The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1893-08-12
LAIp IT TO THE CITY EDITOR.
M. ]. Christopher TO Answer for LIBEL
ing Pastor Love.


One Of the numerous cases growing out
Of the recent trial Of Pastor +. X. Love
was heard before Justice Bevans yester-
day. It was the case Of NJ. J. Christopher,
charged with orlminally ibeling Rev
Love, by publishing the affidavit Of
Nancy Grant as a part Of the evidence
introduced at the trial when 1t was not in
| troduced.
Christopher, he is editor, printer and
| publisher Of the Labor Union-Recorder.
Justice Bevans' Office on Bryan street
was packed with Loveites and Anti
Loveites. The small court room could
| not accommodate the crowd, and about
| fifty or seventy-fve brethren and sisters
remained on the outside until the hearing
was over. They discussed the case in all
OF It's phases, the pros and cons seeming
to be equally divided.
Az the preliminary hearing,
r. M. Hitch, ESQ and j. II. Kinkle ap-
peared as the attorneys for Pastor Love,
and ID. Griffin, Of Griffin Seller, rep
resented Christopher
Only two witnesses were put up by the
prosecution, a copy Of the Labor-UniOn
Recorder containing the purported libel
Gus matter being also put in as evidence.
The witnesses testified that no such affi-
davit as was published by Christopher
d
Christopher's attorney wanted to ques-
ton the first witness, L. J. Pettigrew, as
to whether the afidavit was true or lsOt.
The prosecution objected, and Justice
Bevans ruled that such matter was irrel-
eYant. Mr.. Griffin contended that if the
charges alleged in the afiidaVits published
were true, there was no libel in publish
ing them. Mr.. Hitch took the ground
that thequestion at issue was not as to the
of l,a u mt nnf
they were introduced at the trial of Rev.
Love. Justice Bevans ruled in favor of
the prosecution.
Christopher was put on the stand. He
testified that he was not the author of
hearticle IN question, and that he did
not cause or procure it to be published.
1t was brought in by his city editor, w. l.
Lewis. He published it only as a matter
of news, and he went on TO say that he
was not opposed to the Rev. Love, but
had acted in an entirely neutral manner in
regard to the trial On the cross examin-
alton it was shown that while the trial
was in progress Christopher had pub
ished an editorial roasting Pastor Love.
AS to the article containing the alleged
hbelous matter Christopher testified that
he saw it before it went to the printers
and afterwards read the proof He had
general control of the paper and could
have kept the article from being pub
lished had he so desired.
w. !. Lewis, the city editor of the Re-
corder, testified that he attended the trial,
but did not get there until late in the
proceedings. The affidavit of Nancy
Grant was handed to him at the meeting
by ]. H. Coffea. After he had copied the
affidavit he handed it back Coffea, he
stated, had consulted several others be-
fore giving him the afiidavits for publica-
ton. He wrote an introduction to the
article the next day and it was printed
in the Labor Union Recorder, the state
ment being made in the introduction shat
the aftidavits were introduced in evil
dence at the trial.
In his argument before the court, Mr.
Griffin took the position that as Christie
pher was not the author of the article he
was absolyed from all responsibility, and
he therefore moved that the case be dis
missed.
Mr.. Hitch contended that Christopher,
as editor and publisher of the paper was
responsible for the acts of his city editor,
and especially so, as Christopher had
read and sanctioned the publication of
the article ibeling Love He said if an
anonymous writer should have published
a communication in newspaper lbeling
an individual, the editor could not be
held for libel if the name of The author
was given. Christophers case was not
parallel to this, though.
Justice Bevans decided that Christie
pher must give a 5000 bond to answer at
the city court to the charge Of criminal
libel