The Roanoke times. [volume] (Roanoke, Va.) 1890-1895, 1895-05-23
THE mAssEY-p1Lor LIBEL SUR.
Argument on tho Demurrer to PLAINTIFFS
Declaration.

Argument on the Demurrer to PLAINTIFFS
Declaration.
A despatch from Norfolk to the
Petersburg Index Appeal OF yesterday
has the following concerning the cele-
brated Massey-Pilot libel suit:
Argument on tho demurrers made by
the defense to the declaration of the
plaintiff in the Massey Pilot libel suit
was heard by Judge Prensis in the CITY
circuit court day. MIR. Richard
WBlke. Mr.. a. p. Thorn and Mr.. John
Nicely appeared for the plaintiff. and
Judge James E. heath, J. e. Heath,
Jr., and Sam W. Small for the defense.
When the case was first called Judge
Prentis continued it until June "a, but
the defendants declaring that they i'm
tended 10 demur to The declaration, he
set apart Nay 81 as the day whom the
domsHrer WAS 10 DO argued.
J. e. Heath, Jr., WAS ,hs AYst speaker
for the defense. he announced that
his side dsmurred to the entire declsrs.
tion. He said the declaration puts z
foroed and strained construction on tho
words OF the defense that were uttered
with regard 10 the plaintiff, which con-
struction. he claimed, only q guilty
conscience would put on such words
that where words are susceptible Of two
constructions, the courts do not go out
their way to permit strained construc-
ttons. In answer to question Of the
court, Mr.. Heath said an innocent con-
struction instead of an evil one should
have been put on the words Of the de-
PENDANT (Pilot): "a wave of financial
prosperity came to MIR. Massey after the
book contract was made;" and that q
like construction should have also been
put on the words in regard to the "jun-
keting trip" and the copy book" Incl
dent. In regard to the Pilots utter
ances In regard to the Lippincot. books,
In which utterance it was alleged that
Mr.. Massey was 'swsyed by occult and
sinister motives" Mr.. Heath said those
words did not mean that he yielded to
these sinister motives; that although he
might have been swayod by
such motives, his acts might have
been perfectly proper.
Mr.. Heath was followed by MIR. Rich
ard Wake for the plaintiff. He de-.
Tended the form OF the declaration in
regard to the blending OF common law
and statutory offensos, and held that
there Is nothing in the decisions of the
highest courts in Virginia in conflict
with the principles contended for in
this matter by his eide. He admitted
that some Of the circuit judges may
have taken different view OF this mat
ter, hut these judges, he said, are
wrong.
Mr.. Alfred P. Thorn next spoke for
plaintiff. docs the defonse mean TO
ask" said Mr.. Thorn, "thst this old
man (Massey), 70 years of age, who has
been before thevirginia people for
twenty years, be thrown out OF court
and dsnied vindication on the ground
that perhaps they did not mean TO
Islander him?" Mr.. Thorn said tho do
fendsnts have for months been holding
Mr.. Massey up TO ridiculo AMI oblcQuy,
and that tho plaintiffs counsel do not
mean to allow them to slip out in this
way.
Mr.. John Nicely, also for plaintiff,
followed Mr.. Thorn. He said that fe "
days ago, when he found, on tho case
being called, that the defense was
man9nvering for position, he did not
expect them to sound to-day the bugle
notes Of retreat Mr.. Nicely then dis
| cusssd the point as to blending statu tory
and common law ctfenses, contending
for tho entire sufficiency in law of the
declaration of the plaintiff in this case
Mr.. Small then addressed the court
for the def6nse. He said the age OF Mr.
Massey has nothing to do with this case
that the defense aeks the court 10 strike
the declaration at the defective points
and strip it Of all it's surplussge. and
thus get down to the bone of the matter
and find what it is that tho Pilot has
said about Mr.. Massey that is slander-
Gus. Mr.. Small held that the state
ments that Mr.. Massey "foated on q
wave of financial prosperity;" that he
took "a trip with Dir. Womack:" that
he was insolent. arc not libelous or
actionable
Judge Heath closed the case for the
defense, and ct the conclusion of his
argument the court took the matter
under advisement.