Reporter and farmer. [volume] (Webster, Day County, Dakota [S.D.]) 188?-1946, 1894-02-01

work, which, to say the least Of it, was
a little high. In cross-examination, IT
was found the chief objection of com
planning witness was TO the charge OF
being a ''robher," which had lacerated
his feelings and so alienated his friends
that they would not speak TO him
When pressed by defendants attorney
10 name these parties, for a time his
memory positively refused to act; but it
finally rallied and he named FIVE or six,
two Of whom aiterward became recon-
ciled, and the other was mad over some
previous transaction not connected with
the case at bar. He further stated that
the effect of the article IN question had
been such that the Board of Supervisors
were one and all angry with him; would
not speak to him and actually refused to
allow his bills in consequence thereof.
The State rested. Mr.. Fred Harris,
one of the defendants, was placed upon
the stand. He absolutely denied that
he was actuated by even ill-will toward
the complaining witness. much less
malice; that Mr.. Long had stated 10 him
he had been charged with
something he did not get. and ask
ed Fred to go with him to the court
house to examine the papers in the case
of the Mccormick Harvesting Company,
agaiust him. On examination OF the pa
pers, an affidavit was found that set
forth, among other charges, that 500, APP
pears as PAID FOR HAULING GRAIN from
Mr.. Longs place. On inquiry, Mr.. Long
positively assured Mr.. Harris that not
one kernel of grain had been removed
from his place by anyone but himself.
Cross examination developed the facts
as Mr.. Harris had stated 1t.
Mr.. Long was placed Oh the stand and
corroborated the statement of Mr.. Hal
ris. On cross-examination, he stated
that the Sheriff came to his place AMI,
on his agreeing to put up bonds, gave
him a memorandum asking him to turn
back the cams as he went to town, but
on his trip there, never met any teams
and never knew Of any being sent.
Mr.. Atchison, Clerk of Courts, was
called to the stand and identified the
papers in the suit of the Mccormick Co q,
against long, as being the ones on file in
his office.
Mr.. Smith, County Auditor. next took
the stand and produced the bills that
complaining witness sail had been re
jected because of the alleged libelous
article in the REPoRTER & FARMER. The
dates showed the action was taken on
the 10Th. of January, while the article in
l1th and complaining witnesses W tes-
timony showed he had not seen the AT
ticle till the day followi rg its publica-
ton, OF on the 18th. of Jan. A trifling
discrepancy, in so far as it related to the
fearful aud painful state of his feelings
on account of the effect of said article on
the action of the Board, and of their
consequent GOODNESS toward him. The
bills we're rejected-he wept-poor,
tired nature was shorn of It's rest, and
his bosom heaved with it's load of pain.
Ali and Its kept "a heayin" ever since.
The argument of counsel then follow
ed. The Attorney for the State o n
summing nearly three hours in present
ing the law and argument for his side.
Mccoy followed and made . clear
statement of the law ON criminal libel as
compared with a civil action for dam
ages. That under che law, complainant
was compelled to prove malice at the
time of publication, that the defense
published the article with malicious in
tent. That the testimony did not prove
malice, and even though defendant was
found afterward to be mistaken, he was
simply following out n duty he owed to
the community and was not, therefore.
criminally liable. In criticising the law
~prodsced by the state. he said it was
good law, recognized law. but it had no
more application to the case at bar, than
the law for he punishment of rape!"
Mr.. Turner followed in a clear and
snccinct review of the case. the testi-
mony aud the law that had governed in
similar cases in other states. His plea
was forcible and to the point.
The State 10 closing dropped all the
article except the closing paragraph that
called complainant a "robber," and
made a play Of words upon that feature
of the article; waxed eloquent over the
sad damage done to the compliments
feelings; thanked God that courts al
lowed for agony Of mind which was the
most acute of all suffering, and most de-
serving OF compensation; wanted to
know how the Court would enjoy be-
ing called a robber. if he was as Inno-
cent as his CLIENT" He grew patheticker
and pathetiaker, until he finally sat
down amid a blaze of glory and a shower
of peanuts from the gallery.
The Court held that the extreme Ian
guage OF the article was sc.ionable and
hn,,nA thA Aafapla~s, 1,o -, - .-