The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1895-06-28
detailing it's alleged operations in Viz

?
In thls article no is charged with
swindling the State as An official and
defrauding his personal creditors. As
matter OF fact, all that the counsel
for the defence have said during the
past three days derogatery of MIR. Mas.
soy is found.in this article. MIR. Wake
hae a round shrlil voice. read we'll aud
rapidly, and the reading of this article
required nearly one hour.
bir. Thorn then selected from tho
satchel papers published previous to
the ono causing the suit. These papers
contained information to tho public
that there WAS n great sensation await.
ing the people of Virginia. aud adver.
Using the forthcoming issue of the
23d Of December.
When MIR. Wake offered the edi.
torial OF tho I'd OF December MIR. Wise
arose and asked for what purpose the
paper WAS submitted. Mr.. Wake was
Mr.. WISE withdrew his objections, say
ing that the question could be argued
sono other time.
Articles from the Pilot, subsequent
to the alleged hbelous article, we're
theD read, IN one of which it was stated
that the Pilot Company was thorough.
y responsible aud composed of some
of the wealthiest meu in Norfolk; that
for this reason the Pilot had been sure
of its facts Gin regard to tho Massey
Book Company article Mr.. Wake
emphasized sharply this language
He also read u number of editorials
published during the months OF Janu.
airy, February and March, inviting the
libel suit, in which severe language was
used in regard to MIR. Massey as q
private citizen and an officer.
THE GovERNoR's CARD.
One OF these was headed "Should
Christ Come to Norfolk"
MIR. Wake also submitted the card
published over the signatures of Gov.
O'Ferrall and Attorney &c neral Scott,
and the advertisement IN the Pilot
headed The Life and Times of John
T.. Massey"
The reading Of these various publ
cations Consumed about two hours und
MIR. Wake at the conclusion was to all
outward appearances as fresh az when
he began.
At this point Mr.. Wise. for tho de-
tense, objected to the articles that were
presented subsequent to the alleged
libe!ous article OF December %. lie
contended that the council had
FAILED TO LAY TIE FOUNDATION
for this evidence. He said he could
see why 1t WAS desired to get in those
articles to connect the directors of the
l'ilot with the responsibility. He held
that the directors were in no way re-.
sponsible for any OF the articles pub
lishod, as they had no control over tho
| editorial department of the paper and
the editors and composers of an article
nre not tho agents OF the directors, but
ot The company. lie asked il they are
the agents of tho directors what be
comes OF the Pilot Company.
lie sud the defense Is being sued for
libel alleged to have been committed
on the 23d of December, vet the
plaintiff attempts to introduce sixteen
newspaper articles written subsequent.
~ and upon each of these articles a
libel suit might be brought. Sixteen
libel suits would amount to $500. coo.
the amount OF MIR. Massey's damage.
They are evidently being introduced
to show malice, bnt they cnunot DO in.
troduced in this case. He also OBJ
Jected to the articles printed prior to
December 23d. MIR. Wise presented
authority from New York reports To
substnntiate his position.
OlJ llONS PREMATURE,
Mr.. Wake said the objections were
premature; he was willing to 90 into
the case with all the light possible; he
admitted that the fact that n man sim
ply being director would not mako
him liable; he did not know that he
would be able to show that oil of the
directors knew of this publication, but
that some OF them did; he knew that
the evidence could not be admitted for
the purpose of increasing damages,
MIR. Wake quoted authority to show
TINT repetition of SANDER, or the
selling of paper subsequent to the
Islander wonld show malice
The subsequent articles showed the
spirit in which the original articles
were written.
MIR. Medley then addressed The
Court, saying that the plaintiff was not
suing the directors us directors,
But AS WRONG DOORS:
that he had said to one of the counsel
for dlrectora who hRi told him that his
client knew nothing OF the publication
aud took no part in the publication
OF the paper, that they were not after
that kind OF game. But we expect to
show that some OF the directors did
know Of the publication and the article
appeared with their knowlcdpe and
consent. Judge Nicely said that dn,,