The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-04-26

or Inc Times Whcn QuestiOueu c9 VT.
wendenburg Mr.. Bryan stated that he
had never seen the plaintiff before TO
know him. and didn't remember having
seen the article I'm question until his at
tcntion had been called TO II after the
suit was fled. He entrusted the publica-
ton Of great many article to the judy
msnt OF Mr.. A. II. Hoderby, Jr., the
managing editor OF the paper. the article
In question being one OF them. No re-
quest mad ever been made by Mr.. Griffin
to make an apology for the article. Had
such a request been made witness would
have Investigated the matter thoroughly.
and II he found that the plaintiff had
been unjustly treated witness would
have offered an apology. otherwise. he
would not. Witness had absolute conf
dence In the character and integrity OF
the man who wrote the article, and
also IN the man who edited II for pub
lication. as with the entire stan OF his
paper He had every reason 10 believe
that the statements made In the article
were true and justinable, and had never
heard or seen anything TO make him ques-
ton them for a moment Since hearing
the testimony of the plaintiff himself
witness belief In the truth and justice
of the article were stronger. II possi-
BILE, than ever. Had he doubted the
justice OF the article the admissions OF
the plaintiff during his testimony would
have removed all his doubts.
PROPERLY QUALIFIED.
When cross-questioned by Mr.. Wen
denburg as TO whether he endorsed the
statements I'm the article to the effect
that MIR. Griffin could prove success
in catching crap-shooters In jail alley or
maintaining order at puddlers picnic
In Rockets, witness stated that he
thought the policeman was emnently
qualified for those duties. Mr.. Bryan
said he thought 1t was the intention Of
the writer Of the article TO draw con-
trast between waat the conduct Of
policeman at a church wedding should
be. and that of an officer I'm chasing
tough characters In remote localities.
Mr. r. G. Hiden. a member of The
Times staff, testified that he wrote the
article In question. and explained how
the officer had handled him in an ex-
ceedingly rough and unbecoming manner
upon that occasion.
The witness stand was then occupied
by Mr.. A. X. Holderby. Jr. who said
that he edited the article in question,
and had no reason then or at any other
time TO question the truth of the state
ments made I'm the manuscript of the
writer on the paper
Mr. Edgar White, clerk to the Police
Board, took the stand and produced his
record-book, which showed that in July,
1890. Officer Griffin and another member
Of the force were detailed to 80 10 Nor
folk on an excursion, and were charged
with rendering themselves obnoxious 10
the people on the boat by their atten-
items TO questionable women and by
drinking. They were arraigned before
the Police Board. and Officer Griffin was
fined SIS and severely reprimanded, and
forbidden 10 go on excursions for term
Of twelve months. In June, 1891, the
records OF the Police Board also showed
that MIR. Griffin was fined SIS and repri-
manded for being asleep in Candles Hill
Park while on duty.
After one or two Of the witnesses had
been recalled for corroborative testimony,
the court adjourned until 1870 o'clock.
THE ARGUMENT
When the court had reassembled and
the instructions had been submitted. Mr..
Louis Weneenburg began the argument
for the plaintin. He spoke for about an
hour. and apparently enjoyed himself in
letting his batteries play against The
Times He was followed by Mr.. Daniel
Grinnan, for the defence, who stated
that the action was brought by the plain
TIFF for damages which he suffered as a
policeman. The article in question had
been published i'm November, 1893, and
legal proceedings had only been COM
menced by the plaintiff within three or
four days OF the time allowed by law.
Had the suit been instituted with de-
sire Of vindication, and not for specula-
ton, IL would have been brought within
reasonable time. The only question in
VOlved was whether the plaintiff exceeded
ais duty, or the article in question was
published with malice TO the officer.
Major Charles StrIngfellow next made
mastery address TO the jury on behalf
of the defendant, dwelling at some length
on the liberty of the press He stated
that in England, since 1889, the question
was left for juries to decide whether the
liberty Of the press had been abused. In
the present case the question was only
whether the liberties Of the press had
been overtopped. Major Stringfellow thor
oughly reviewed the evidence, bringing
out strongly i'm his argument each offence
OF which officer Griffin had been guilty.
Especially did he dwell on the plaintiffs
excursion episode. He also showed the
contradictions that existed between the
record of the Police Board and Grifin's
testimony. Throughout his remarks he
paid high tribute TO the press Of Rich
mond. Major Strlngfellow's speech was
one OF the best and most eloquent ever
heard in courtroom I'm Richmond 1t
was complete and well-rounded in every
particular.
Mr.. Wendenburg made the closing ad-
dress, and used some very forcible ar
guments from his point of view. 1t was
500 =. NJ when the case was given TO
the jury. and just fifteen minutes later
Judge Minor was informed that the Jury
was ready to report. Soon after the
twelve men, good and true. marched
into the room. Clerk Luther Libby then
took the verdict from the hands Of Mr..
John w. FERGUSON, the foreman, and
read:
we, the jury. find for the defendant"
Mr.. Wendenburg moved that the yer
dict be set aside as contrary 10 the law
and evidence. The motion was overuled
by the court. and an exception taken.
The Instruct lions.
After the recess the Court had brief