The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1895-07-21

TWAS nau alrehuy Oeeu shown through
out the trial, and he did not think any
more of this should be allowed.
Capt. Wise replied holly that he was
trying 10 serve his client as an at
torney, and that it was q subterfuge
for those parties to try now to hide be.
hind the fact that he and the plaintiff
were old rivals aud to try to countersct
the damaging effect of the testimony
against Mr.. Massey by impressing that
fact upon this jury.
use of tho word "subterfuge" in con
nection with himself (Mr. Thom.)
Capt. Wise explained tbat he did not
intend the'use OF the word to reflect ut
all upon the honor Of Mr.. Thorn; that
he had the greatest amount OF respect
for MIR. Thom. MIR. Wake and MIR.
Neely. He did mean that Mr.. Thorn
(aud properly so) was attempting to
use the fact of his old grudge against
MIR. Massey to influence the Jury in
the case. He would e1plnin for the
tiftieth time that the words that he had
used during the trial were intended to
refer to the ooupseps legal methods
and not to their action as men.
Judge Prentis ruled the record III the
contested election out and Capt. Wise
noted exceptions and rested his case,
MIR. Brand, local editor OF the Char
lottesyllle Progress, WAS called by the
plaintiff. Said he had lived in Char
lottesvIlle all his life; that he knew the
general reputation of MIR. Massey, and
that 1t is good.
To Capt. Wise the witness said he
had read things about Mr. Massey, bu.
never heard any body discuss him.
10 MIR. Thorn you have heard things
agains: the reputation of Judge
Robertson, have you not?
have sir.
But you could testify that his repu.
tation is good, could you not?
l could, sir.
MIR. Brand was allowed to stand aside
nud Mr.. Thorn said bis clisnt would
hnve few other witnesses to call IN
rebuttal OF the witnesses last called by
the defense, who will not he here till
Monday. and asked that the Jury be
dismissed till then. His request wns
granted.
THE INSTRUCTIONS.
AS soon as the jury had returned,
counsel offered their Instructions,
which were argued. The first instruc
ton of the piaintiif was objected to by
Judge Heath because it did not per.
init the question of implied malice TO be
decided by the jury.
Capt. Wise said IL contained an oh.
stract proposition OF law, which was
not ii matter Tor instruction from His
Honor, but for decision of the Jury,
Mr.. Wake said the matter contained
therein respecting privileged commu,
nicntions and the other matters were
questions Of law, and must be decided
by His Honor.
Capt. Wise asked the Judge to in.
struct tie Jury that the fact that j, w,
Womack, who was charged by the de
tendant with bribing the plaintiff, was
present in court, and that copy of
his indictment III the State of Wash
in9ton was IN evidence, and that heard
tue charge of bribery and that the
pininhf did not put him on the stand
that these facts may be considered by
the jury ns relating to tho charge OF
bribery of MIR. Massey by him.
Judge l'rentis promptly refused to
SO Instruct The jury.
Tie Judge was nlso requested to in
strnct That The directors were not re.
sponsible for the effect OF tho libel that
Is that did notactively participate in the
preparation OF the llUel and they could
not be held responsible.
captain Wise cited the case of libel
IN New York against George Is.
j ones, who was the largest stock.
holder IN the piper sued, and who
could have stopped the whole issue Of
the paper, bnt proving that he was not
II participant III the preparation OF the
article he was not held re-
sponsIbic.
He coutended that the fact that W.
W. Gibbs, Of the Pilot, knew OF part
OF the proposed publication OF Decem.
ber I'D, and didn't prevent iis publica
tlon, doesn't make him Gibbs an
accessory.
That his was a separate department:
that he had no suspicion that the ar
ticle WAS libellous; that Mr.. Gibbs hnd
sworn that he know nothing about it.
How, then, could he be liable for doing
what there was no evidence to prove
TINT he knew anything about? Afr.
Glbbs was bound TO the Pilot Company
as their agent, but not to MIR. Massey.
| he Pilot Company was liable to MIR.
Massey aud MIR. Gibbs was not. and
I be case was the same rs regarded the
directors. In order to become liz ble
these parties must have knowingly
been participants; If they were partlci.
pants and participated unknowinelv in
the act. then they were not linbe.
Judge Heath held that MIR, Wiso's
argument and contention was right