The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-08-09
BURDEN OF PROOF.
& Technical Point Raised in
Lugrin Libel Case.
THE STATE WAS SURPRISED.
Proving Lugrin Responsible - Defense
Claims Article Must BE Proved
False, but Is Overruled-

i stBffy court room 10 suftccation. There
were people seated even IN the prisoners
4 dock, and standing room" was no. 10 oe
| had during greater portion of the day.
| A portion OF the audience, among which
were few leading gamblers and John ".
Considine. showed q disposition 10 crowd
| up TO the iurymen. BaiIIif Brooks in vain
tried TO keep thes st respectful distance,
| and Judge Glasgow dnally spoke up and
| ordered Me crowd TO keep away from the
| jury. This proved effective.
Wren T. Crews. one Of the counsel for
the defense, did not do much in the way OF
talking. but sat during considerable
! portion of the time with his partner, James
| z. Gleason. who Is deputy collector OF
| internal revenue. The faces OF these gem
tlemen were almost perfect registers OF
| how matters were going with the case OF
| Charles H Lugrin. When Messrs. Thomp-
son and Wiley made a good point for the
defense. or whenever n witness brought
| out point favorable 10 their view, their
countenances were wrea thed in broad
smiles. When Allen & Powell, the at
torneys for the state, scored point. their
countenances were darkened by frUwns
and the corners of their mouths took a
downward course. Some of the spectators
took more interest in watching these two
gentlemen than in the other proceedings.
The defendant, Charles III. Lugrin. ac-
| cepted the situation with considerable
philosophy. His countenance is not like
an open book, as are those of Gleason and
Crews. He seemed bored by the proceed
ings. and his countenance was stolid most
! of the time. lie would, however, summon
mp a faint smile when anything funny
| happened.
The testimony given by those gentle-
men connected with the Telegraph who
were called by the state to the effect that
they did not know that Charles III. Lugrin
was the managing editor of the Telegraph
was a surprise to large number of those
| who were in the court room. In fact it
| caused an audible smile, which became
| louder as the denials proceeded.
The case made considerable progress
| yesterday. All the evidence for the state
was submitted and then Attorney VIII H.
| Thompson moved for dismissal on the
| ground that the name of the paper had
not been correctly stated in .he iuforma-
| ton and for the reason that the burden of
| proof that the article was false rested ON
the state. and because it bad not been
proven that G. II. Lugrin had written the
article that appeared in the Seattle Iete-
! graph on June p. After argument by
| counsel Judge Glasgow refused to dismiss
| the case and said it would be submitted to
the jury on the evidence.
| The proceedings were opened at O'Clock
/ by the return of a special venire of twelve
| talesmeu and from these John Lynch and
] W. 5. Collins we're selected 10 serve with
those who had been selected on Tuesday.
| The Jury as finally made up consists of r.
| ]. Graham. Charles III. Frye, Lorenzo @.
| Chestnut, Carl Mensing. A. ]. Grover, w.
! III. Castleman. A. J. Young. Edgar BRYAN,
| J. J. Smith, Jacob Lesser John Lynch
and w. s. Collins.
]. A. Costello. assistant city editor of the
| Telegraph. was the first witness called by
the state, and he was asked If C. II. Lugrin
was the editor of the Telegraph on June %,
at the time of the publication of the al
| legged libel. Mr. Costello could not remem-
Der whether Mr.. Lugrin was with the
| pcper on that day, but he thought he was
connected with the Telegraph on or about
! that time.
1 Mr.. Allen, on behalf of the state. read
the article on which the arrest was based,
and offered it in evidence
1
| He held that no proof had been adduced
to show that the defendant had written
any of the articles. and he therefore held
that the declarations of the paper could
not be held against him. He held that If
John Collins. proprietor of the 7sleqraph.
had stated on the stand that Mr.. Lugrin
was the editor. it could not be admitted as
| evidence, assit would be hearsay and there
fore not admissible.
Mr.. Allen held that Mr. Lugrin was
| editor and business manager at the time
/ OF the publication of the article entitled
"a Police Accumulation" and this fact
| alone was sufficient under the law to make
him legally responsible for its publication.
| Judge Glasgow overruled the objection
and the paper was duly admitted in evi-
denee. At the head of the editorial column
this paper contains the announcement
| that communications should be addressed
TO c. II. Lugrin, managing editor.
The direct examination of Mr.. Costello
| was then resumed. He was asked If Luz
| grin was the person referred to in the an
| nouneement mentioned and replied that
| he thought he Was. Witness was asked if
| Lugrin's position had changed since June
! p, and tie replied that he believed that his
| position had changed since that time, as
he believed he had nothing to do with the
business department Witness further
stated that he had had but little to do With
Lugrin since July 1.
Witness was asked what, if any, relation
had John Collins With the Telegraph on
/ June -
II do not know" replied Costello: 81
| have heard"
/ An ohiaetfon IN haarsav axfas,,. -.
made and sustained by the court.
| Mr.. Allen offered in evidence another
| copy Of the Telegraph containing an attack
GA Rogers. and u Vas introduced in evil
cence, notwithstanding the protest OF the
attorneys FOR che defense.
! 5. l.. Crawford testified that on June y
he purchased Telegraph from newsboy
and read the article entitled "a Police
| Accumulation" Witness testified that he
understood the phrase "rase-ofs'r As used
IN the article 10 mean that certain per
| centage Of the winnings OF gamblers IA.
paid 20 Rogers. The term 81 per capita,
witness thought, meant that gamblers
were paying 81 per head for pollee pro-
| lection.
Upon croSS-eHaminstion Mr.. Crawford
stated that he heard the terms ssrAke-ofg. -
etc, frequently used, bat he could no,
/ specify any particular cases Witness was
asked ID he knew that gambling was in
/ progress whea he vas police commits
sionsg, bat Mr.. Alien objected that the
defense eo0ld not prove its case with the
witnesses for the state.
Mr.. Costello was recalled and reviewed
so1as - his former testimony. Judge
@iaseoS began To examine the witness.