St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-05-17
THIS CHINESE COMEDY.
"E0STiS vs. 20LLW;" rs PROVING
VERY DiYER TLyG.

VERY DiYER TLyG.
THE FAnOUS LIBEL CASE
Yesterday Was Newspaper" Day
The reporters We're the
Principal Witnesses - "Bob"
| Strong One Of the Principal
| Characters in the Comedy -
Motion for Dismissal Denied.
If the new Chinese comedy, "Eusti<
vs.. Rollins" gains with each day q:
/ much diversion as was given TO the au-
! diencH Yesterday. there is no doubt but Il
! will prove an excellent drawing card
! Yesterday morning \. p. Hall, FOR the
state, completed his argument to the
jury, and the work OF examining wit
neSses commenced. During all the day
! the Jurymen and a fairs; Zed audience
! sat and Sweltered in the heat Of the
! room. 1t was almost impossible to hear
! anything that was said. owing. nc
doubt. to the violent agitation of the
/ wheels of several Of the witnesses and
the two principals. Mayor Eustis was
! present throughout the day, as WAS Aid
Rollins. Daring the afternoon num-
! Der of the latter's council colleagues
; dropped in ard listened astentlveiy to
! the proceedings.
; One noticeable feature OF the trial WAS
the number of objections interposed by
the attorneys for The defens. and the
! invariahle overrulingS OF the same by
Judge Russell. 1t WAS aid by scme
that the Judge was arbitrary in his rul-
ingS. but the attorneys for the defense
did not say So TIE objections and
form.
So far the case has been very mach
"newSDaper." Yesterday The witnesses
examined were REPORTERS. They were
called by the state to prove the publ
cation and the authorship of the article
which Mayor E:istis claims is li3elous.
ana which MIR. Rollins will attempt to
Justify. r. D. Strong. of the Penny
Press. known on the rum aS Bob. :"
WAS the first witness called, be being the
one who secured from Aid. Rollins the
article in question and Was Instrumental
IN having 1t printed in his naper. In
fact BOB" was one Of the prominent
characters Of yesterdays proceedings.
He admitted having in his possession a
certain paper i'll the hand writing Of
Aid. Rollins. but when the state asked
him to produce it he refused on the
ground that he might iucriminate HIM
S II by producing the paper, and The
court sustained him. He did not prove
the very best witness for the state, hay-
ing read up" in the LycurguS line and
kept within the bounds Of his prcroga-
t.ves. Before adjuurning for dinner,
City Clerk Haney testified to the oath OF
Ottlce he had administered to Mr.. Eu,tis
as mayor.
During the afternoon Mr.. Strong pro-
duced the letter asked for by the at
turneys for the state. He said he had
ascert&lned that The letter was not his
personal property, but belonged to the
Penny Press. Mr.. Blethen. on the ad-
vice OF disiHterrsted attorneys, had ill.,
structed him to give up the letter if it
was demanded Of him. This letter was
then placed i'll evidence, AMI formed
TIE basis for the further examination OF
MI. Strong.
Adolrh Edsten. of the Tribune, the
next witness, testified to having had
conversation with Aid. Rollins suisse
quent to the publication of the article.
He mad asked him why he did not give
the Tribune some ":ot stuff" occa-
sionally, like the stuff he gave tc the
Penny Press. The alderman replied
that ne gave his articles To his friends.
Z. w. Somerby. OF the journal, testified
to having told Rollins that he did not
believe he could substantiate the
charges he made in the article. The
alderman replied that by Cd. he
could prove anything he wrote.''
w. Wettleson, of the GLOBE, testified
to having cOnverSed with the TIVE lfth
ward alderman on the matter, and A. j.
B.ethen, publisher OF the Penny Press.
related what he knew of the article
published in his paper. He stated he
hau never seen the original letter, nor
had he seen Aid Rollins signature. He
was asked concerning the circulation of
his paper al the time the article was
printed, and it was with Il look of con.
scious pride that he stated ''ll the
nelghbOrhood of 1900 or 15,0OO." lie
said that when the letter was read to
him by MIR. Strong he told him it cuald
not be printed until the writer's name
had oeen signed to it, He knew nothing
more OF it until it appeared i'll the paper
Later III the AFTERNOON Strong testi fled
that he had secured Aid. Rollins sig
nature TO the letter the next afternoon
subse quent to its publication at about
O'Clock
Jed Prouty Putnam. of the Times.
was the last witness for the state. He
testified IN substance: Il overheard a
conversation between Strong and Aid.
Rollins i'll the reporters 70 Im at the
city hall. Strong asked Rollins if he
had that article ready, and he replied
show The letter to him and perhaps he
could think of something meauer to
say. Some time later when the grand
Jury was investigating the matter |
went with Strong to the aluprman's
room Oh the third floor OF the city nall
and had talk with Rollins. Strong
asked him to explain to me about the
writing OF the letter. it having been re.
ported that he (Strcngl had written it.
ROLLINS admitted having written it, and
tXOnerated Strong"
HE state then rested its case. and Mr..
Spooner tOr the defense moved that the
case be dismissed The state had ia lied
TO make case. he said, and prese nted
further argument to show why the court
should dismiss at that point. Judge
Russell, however. did not agre with
him, and Aid. Rollins took the stand IN
his own benalf. The rest of the after
noon was taken up with his i'd entitica-
ton OF newspaper clippings,a all OF which
referred to the mayor and the admins.
tratlon. The clippings were fro III all the
papers printed III the Twin q tiles, and
each article as showed to the alderman
was Identified as having bee read by
him. This procedure is the beginning
of the foundation of proving the charges
of the publication, which the defense
will now have to do.
The witnesses for the defense are
many in number. They in clude dozen