The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1895-05-22
The MASSEY PILOT SUIT
The Demurrers to the Declaration
Argued.
Judge Heath Opens Argument in Able
Speech Oemurred TO Entire
Declaration. Explains Ian
guage and Objects to
Ten Counts.

were filed several days sgo, to the
declaration.
Capt. John S. Wise. of New York,
aud MIR. Byrd, of Winchester. could
mot be present but Mcssre. Heath,
Hsrminson n Heath and Samuel w.
Small appeared for the defense aud
Messrs. Thorn, Nicely and Walk for
Mr.. Massey.
While the attendance was not as
large as on the first calling of the case
there were several gentlemen present
who appeared to be greatly interested.
Court WAS called 10 order ut ll:l5
by Deputy Sheriff Murcer, and Judge
Heath opened for the defence, saying
that he demurred to the entire decla
ration. he declared that the declara.
ton puts forced and strained con
strnctlon on the words Of the defence,
that were uttered with reference to the
plaintiff which construction only IA
guilty conscience would put on said
words. That the words were suscepti
Bile of two constructions and that courts
do not 60 out of the way to permit
strained constructions.
THE JUDGE ENQUIRIES.
Judge Prents interrupted ct this
point and asked what construction he
would put on the lungunge Of the de-
tense he referred TO, VIZ: That a wavo
financial prosperity came TO Mr.. Mus
sey after the book contract WAS made. :"
Judge Heath replied that the language
wns susceptible of the plaintiffs con
etructiop, but it was the wrong con
stiuction and that the words quoted in
the declaration were not all that had
been said by the defense aud the court
could not tell what effect the Other
part OF said article not quoted by The
plaintiff would have on the quoted
words If placed with the latter before
the court.
In his judgment II was only Co
incidence that "a wgve of financial
prosperity came to Mr.. Massey nfter
the contract WIS male with tho Ameri
can Book Company. That an inno
should have been put on the word.
He held the same opinions as to the
language "junketipg trip" and the
copy book" incident.
Judge Prentls again asked what in
nooent construction wns relorrcd to.
Judge Heath said he could see that
the Court did not agree with his views,
but that what he held was that the evil
things alleged to have been meant by
Tue oeiense in the words USED, simply
happened III connection with the affair,
and were not necessarily meant III al
evil sense by the defendants.
u regard to the PHO. utterauce In
reference to the Lippincott books, III
which utterance 1t was said that Mr..
Massey was
'sWAfED BY OCCULT AND SINISTER
MOTIVES
those words did not mean that he
yielded TO these sinister motives: that
although he might have been swayed
by the said sinister motives his acts
might have been perfectly proper.
In reply to questions of counsel ior
the plelntin ns to what differences
there Is between being "swnyed" aud
being "moved" by motive. MIR.
Heath said that the former came from
without aud the lntler from within
meaning that Mr.. Massey might have
been 'swayed," but not necessarily
moved" III said matter.
In regard to MIR. Massey having come
lnto possession of certain money, he
said that reference to this by the de
PENDANTS did not necessarily nenn that
Mr.. Massey received the money cor
fuptly.
Judge Heath again urged the point.
that the court not having the entire
Riot article before 1t. could not let
this strained construction be put on
the quoted words
n regard to several counts of the
declaration, which he considered were
covered by other features OF tho decln
ration, aud in regard TO still other
counts that he held blended statutory
aud common law offences, aud were.
therefore, radically defective, he asked
the Court 10 strike them out from the
declaration; also others referring to
'nuendoes.
THE PLAINTIFF.
MIR. Richard Wake followed for the
plalntlti aud maintained the correctness
OF the form OF declaration with regard
10 the blending of common law and
statuatory offences.
de said there was nothing in the de
clslous OF the highest courts IN Vlr
glnia In conflict with the principles in
this matter. lie sHid some Circuit
Judges may have taken different 10
titioh on this point from that con
tebded for. but these Circuit judges
We're wrong. He did not expect to
heer from the defence that after all
we Gid not do it,"
he SAID the plaintiff contends that be
has been charged with corruption IN
Office. "'''oN ~
MF. j. {. Heath. Jr.. replied to Mr.
n1ike on the point taken by the de-
renee that the plaintiff has wrongly
bIeDueu statutory and cnr,,,or -.