO
which contempt can fall
WALTER MuHrHy.
SALT LAKE Cry, Utah, Aug. ., 1872.