The record-union., 1894-02-07

| by the court III estimating damages; tnls
| evidence tending to show malice and con-
| tinued malice
1.-The law is that the justification by
the defendant in an action for libel must
be as broad as the libel itself. In other
words, that all the allegations IN the artl-
| Gle claimed to be libelouS must be proved,
or else the justification is a failure.
THE law is that in civil action for
| libel where there are mum Der OF HbelS
contained in the article complained OF,
| ana the defendant fails TO prove the truth
OF all the ibels, the plaintiff is entitled
to recover judgment for the libels that
have been proved true by the deiendant;
and this regardless OF the tact that the de-
fendant may have proved a majority OF
the hbeis to be true"
THE ARGUMENT RESUMED.
Relying upon the law, said Mr.. john
son, the court must find that the defend
ants did publish the article, and that the
! plaintiff is entitled TO judgment. They
! claim the article complained OF TO be true,
hence they must prove the plalnutf guilty
OF the charge alleged in order to receive a
Judgment in their favor. The court or
/ jury must be convinced, beyond all rea-
sonable doubt, that the charges are true,
or else the plaintiff is entitled to ver-
dict. Counsel cited decisions of the SUI
| preme Court In support OF his argument.
The defendants now ask that the court
shall set aside the rule that has prevailed
in this State aud give judgment III favor
| of the libelers.
Mrs. Truitts story is illogical, unrea-
/ sonable and untrue. Evidence must be
! consistent and coherent, or it should be
rejected by the court. Simply because
! person swears to certain thing 1t must
not necessarily be taken as the truth. II
Mrs. Truitt should swear that the moon
is made OF green cheese it does not follow
that 1t would be deserving of consldera-
ton. The fact that she Swears that plain
| TIT committed violent assault upon
her does not make it true, for her story is
! SO incoherent as to rob it of all cTedence.
Her failure to appear in court is evidence
! that her story was untrue, and that she
dared not place herself in position to
undergo examination. Backed even by
! the aid of Pat Barry she did not have the
temerity to commence suit for damages
against Gilman.
! Mr.. johnson then took up Mrs. TRUTHS
/ deposition and discussed it at length. lie
said it was contradictory throughout, and
| proceeded to show wherein her state
1 ments were contradictory. Take her tes-
! timOny just as the defendants had intro
duced it, and to convict any man under 1t
would be areDroach TO our jurisprudence.
| The counsel on the other side have all
|
entered the service of Gilman under false
pretenses. 1t was her duty to have eX-
planned her past life to her employers,
! but she did not, and became member OF
| Gilman's household with a secret in her
! breast.
Counsel then referred to Mrs. Truitt's S
story of the alleged assault made upon
| her on the night of August II, 1892, which
! he said was absurd on its face. Ii a vir-
hoh
man in the hallway, as she claims to have
done, she would have fled at once, instead
of standing there and parleying with him.
! At that time her jaw was not dislocated,
and yet she did not scream nor make any
! outcry, not even pltIful wall. 10 a true
woman honor is dearer than life; but this
woman did not make even one outcry in
| defense of her honor, thus endangered.
There were people living within few feet
on all sides OF the house. The windows
were open that summer night, and one
wild shrek for hel p would have filled the
house with men and women to protect
her from the ravisher.
But she did not utter that scream. In
the words of Judge Mckinstry, her
actions were such as to invite, rather
than repel, assault.
Mrs. Truitt was alone in the room with
DR.. Fay for fifteen minutes, while he was
setting her dislocated jaw, and If such an
assault had occurred would she not, II
virtUous woman, who felt that she had
been wronged, or inSulted, have told the
doctor what occurred and asked for his
counsel, or advice, or protection? She
had become very calm before the doctor
arrived, and had no complaint to make
against Gilman. She then had the evil
dence-her dislocated jaw-to make out
case against Gilman. She could have
called III the neighbors and pointed to her
dislocated Jaw to support her story. She
then had Gilman at her mercy, but the
idea had not then occurred to her.
To DIR. Fay, however, the woman said
she dislocated her jaw while picking her
tooth, ana had done it before. 1t was
also known that San Francisco dentist
had declared that she had bad tooth
which had often caused her trouble.
Ii DR.. Fay's testimony is true-and he
was witness for the defense-the whole
case against Gilman falls, for it disipates
the chief allegation made by Mrs. Truitt.
subsequently, when, as she alleges, she
was again assaulted by the plaintiff, she
did not make any outcry, although amply
able to do so. Ali she did was TO kick,
and even to save her honor she declined
TO pull her assailant's hair or scratch his
face. The window of the room was open,
and one scream would have frightened
him away. But she did not do it. No
attempt had been made to explain away
this testimony. Is such a woman, giving
such testimony, to send Gilman down to
infamy and expose him to obloquy?
The next morning she went to San
Francisco but there made no complaint
to her friends. She hastens back to Sac
ramento and to the same house where she
had been SO badly treated. She brought
with her a child of whose existence she
had not spoken TO her employers, and
tn NIrS oh q
stayed over night. Ii she did not like to
speak to Dr.. Fay about the assault, she
certainly could have cOntided her trOu-
bles to Mrs. Clayton, a motherly and
good woman. But she did not do it. She
might have said TO Mrs. Clayton that she
could not return to Gilman's house,
where she had been insulted and out
ragged, and have asked that good woman
to assist her in getting another place.
No innocent woman would have
omitted such an opportunity; yet Mrs.
Truitt omitted it. On the contrary, she
returns TO the Gilman house the next
day, and she was so anxious to get into it
that she climbed through a window to do
it. She went to church that day, and
why did she not confide her troubles TO
her pastor? That same afternoon she re-
turned to Gilman's house and asked Pat
Barry for the use of Gilman's horse and
cart and said it would be all right with
Gilman, and subsequently she asked
Gilman himself for them.
Would she have done these things if
her charge against Gilman were true?
What would virtuous and truthful
woman have done under similar circum-
stances? Lucretia OF Rome lived long
enough TO tell her father and brothers of
her wrongs, and then took her own life.
History has no record of woman who
had been despoiled of her honor return
ing to the home of her despoiler to re-
sumo her relations with his family. Such
testimony should not convict mad dog
OF any crime, much less a respected citi-
zen and merchant, the husband and
fothar Of q family