The record-union., 1894-02-06
ONE MORE ARGUMENT TO COME.
The Gilman" " Bee" Libel Case to be
Concluded To-Day.
Sharles T. Jones Winds Up the Argu-
ment for the Defense-Mrs.
Truitt Defended.

NharleS L. Jones made his argument
or The defense yesterday in the case Of
u ID. Gilman against the Bee publishers
Tor 100000 damages for alleged libel. The
defense, he said, admitted the publica-
Eon OF the article complained of, and said
the testimony proved to be true the state
ments contained therein. 1t simply
stated facts which ne insisted were borne
out by the proofs. The article did not
charge the commission of rape, but an as
sault with attempt thereat.
Mr.. Jones then recited the legal defini-
ton Of the crime alleged, and said he
would follow the same line of argument
he would pursue if prosecuting the plain
tiff before jury. The court having re-
marked on Saturday that he was suffi-
GENTLY informed as to the law of libel,
counsel said he would confine himself
more closely to the circumstances and in
cidents connected with the act complained
Of.
He denied that there was anything in
the evidence to warrant the casting OF the
slightest reflection on the character OF
Mrs. Truitt, the woman on whose state
ment the publication complained of was
made. So far as known she was young
woman OF good character, in search OF
employment to maintain herself ana
child. He did not regard it as at all
strange that she did not relate to anyone
the story of the alleged assault upon her at
the time 1t was committed.
Mr.. Jones then discussed the evidence
in detail-the greater portion of which
was of such nature that it cannot be
published in the RECORD -UNION-branch-
ing Off here and there to criticise the
plaintiff. which he did with considerable
severity, amply fulfilling his promise to
deal with the plaintiff just as if he were
prosecuting him before Jury. He
claimed that the testimony introduced by
the defense fully explained the actions of
Mrs. Truitt at the time of the alleged as
sault, despite the Interpretation given by
Judge Holl in his argument on the other
side. 1t was natural that she should
have sought to gain her room, instead of
turning about and running down stairs
when she saw the plaintiff standing in
the hallway. He accounted for the
woman's failure to make an Outcry on the
ground that she at the time had confidence
III her ability to defend herself. When
the real assault Of which she complains
took place it was when, according TO her
story, she was in an unconscious condi-
tion. The reason she did not tell DR.. Fay
how her jaw was injured was because she
did not then believe the assault would be
repeated, and that the least said the better
for her.
Resuming shis argument at the after
noon session, Mr.. Jones said Mrs. Truitt
was justified in not telling any one of the
alleged assault before she did, because
there would have been many persons
who would not believe her, and her
reputation was at stake. She was without
money or friends, and in returning to the
Plaintiffs house to resume her services
as domestic she pursued the only course
that appeared TO be open to her to pre-
serve her good name, fully believing that
no further harm would be offered her. He
did not believe Gilman'S statement that
it was customary for him to 90 to his
house in the afternoon, as he did on the
occasion that Madison called at the house
to see Mrs. Truitt, and when the alleged
insult was renewed. There was nothing
in Madison's visit, Mr.. Jones claimed, to
cause Gilman to suspect his purpose there
at that time.
Counsel contended that if Mrs. Trultt
had intended to blackmail Gilman, or de-
mand money from him, she would have
made the demand on the morning of the
day she left his house, when they had
breakfast together and there was no one
else present.
Referring to the plaintiffs statement in
the Police Court, that the reason he con-
suited an attorney on the day Mrs. Truitt
LETT was because he regarded it as serious
matter, and his explanation of that re-
mark-that he referred TO what occurred
when he ordered Madison out of the
houSe-counsel severely commented on
the plaintiffs IS statement and argued that
his explanation was such as not to be
credited. He did not believe Gilman had
any fear of serious results on account of
the Madison affair. The plaintiff being a
patron of the Bee at the time the publica-
ton complained of was made, there was
no reason, counsel contended, for the
publishers to libel him. They chose to
credit the woman's statement rather than
the plaintiffs denial of it. Mr.. Jones
commented at length on the PLAINTIFFS
testimony regarding what occurred at
the Bee Office when he called there, and
held that he was treated fairly.
Referring to Mrs. Truitt's failure to ap-
pear as a witness, although in the city
when the case opened, MIR. Jones said she
was not to be blamed Tor keeping out OF
the way. 1t would have been very try
ing ordeal for a woman to go on the wit
ness stand and be compelled to undergo
a close examination at the hands of coun-
sci on both sides. He did not wonder at
her absence.
In conclusion counsel again summed
up the testimony of Mrs. Truitt and
claimed that it amply justified the publi-
cation of the article complained OF. The
peculiarities of Pat Barry's testimony,
both in the Police Court and on the pres
ent trial, were commented on, and coun-
sci explained the causes for some appar-
ent inconsistencies and omissions
therein, claiming that on the former
trial. when the present plaintiff was the
defendant, Barry was in his employ and
testified to nothing more than he was
obliged to. From this testimony it was
shown that Barry said Mrs. Truitt told
him that she and her friend Madison had
talked matters over and the latter had
advised her to have Gilman arrested. She
wanted Barry to tell Gilman SO in order
to frighten him, and he did so. This was
on the afternoon she went to Giiman's
store to buy some lace and was refused
credit. At no time did she tell the wit
ness Barry that Gilman had made
criminal assault upon her.
Believing the defense had proven justi-
fication for the charge made against the
plaintiff, he expected the court would
render Judgment III their favor. He
would not say the testimony taken in the
Police Court case was sufficient to war
rant the defendants conviction, but he
did contend that the testimony in the
present case was much stronger against
him. If be was guilty it was the duty OF
the present defendants 10 publish the
facts.
1t was after o'clock when Mr.. Jones'
argument was concluded, and Judge Cat
lin adjourned court until 10 o'clock this
morning, when Grove L. Johnson will
make the closing argument for the
plaintiff.
MIDWINTBR FAIR SHOOT