The morning call., 1893-09-21
WORD MEANINGS.
Did III. II. Bancroft Imply
ENFORCEMENT?
OPINIONS OF OUTSIDERS.
The Famous Libel Suit Begins to
Assume Most Interesting
Aspect.

The Bancroft case proceeded by slow
stages in Judge Stacks court yesterday,
the greater part Of the day being taken up
by constant cross-fre of objections, with
their attendant explanations and refer
ences.
In the beginning Eugene Deuprey, on
behalf of w. b. Bancroft. desired to recall
the witness Cooney, with others, to prove
the meaning conveyed by the words and
publication charged in the complaint as
libelous. To this Attorney Galpin inter-
posed an objection on the ground that
such evidence was inadmissble, as the
plaintiffs counsel had in their presentation
of the case offered no innuendO. so as to es-
tabish clearly that a distinct charge OF
felony was intended by the speaking and
publishing of the words.
At this Eugene Deuprey rose with a
counter plea TO the effect that in the
specific denial Of the allegation of the
complaint made by the defendant ia his
answer no reference had been made to the
words in the complaint suggesting an in-
ference of embeZZlement, and therefore
that by not specifically denying that part
of the complaint II. H. Bancroft had prac-
tically admitted that such construction
must DE pun uRUu sum NOlQS IL IL h6I6
shown that he bad actually uttered them.
Deuprey claimed, therefore. that there was
no obligation on his part to prove the
offensive Implication Of the words CON-
planned of.
To this GaIpin retorted that by his
amended answer, filed four weeks ago, he
had by a general denial also specifically
denied each and every allegation of the
plaintiff.
In the end Judge Slack said he would
not pass upon the motion tor nOnSuit
until he had heard some more evidence.
He thought it was aYeragely hard to con-
Wet a man OF SANDER. any wav, as such
terms as 'he'S been in riots. hes a
backleg." mind ye get your bills from
him." and "he was taken 10 court on a
charge of forgery" had been ruled out
In the last-named instance the court bad
come to the al-wise decision that the
words might possibly imply that the gen.
tleman in question had been snbpen aed as
witness in a forgery case!
Joseph T. COoney was recalled and
asked what construction be placed on the
words repeated 10 him by Il. II. Bancroft
on the occasion of their interview with
regard to his nephew having ''overdrawn
his account and laid himself open 10 seri-
Gus charges" and to the nephew mot
owning the 1850 shares of stock, but hav-
ing pledged them, and rendering no ac-
count whatever to the business" Cooney
replied promptly that the words conveyed
TO him no more nor less than charge of
embeZZement
Mr. Galpin mildly suggested that Cooney
did not usurp the functions Of a dlctinn-
ary. and that he must not testify as an eX-
pert. Then he moved TO strike out all
Cooney'S evidence, but the Judge ruled
against him.
81. J. Croker came forward to testify to
the libel He said that he had read the
article in the paper, and he at once thought
that his friend. W. b. Bancroft, must be
guilty Of ENFORCEMENT. He did not like
TO think so. but he must perforce.
you're a rival of II. ii. Bancroft. amt
you. Mr.. Crockett" smilingly cross-exam-
ined Mr.. Galpin.
"Oh, mol" responded the witness, airily.
81 don't think the Bancrofts have done so
we'll since their fire."
"Ah!" said Galpin. you've quite SUBJ
merged them, haven't yOu?"
II suppose So"
Isaac D. Allen gave similar testimony.
Galpin scored point, however, when he
showed by cross-eXamina that Allen
was one OF W. B. Bancroft's bondSmen in
the case.
Charles W. Grant and John Middleton
both cOrrobOrated the foregoing testimony
Mr.. Middleton, especially, after being
asked II the article complained Of had
altered his opinion OF his friend, and hav-
ing answered that it had not, and having
again been asked whether he would have
teen as willing as of yOre to take his
friend into his employ, replied quickly and
most Enthusiastically: "Oh. no! Certainly
notp'
On hearing this evidence Judge Slack
concluded to deny the motion for a non.
suit upon all the counts, and ordered the
case to be proceeded with. He said to
Galpin: Il would have granted your mo-
ton on the SANDER question had not the
additional evidence of these gentlemen
been introduced"
The defense thereupon called on T. a.
DOrland to take the stand. With grea.
difficulty, amid interminable objections
and arguments thereupon, Mr.. Galpln con-
trived to extract from this witness some OF
the history of the Bancroft Company.
Nothing as yet unknown was developed
from the examination. the main points at.
tempted to be made by the defense being
that III. II. Bancroft had himself put his
nephew Into his position; had himself re-
mitted the note of $4,000 and interest
given in exchange for the 1850 shares. and
most important of all. had taken his
nephew's solemn promise never to sell oil
in any way dispose of the shares, but Il
keep them for his wife and family.
"And this" said Galpin, sis what II. H
Bancroft meant when he SAID that hi:
nephew did not own the shares bu
merely held them in trust. He meant that
yes! In trust for his own family. And BIZ
had no right to pledge them"
The second question, that regarding tht
oveIdrafts, came up. and the books of tht
company were produced TO show how fa
w. b. Bancrofts account was out, and, IL
contradiction to some evidence of the pre-
vious day. that Fl. H. Bancroft had neve
overdrawn his account at ell.
The case will be continued to-day.