Fergus County argus. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1886-1946, 1894-04-05
Hoods Pills cure constipation. Try a boz

mics of plaintiff and stockholders in
the Democrat taking the stand to
testify as to Won Tobel's bad reputa-
tation. A few will serve as specimens:
j. p. Barnes, X. G. Jackson, j. f.
Arnold, l.. b. Divers, X. +. Hamilton
and Jos. Jackson. This amounted to
little. Barnes acknow lodged himself
a stakeholder, X. q. jackson did not
know anything about it. j. +. Arnold
was "A personal enemy as was also l..
b.. Divers. X. E. Hamilton tried to
be funny but was reprimanded. He
acknowledged that he had based his
opinion On the word of a peniten-
tiary convict and considered that
good evidence. Jos. Jackson was
asked, sis it not a fact, Mr.. Jackson,
that it is an especial hobby of yours
to bring up this question at all times"
and witness replied sit was" David
Scott was recalled but after expound-
ing land law some time his testimony
was stricken out. A point not lost,
however, was that Scott did not tell
Johns facts as published in the libel
lous article, contradicting Johns him.
self.
Plaintiff then offered representative
citizens to testify to o Tobel's good
character, such men as Mr.. Cook,
Mr.. Hobson, Jas. III. Moe, l.. w. FL
bridge, f. E. Wright, Fred Warren, j.
ID. Waite, E. p. Chandler, f. A. HUI
son, j. l.. Stuart and others. Mr..
Donovan attempted to break the
force of this testimony but only sue
ceeded in straightforward. This closed
the testimony.
The arguments were made Tuesday
each side being limited to one hour
and defendant given both opening aud
close as burden OF proof lay upon him.
Mr.. Donovan addressed the jury, Mr..
White not speaking at all. He ex-
pressed much regret at having to con-
NbS Sto oSoiffc 90 Atio" u
of the bar but nevertheless believed in
the right of free speech. the speaker
carefully avoiding any explanation OF
the difference between liberty and
license, the liberty to upon
and the license to libel. Mr.. Donovan
misquoted witnesses in at least two
instances, resulting IN Interruptions
10y opposing counsel. He attempted
to make sport of the wholecase, really
presenting little argument.
Mr.. Cheadle followed, making a very
good address. Stress was laid upon
the value of Il reputation and heidea
OF the issue being nothing deplored.
Mr.. Cheadle somewhat compared the
witnesses for plaintiff and defendant
and said it was a compliment to have
some of them testify Won Tobel was
bad. Mr.. Cheadle marked the differ
ence between liberty and license and
said plaintiff did not care for a judg-
ment against Johns-it not worth
IA cent-but desired the truth known.
Mr.. Smith asked the jury if they de-
sired to learn the reputation OF a man
from his enemies or parties interested
against him. He ridiculed Hamilton
and his friend Pearlstone and turned
to Joseph jackson. This individual
was gwen a deserved scoring, and the
character of the man shown up.
But" said Mr.. Smith, "'Thank God,
the name was redeemed Robert
Jackson was too honorable to testify
without good authority on which to
base that testimony" Joseph was
properly styled the "busybody of
L~ewistown." Mr.. Smith ridiculed
Johns sanity ways and sanity in
tentions. He brought the evidence
before the jury with considerable tact
showing how conclusive la the
affirmative proof and closed with a
stirring appeal to the jury to uphold
the ends OF justice and the value of
a good reputation.
Mr.. Donovan, failing of all proof,
fell again into irony, and though the
talk was possibly interesting, carried
no weight. He used these significant
words however: ave grant, gentle
men, that the reputable element of
the community has witnessed for Mr..
Won Tobel." What an admission for
the opposing counsel to make.
The instructions of the court were
lengthy though highly interesting, the
belief being generally expressed that
from the law AS there laid down any
| thing but a verdict for plaintiff was
impossible. The jury retired at $50
and at Z p. m. returned a verdict for
| plaintiff fixing damages at 81. Here
is where ignorance OF the law played
its part. 1t a the intention of the
Jury that defendant should pay the
costs and none were more surprised
than they to learn that the damages
should have been at least $50 to
carry the costs.