The record-union., 1894-03-28
The GILMAN" BEE" LIBEL CASE.
Judge CatIin Decides that the Plaintiff
was LibeIed,
And Ho Awards Him Damages Against
the Publishers IN the
sum of $500.

fishers of the Bee, in which the former
sued the latter for damages for libel IN
connection with the publication of certain
articles based on statements made by one
Mrs. Stella Truitt, former servant in
Gilman's family.
The court finds for the plaintiff. and
awards him damages in the sum of $500,
which Judgment also carries with 1t the
costs in the case. Following is the de-
cision in full:
The complaint is that the defendants. who
are the publishers and proprletors OF tne
DdiLu EUeni7lq Bee upon the goth day OF Au-
gust, 1892, published in that newspaper OF
and concerning the plaintiff certain libel,
alleged to be false, defamatory, MALICIOUS
and unprivileged."
The publication, which is not disputed,
charged in substance that in august, S92
few days previous TO the publication, the
plaintiff at his residence in this city, Vlo-
Iently assaulted Mrs. Estelle Truitt, a house
servant in his employment, and attempted TO
commit rape upon her person. The puDllca-
tion purports to give to some extent the de-
tails of the alleged attempt, upon the author
ity of statements concerning the same lnaue
by Mrs. Truitt.
The defendants answer, and justify the pub
lcation by pleading that it was and Is true"
They further plead in mitigation OF dam
ages, that on the day OF said publication Mrs
Truitt appeared before the Chief OF Police at
ment in substance as contained in SAID puo-
lication," and subsequently on the same day
appeared before the Police Judge and duly
Swore to a complaint charging SAID Gilman
with the offense of rape committed upon her
on the 11th day of August, 1892, III the city
OF Sacramento;' that warrant was there
upon issued followed by the arrest OF the
plaintiff, his examination upon the charge on
The 23d of August, and his being held TO an
swer the charge by the Police Judge.
The defendants further plead in mitigation
f0f do ar1au hnf a
its substantial details correct and true" and
that the material and subject matter thereof
were gathered by careful, competent and
trustworthy employees as items OF news. and
were published without malice or ill-w1ll, and
in the belief that the same were correct and
true. They also deny that the plaintiff
suffered any damages by reason of the publ
cation. The chief question Tor determination
is whether the justification has been estab-
lished. Having pleaded the truth of the libel
it is incumbent upon the defendants to prove
it To the satisfaction of the court sitting as a.
jury.
The rule in this State is that the plea of
justification, in order to be effecsual as COM
plete defense, must be proved by evidence
which convinces the mind beyond a reason
able doubt. In other words as is said in
Merk VS.. GelZhainser, 80 Cal 633, TO sup
port q special plea in justification where
crime is imputed the same evidence must be
adduced as would be nece essary TO convict the
plaintiff upon an Indictment for the crime
imputed TO him, and il is conceived that he
would be entitled to the benefit OF any rea-
sonable doubts of his guilt in the minds OF
the Jury i'll the same manner as in criminal
trial.
While have given all the testimony a care
ful and critical examination / shall not COM
ment upon it IN detail in support of the con-
cIusion to which / have arrived. The testi-
mony taken in the Police Court upon the ex-
animation, consisting of 11S pages. which
was not read at the trial, but was submitted
by consent of both parties, with nearly 400
pages of testimony heard at the trial and
rpnOrt6r have
fully read by the court. The testimony of
Mrs. Truitt, the principal witness for the de-
trial. but taken by deposition, consisting OF
III pages, necessarily required, and has re-
ceiVed the closest scrutiny.
Reference only will be made to the salient
features OF the case TO those facts satisfactorily
shown which bear upon the probability or
improbability of the story related by Mrs.
Truitt and denied by the plaintiff, the main
fact required TO be established by the defend
ants under their plea-nameiy, the tact OF the
committing of the alleged otIense-rests upon
the testimony ofthoSe two witnesses alone, eX-
cept in SO tar as Mrs. Truitt is corroborated by
the witness, Patrick Barry. Whether his story
corroborates or impeaches her statements
Will be noticed further on.
Upon the night of the 18th of August the
plaintiff and Mrs Truitt were the sole occu-
pants of plaintiff IS family residence. She was
then and for about three weeks had been the
house servant of the family.
Barry was also q servant employed in the
stable at the rear or the house, his usual
sleeping place being in the loft OF the stable.
Mrs. Tru1tt was known to plaintiff and his
family as ''Stella." Her real name OF Mrs.
Lulu Estella Truitt was not known to them;
nor did they know that she was a widow, with
one child, but supposed she was single with
young sister. AT this time the plaintiffs
family OF a wife and several children had
been absent few days, the eldest daughter
having left only on the morning of the day
before. Some time during this day, August
] 1th, Mrs. Truitt had asked and received
from plaintiff permission to absent herself
for day or two to go to San Francisco, and
Barry had promised to awaken her early in
the following morning In time to take the
early train.
1t is not necessary to mention the details of
the events OF the night OF the 18th as related
on the one part by Mrs. Truitt and on the
other by the plaintiff, further than to say
that so far as they differ from the relation by
DR.. Fay OF what he knew of them, they are in
direct conflict in all material particulars.
Some time near IL O'Clock her jaw on one
side became dislocated. Plaintiff went for
DR.. Fay and procured his attendance within
a short time, and the doctor. with. his assist
ance, soon restored the jaw to its place. She
told the doctor when she was alone with him
that the dislocation was caused by her pick
ing defective tooth from which she was suf-
fering at the time, and that it had occurred
from the same cause once before. She does
not admit telling the doctor this, saying she
has no recollection of saying anything to him
upon the subject, nor does she make any ex-
PLANTATION why she did not, though she had
abundant opportunity 10 do so While plaintiff
was not present Her statement is that the
dislocation was caused by her falling to the
floor in struggle with plaintiff as he was en-
deavoring by violence TO force her from the
hallway into his bedroom, and that upon
finding the condition OF her Jaw he went for
the doctor. His statement is that he was
asleep in his room when she called him up
and exhibited the jaw in its dislocated condi-
tion. WhereupOn he immediately went for the
doctor, and that that is all he knows about it.
While plaintiff was gone for the doctor Mrs
Trultt changed her dress and received the
doctor sitting in chair in her room At the
trial she gave as q reason for changing her
dress that the one cast Oft was old and not ii
to appear in. Her further statement is that
afterwards, some time in the night, while In
her room sleeping, plaintiff came into her
room and made another attempt to violate
her; that considerable struggle ensued: that
she made no outcry for the reason that her
Jaw was tied up by towel which passing
under her chin, held her jaws together by be-
ing tied on the top OF her head; that he over
came her resistance and succeeded in his at
tempt, after which she threw the towel from
her mead and succeeded in expelling him from
her room and then locked the door, She thus
describes it: tHe ran against looking glass:
a looking-glass." Questionable he break 1t :?
mo, he did not; he made quite noise though" !"
"Question-What did he do after he ran against
the Iooklng-glaSs? AnSwer-He just stood
there. l got up and united my head and
showed him the door and told him to go.
swer-I told him TO go and tend to his own
business. don't know what did say to him.
QueStlon-Did you open the door and let him
out? Answer-The door was already open.'
It may be added that if she had made an out
cry il is almost certain she would have been
heard for her window was open looking out
upon the window of Barrys sleeping-place IN