The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1895-07-24
AR IEOAS EASTERLY EFFORT
HG discovers d COlSpIIOGy, which he Pre-
SGnlS 10 lie Jury.
JUDGE HEGTH'S STRONG HRGUDlENT
Mr. Massey Severely Denounced and
Held Up as an Object of Scorn.
Judge Heath viii Conclude
This Morning and Judge
Nicely Will Follow.

tlS 'HCII'HS anu ouuSc
Nicely Will Follow.
When Judge Prents ascended the
bench OF the Circuit Court yesterday
morning the building was we'll filled
Oy an audience composed of mauy of
the best people of Norfolk, but not
Juror had put IN au appearance.
Among the first to enter the bar were
Hon. Abe Fulkersuu and Mr.. Massey,
WHO talked about the suit and other
matterc of leading public interest. AS
eoOn us the Jury had answered to their
names, Judge Prentis read the instruc.
lions, and suid if they did not under
stand the instructions 1t would he the
pleasure of the Court 10 explain them.
MIR. WulKe said that the plaintiff
%onld not ask verdict against
Borum, /. Il. White Dusch, Wilder
and yerdier. of the Polot Publishing
Company, but would nsk verdict
against it. L. Byrd, S. W. Small,
Pilot Publishing Company, and Messrs.
Sheldon, Gibbs. Zachary. Humphreys,
Brickhouse and Il. 9. White, OF the
Pilot directors.
THE OPENING ARGUMENT.
MIR. Thom began the opening srgu
nnent for the plaiutiti, as soon us the
INSTRUCTIONS were read. He said:
This case is dignitied and important
sn all its aspects-it involves for Air.
Massey the dearest rights OF human
being; 1T involves for the community
whether or rot the individual is safe
srom conecienceless press; involves
for Virginia the question whethor one
II inn, IN bn. 49,
guilty of corruption in office. 1t is IL
matter of qualification to the plaintiffs
side that they stand here with the
foundations on which they stood four
weeks ago, tstill unshaken. 1t must be
apparent to you that the purpose OF
ehe defendants was to charge tho plain
Sill with corruption in office.
1t Is important for you to decide
who composed and published this
article. II has been proven that Mr.
Byrd wrote it; that MIR. Small knew Of
Ut aud published 1t, and that the Pilot
Publishing Company owned the paper
an which it was Published. 1t remains
Tor You to decide whether certain OF
the directors of that company partici.
pated IN the publication. 1t was ad.
Sertised that the article would be pub.
sished, and that it would charge oliicIal
corruption against the Department of
Public Instruction OF Virginia
The charter of the Pilot Company
makes it the duty OF the directors to
manage the pnper for one year no by
7aws had been adopted, their duties
had not been divided. Tho question
sor you to consider is whether men OF
substance sud responsibility can put
mp irresponsible men and seek to ruin
rbe reputation Of their fellow men and
escape tho consequences, when the
charter made them Othe dlrectors) the
managers OF that paper for the first
year of its publication.
1t Is proved that MIR. Gibbs, the
manager OF the paper. with power to
stop the machinery, knew OF part of
she contents oi. that article, aud then
took part in the issue Of % 900 copies
MIR. Zachary knew of this publication,
and MIR. SheldOn's attention was like
wise callei to the article, and he and
Mr. L. Z. White visited Mr.. Small and
were told by him that the article was
not lihelous; they knew what his estI
,nnte OF what Is libelous was, and they
left the Office and permitted -, 900
papers to be published; they never
afterwards went to MIR. Small and told
him that the article was Improper, nor
Niu thof ueulhnu u relrHCtlOn, 1t Is q
proper matter for this jury to con.
cider.
THE SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS
OF these defendants in letting the paper
contlpuc without n rotraction. The
came idea, but TO IL less degree. applies
30 MIR. liumphries aud Mr. Bnckhouse.
Inc facts carry your mind to tho con
clnsion that they participated i'll the
publication, aud If they did, the Court
tells yon that they are as responsible
ns the actual publisher: there must,
nnder tue law. be au equal liability for
the whole npou the wrong doers.
AS to malice, the court tells yon that
tho law iDfers malice, and We need not
60 INTO 1t further than as to its benring
on ylndlctive or punitive damages.
Messrs. Byrd Nnd Small put themselves
ON very lofty platform. If 1t was "A
6ense of public duty that impeled
ihem to the publication, l presume
bhat they would have let the publica.