Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-07-24
He Makes The First Speech for the De-
PENDANTS and Replies 10 Mr. Thorn.
HIS PRESENTATION TO The JURY.
Barring Of The Instructions Upon the
Controversy Pointed Out by Him.
NE TALKS ABOUT THE WITNESSES.


tnsIs Of the Day.
NORFOLK. VA. July 23.-(Special)-
re first days argument in the Massey
Pilot suit Is concluded and its effects
have settled down upon the minds Of the
Twelve men who are to pass upon this
important issue. Two of the finest
rreachcs ever heard in Norfolk court
r3om we've delivered to-day In this cause.
md the throngs Of spectators which filed
n- chamber We're more than paid for the
.me spent and the discontinue expert
luccd
Th, argument Of to-day was by Mr.
alfred T.. Thorn, Of counsel for the plain
t1. and cx-Judge James L. Heath, who
made the initial argument before the jury
for the defence. Both speeches were char
acferized by dignity and sound learning.
Nr Thorn spoke four hours. when the
court in accordance with the new ar
rangsment, took a recess until O'Clock.
Judge Heath then spoke for three hours
and said his argument would consume
.wo and half hours more tomorrow.
The speeches touched almost every con-
reiyable phase Of the case
Proceedings in Regular Order.
The court convened az 1890 this morn
Ing. Judge Prenus Immediately an
nounced that owing TO the great length
81 time consumed I'M the trial the ses-
sions in the future would he from 1880
20 and from % 6 o'clock. All counsel
were 100 the court-chamLer promptly, and
NJ 1910 O'Clock the Judge read his in
strIct.ons 10 the jury. This consumed
about half am hour and every juror APP
peared 10 give close attention 10 the
reading.
Prccis ~ al 11I0 MI a. f. Thorn, Of
counsel for the plaintiff began the OPEN
ms argument on that side, ana his speech
was a clear, mastery. and powerful effort,
nlled with good legal sense. and touching
almost ct.Iy phase Of this important
tria. Mr Thorn. after the usual saluta-
ton 20 the Court and jury, said: II
have been commissioned 70 pres mt 20
you the opening argument for the
plaintiff In this cause. hope
you viii give me credit for being
profoundly sensible Of the great respon-
sihlity which partially rests upon me.
The case is diguifcd and important in
ali It's aspects. important 10 the plantln,
because it involves ,he dearest rights 20
the Individual; il is important 10 the
community. because % involves 10 what
extent a citizen is safe from q licentioUs
press
Dir Thorn. continuing, said that he felt
hat IL pl2intlG was 10 be congratulated
hat he could now stand upon the same
Iround that ne did four weeks ago. Ii
had been proved cOnclusively that the
lontructi0us placed by the plaintiff upon
he publication in the Pilot of December
b. 1891 were true I'm every particular:
troved so concusiyely that II was
waste OK time % argue the subject. The
acxt point 10 be considered was as 10
Who composed the article, and who edited
and published the same. In so far IS this
referred To Mr.. Byrd. the author; Mr..
Sinai. the editor: and the Pilot Publish
ius Company, the publishers thereof,
if,re Was no dispute. But as 60 the
question of how far certain Of the other
attendants in this suit were liable, he said,
ibis WAS a subject for discussion The
evidence showed that for a month prior
- tle absolute publication OF the article
Poe public was promised sensation.
Here Mr.. Thorn interposed the statement
that under the charter the directors of
the Pilot Company were responsible for
the management Of its affairs for on
year from september. 1894. No bylaws
had ever been adopted dividing the re-
eponsibility, ana consequently upon such
u the directors as could be fastened
persona. knowledge OF the publication
liability would attach.
Referring again 20 the evidence. Mr.
Thorn stated That il was proved by Mr.
Smalls testimony that Mr. w W. Gibbs
one business manager. came into Smalls
Office and read 10 him choice selections
from the libcllous article. and that in the
face Of tbs fun knowledge ne Gibbs
caused 25.coO copies OF The Pilot of the
date az that publication 10 be placed be-
fore the people Of this country. He then
referred 10 the fact that Mr. r.. v Zach
asy (one Of the directors) acknow-
lodged that he was acquainted with
the character Of the article before IL
was printed. Mr.. Thorn also said that
mir. Luther II. seldom, president OF the
PILOT company and 4. G. White, one Of
Inc directors. visited Editor Small in re-
rard 20 this article, and were content
with Mr. Smalrs personal assertion that
the matter was not In his opinion libel
lous He laid especial stress upon the
iact that after reading this article as
published. none OF these officers or d.
lectors made any efforts OF demands for
ID retraction. and that this In itself
eaowed their concurrence in its publlca-
ton lie also said that the same arsu-
uent would hold good as TO Directors
Humphrey and BrckhOuse lie then
cited the principle in the law Of Tor'S,
that when several people engaged IN
wrongful act, although in different de-
grros. they were ali equally liable. ana
Ilsst be held equally responsible.
AS TO MALICE
TIE next point taken w by MT Ihom
Nas as 10 whether the article compliance
a. heinz ibellons. was also malicious
lie fret called attention, with Some sa'
,ssm. 10 the fact that the defendants hao
placed themselves upon very high plat
iorn-that OF performing public duty;
u his had been the case, why couia
they uot have allowed the article 10 stand
UPON It's own meri;sY In answer 10 TINS
Interrogation Mr. Thorn called the at
ientou u the jury 70 the fact that TOT
months after the publication OF the ~
bei.eus article the columns OF the fhot
were filled with the most bitter abuse
q The Plaintiff. and that such attacks
MIG nfeA hy nnHtIlQX