The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1895-06-25

| o'o'o On peuuil Ol tue AmcElcuu DOOh
| Company.
He continued that IN pursuance OF
| tho attainment of tho end this Ameri
can Book Company did pay to the do.
PENDANTS money, and the defendants
are ready to verify this.
OBJECTED TO ADMISSION.
| Mr.. Richard Wake, of counsel for
the plaintiff, objected to the admission
of the special plea, holding thut 1t was,
In effect, plea of justification. Your
honor will see that tie libellous article
charges directly bribery, bribery for
money, in several instances. One of
them. Tor "bundes of money" another
TO the specific amount OF 50, 100 with
which the plaintiff is alleged to have
| purchased u house aud lot in the city
OF Char lOttesviile.
| The directors OF the defendant paper
came before the Court and pleaded not
guilty. Whereas Mr.. Sam w. Small
and II. c. Byrd came forward with a
double plea. They denied that they
have libelied the plaintiff and in tho
meaBiime they say that if they pub
lished these charged, and they do not
deny thor publication, the charges ere
true aud they are ready to verify them.
| Your Honor will see that the object of
| tho plen liz to allego conspiracy. They
| tell us that Mt one time we received
bribv, tue specific amount OF which is
given az 50, $50 to purchase the house
| ut Charlottesville. Now, they say,
there was a conspiracy of oorruptIng
Influences. The plea, if your honor
| please, ~ inconsistent, aud is de-
partGre from the declaration. They
come before the Court and take hold
NN =. i 80
! they have held is insignificant, yet
they now mako this insignificant mat.
ter tho basis for IL charge of bribery.
THE GROUND OF DEFENSE.
| cay we ought to know the law upon
| this subject. and all of us know, huv
! ing been over the grounds 80 many
times that there are but two grounds
of defonsc. One is plea of not
guilty, III which they have simply to
spy we did not do tho thing charged.
The other is n plea of justification, in
which they have simply to say: Yes,
we made those charges against MIR.
Massey. aud they are all true.
He thought the Court would see that
this plea OF truth and conspiracy would
not hold.
Mr.. j. Il. Heath. Jr., of the defense,
|
show that this plea does measure up to
"a plea OF Justification. He admitted
that the plea should be rs broad as the
charge, and he held that the plea liz
that broad, ns it admits that the charge
Is ono OF bribery by money, but adds
"or by other corrupt influence" lie
said that the word ''or" WAS used in
the sense of ''and," and the defense
would amend tho plea and mike 1t read
bribery by money and other corrupt
influence.
INVOLVES CONSPIRACY.
Capt Wise next addressed the Court.
He said: "Your Honor, a plea OF JUS
iitication involves in itseif conspiracy.
Now, il this pln,utitl, an officer of the
State, had been bribed. the State has
the right to bring the bribed officer
before the bar and try and convict him.
criminal conspiracy 10 the combiua
ton OF two or more persons to commit
n criminal act or an unlawful act Ii
was lRwfnl 10 this case to mako con.
tract with the American Book Com.
pnny. THIS Is not denied. But il was
unlawful for Mr.. Massey to bring on
Its Influence III order to execute this
contract. 1t is known from the begin
nlng that MIR. Massey was tho creature
OF Mr.. Womack, the agent of the
American Book Company. Ii is also
known, and we will prove. that he was
paid money in order to foster their
interests. And it is the duty of the
Commonwealth. if all this is true, to
indict Mr.. Massey and Mr.. Womac;
aud the American Book Company, il
they can be reached and | think they
can--ns brlbe-takefs aud hribe-givers.
1t Is the Commonwealth right to
prosecute them.
| Now the proposition of, the other
side Is that we have made our bad and
we must lie upon it. We do not deny
the fact, but wo do not want to lii.
upon IT leDgthwise or erosswise, as it
| please.
THE FIVE PLEAS.
"The five pleas already fled all re-
fer to bribery simply, and make no
reference to conspiracy. Wo say that
he was bribed III 1899. 1924 that he
WAS bribed rs TO the Worcester Die
| tlonary, 81 TO the Graphic Copy Book
and also IN 1890 and 1894
Zach being an isolated case and
consummated, declarations of accom-.
plics after completion would not be
admissible If We relied on them simply
as so many specific acts OF bribery. SEQ
Hunter case, Z Graf. 6.
| Mr.. Wise said: We expect to show
the association of Mr.. Massey with Mr.,
WOmaCk. The only contention Ia tho,