The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-08-09

4
| at that time. Mr.. Todd, one of the re-
porters, wrote articles Of the character OF
Badly on the Perch" Under redirect
examination witness stated that he did
not know positively under whose direc-
] ton the editorial writing was done.
:. L Crawford was recalled and swore
that the custom on newspapers was that
/ the managing editor outlined the policy
| of the paper and was supposed to super
| wise all the editorial articles.
l.. +. Nlckels. bookkeeper of the Seattle
/ TelegrapA. testified that on June % Lugrin
| had general charge of the paper. and that
he as bookkeeper took his orders from
/ him.
The noon hour having arrived, the court
/ took a recess until 80 o'clock.
Upon the reassembling of the court Mr..
Alien read the several ''roastsp of Rogers
I that have appeared in the Seattle Telegraph
since Robert Bolton Rogers was last ap-
| pointed chief of police. he also read the
| announcement that appeared at the head
| of the editorial column to the effect that
| communications should be addressed 20
/ Charles Ii. Lugrin, managing editor.
| These were all offered in evidence and,
though the defense objected. they were
/ admitted
| T.C. Patrick, who was formerly news
| editor of the Telegraph, testified that he
| did not know what Lugrin's position on
| the paper had been since June 10. At that
| time he was reputed to be managing edf-
| tor. Witness had read the editorial of
| June q lie understood the term rake
| off, to mean money paid for privilege to
| somebody who is raking the money Cd.
The rake-off is paid 10 some person who is
furnishing the protection. The duty of
managing editor is to take general care
and supervision of the entire business of
paper.
DO the editorials pass under his super
vision 2" asked Mr.. Allen.
Mr.. Thompson, for the defense. We
hemently objected to the witness answer
ing the query, but the objection was over
ruled.
II cannot state" answered Mr.. Patrick.
Does the managing editor have control
over the matter on the editorial columns
of the Telegraph"
az can't say whether be does or not"
"From whom did you receive your or
ders when you was on the Telegraph"
81 received my orders as telegraph editor
from Mr.. Lugrln."
John L. Strong, news editor of the Tex
graph, testified:
az do not know, of my own knowledge,
that c. I'll. Lugrin was the managing
editor OF the Telegraph at the time of the
publication OF the article. My connection
with Mr.. Lugrin is that which one news
naper man has with another. Our reIa-
tons were more of a social than OF busl-
ness nature"
WHO hired youR"
"Mr. John Collins"
"From whom did you get your instruc-
tons 20
II needed none, as understand my
business"
This answer seemed to greatly please the
audience, and hearty laugh went up.
Judge Glasgow warned the audience
against making boistsrous demonstrations,
and said he would have the court room
cleared If better order could not be pre-
served.
,sWho are your superiors on the paper7"
was the next question put to Mr.. Strong.
"Mr. Collins and Mr.. Lugrin. If he is the
managing euitor."
You treat him as your superior, don't
your
'0b. yes; certainly do"
Everybody craned his neck when the
name OF Robert Bolton Rogers was called.
He testified that he was chief OF the Seattle
police department from April 1, 1901, till
March IS, 1892 and was reappointed May
"A, 1894 and has been chief ever since. he
was chief of police on June %. 1894 Certi-
fed copies of Rogers appointments as
chief of police were offered in evidence,
l.. X. Hodges, city editor of the Posi-
INTELLIGENcER. said he was acquainted
with the Seattle Telegraph, and that it was
a paper of general circulation in the city;
that it was CIRCULATED in the city on June
%, 1894.
Mr. Alien then said that the state rested
its case.
Mr. Thompson then arose and made q
motion that the court dismiss the jury and
discharge the defendant.
Judge Glasgow asked If il would not
take some little time TO argue the case.
Mr.. Thompson replied that 1t would take
two or three hours. The jury was then
dismissed until 8 O'Clock tomorrow morn
ing. Judge Glasgow cautioned the jury to
be careful TO not talk TO anyone about the
case, and to report TO him if any came TO
them aud tried to talk about it to them.
Mr.. Thompson then arose and made a
logical and graceful speech in support of
his motion that the case be dismissed. He
held that the information was defective,
inasmuch as IL charged the Seattle Daily
Telegraph with publishing libel. There
was no such paper published as the Sc
attic Daily telegraph There was. how
ever. paper called the Seattle Telegraph.
Mr.. Thompson's principal contention,
however. was that the state had only made
prima iacie case that IN a criminal libel
the burden of proof as to the falsity of a
libel rested on the state, and that the state
had utterly failed TO establish case in
this respect; that it was necessary 10 es-
tablish beyond reasonable doubt every
allegation OF the complaint. The state
had merely proved that Lugrin was con-
nected in some way with the Seattle Tele-
graph, but not a scintiIla OF evidence had
been offered to prove that he was the
author OF the article on which the prose-
euiion was based. II was absolutely
necessary TO prove that Lugrin was its
author. lie held that. # Lugrin went on
the witaess stand and testified that he
wrote the article, printed it and cir
culated IL himself, he could not be
convicted unless there was corroborative
testimony. lie he'd that it was not the
| dutY OF the defense to prove that the
article was true In support OF his posi-.
| ton Mr.. Thompson read numerous au-
/ thoFisies ana quoted the libel law of
| Illinois and other states. tie held that
the court coatd not ask the jury 10 ind
| Mr.. Lugrin guilty upon presumption.
Mr.. Allen made strong speech In reply
/ 10 Mr.. Thompson. lie held that the state
did not have to prove that Mr.. Lngrin
| wrote the article. but only that he
published or caused 1t 20 be Published He