The record-union., 1894-01-24
TIE GILMAN" bee" LIBEL suit.
1t Was Begun in Judge Catlin's Court
Yesterday.
A Continuance Granted TIL To-day
That the Defense May Procure
a Witness.

In Judge Catlin's court yesterday was
commenced the hearing of the case of c.
II. Gilman against the proprietors of the
Bee, in which he demands damages IN
the sum of $4,000 for alleged libels pub
lished in their paper in 1892.
The articles IN question charged Gil
man with attempting to commit crini-
nal assault on one Mrs. Stella Truitt,
woman in his employ as a domestic,
based on statements said TO have been
made by the woman.
Gilman was represented in court by
Grove L. johnson and 5. S. Hell, and
Charles T. Jones and Alvin J. Brnner
appeared as counsel for the defendants.
The prosecution waived a jury, agreeing
to have the court decide the case which
proposition the defense accepted.
The first testimony introduced was that
of c. K. McClatchy. managing editor of
the Bee, who was called by the prosecu
ton to testify as TO the value of the Bee
property.
Mr.. Johnson then offered in evidence
the complaint in suit by DR.. Fay against
Gilman for pay for medical services Tor
Mrs. Truitt, to which objection was made
by the defense, but the testimony was
admitted.
The defendants offered in evidence
their answer to Gilman's complaint, and
the plaintiff put in the several articles
published in the Bee, including a cartoon,
which it is claimed were hbelous. Next
the defense offered the deposition of Mrs.
Truitt, taken in San Francisco in Decem-
ber, 1892.
To this Mr.. Johnson objected on the
statutory ground that a deposition could
not be used except where the witness
was known to be without the county nav
ing jurisdiction OF the case.
Mr.. Jones said he had just been in
formed that Mrs. Truitt was somewhere
in this city, and if so Mir. JohnsOn's OBJ
lection was proper. He asked that re-
cess be taken until 1:30 P. NJ, in order to
allow the defense an opportunity to find
Mrs. Truitt, as they desired her presence.
No objection was made by the prosecu
ton to this request, Mr.. Johnson stating
that they were perfectly willing the de-
fense should have an opportunity to pro-
duce their witness. Judge Catlin then
directed that the recess be taken until
afternoon.
When the court reconvened Mr.. Jones,
for the defense, said the deposition of
Mrs. Truitt was taken in San Francisco
without knowing that she was or would
be in Sacramento. Only that morning
the defense learned of her presence here,
and he believed it possible to find her. If
the case were continued until the follow
ing day he was quite certain the witness
could be brought into court.
Mr.. Johnson said he did not like to OBJ
ject to giving the defense a reasonable op-
portunity TO get their witnesses into
court, but continuance would put him
to a great disadvantage, as he should
even then be in San Francisco trying an
important case.
Mr.. Jones said he realized the incon-
venience to Mr.. Johnson, and would be
only too glad to go on with the case at
that time, but the presence Of Mrs. Truitt
was quite essential He believed they
would be able to get through with the
case In one day.
Judge Catlin said that while he re-
GREETED the necessity for a continuance,
he felt that he could not well refuse, un-
der The circumstances, to let the case go
over until this morning at 10 o'clock, and
it was so ordered.