Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-07-24

fact That the BllUt company Hdu pii"l''
% 90 copies of their paper on Decembef
23d, and had exulted in the assertion that
they would be read by 10000 people. The
Jury could easily see from this that the
effort to get this article before the people
was great The publication, he said, was
written by Mr.. Byrd. the representative
of rival concern 10 the American BOOK
Company. Notwithstanding all that had
been said. Notwithstanding any degree
Of malice which has been shown, n these
charges had been proved 10 be true thoh
the defence had clearly won tn .ir case
and this plaintiff stood guilty. The bur
den of proof was upon them. no" Wen
have they proved their case?
Mr.. Thorn read from the declaration the
charge that Mr. and Mrs. Massey went 10
Toronto. Canada, I'm company with }. w.
Womack agent Of the American look
Company lie said that this fact was
greater evidence that Mr.. Massey had
not than that ne had been bribed by
Womack for the American Book Com
pauy. The plaintiff had read the article
in the New York World, and saw in that
same item the allegation that Mr..
Womack had been inflicted on the
charge Of bribery ont in Washington.
and he Massey believed that there
was no more in the one charge than
In the other, and Mir. Massey travelled
along with Mr.. Womack and represefl-
tative Of the firm OF CHM d co. anu
1000 other people. There had not been
one scntilla OF proof that anybody had
paid one cent Of the expense OF Mr.. or
Mrs. Massey upon that trip except Mr.
Massey himself.
The speaker said that the defence had
cvnically asked why the PLAINTIFFS coun-
sci had not put Mr.. Womack on the
stand. They had hoped 20 do that very
thing. Mr.. Womack had been here "a
most throughout this trial. ready and
anxious to testify; but when the course
being pursued by the defence was seen,
and it was observed that they were try
ing TO drag into this issue every eXtrane-
Gus matter that they possibly could, the
plaintf did not feel that he could go
away out to Washington and try an
issue which had absolutely no connec-
ton with the supreme cause being
heard.
Mr.. Thorn took up the testimony Of Mr.
r.. l.. DeIea- who said that on the 1th
day of March, 1880. he saw Mr.. Massey
and Mr. Womac< coming out OF the
Planters National Bank. Mr. Massey
having a large roll Of bills In his hand.
He ayerred that that fact If II were
true. was just as much evidence that
those two gentlemen had robbed That
| bribed by Mr.. Womack.
Reference was made to the fact that
when the libellOus article complained OF
was published in the Pilot Lawyers
Byrd and Small. its author and It's pub
Usher. did not know that on April - 1917
Mr.. Massey deposited 500 in the
Planters National Bank OF Richmond,
and that this came 10 their knowledge
after this suit had been instituted. 1t
was then that Lawyer Byrd. while tax
ING depositlons in this controversy, learned
from MIR. Massey and from his bank
account that the 5000 was deposited at
that time.
MRS. MASSEY'S BROTHER
The defence would endeavor to show
that at the time this deposit was made
and al the time Of the purchase OF tne
Charlottesville property, Mr.. Massey couid
oot have had such large sums OF money
from his legitimate sources. Inc Diolhe'
~ Mrs. Massey had come here from
Alabama and testified that she hau peeu
GIVEN g. 400 to bring 10 virginia 10 pay
on that house and lot Efforts nau pcen
,,o1e 10 confuse this witness. his TAX
i iiiaI' "a Ron brought into court. This
&c one Of the first things done by II
,,a,,her Of the legal profession ~hen an
"ccas,on arose in which taX-lists couid De
,,~o,Ioht I'm. Mr. Thorn here remarked that
10 great majority OF men ala not re-
Inn their uninvested resources upon u,v 7
49, The taxes received from all
H. ,,srsonaltv in the city OF Norloih up
:" . fe,y vears ago was only SiZ,on.
NJ Tbon referred 10 the evidence Oh
,trs John D. Massey, when, ne saiu,
Nj corroborated In every particular 'n'
,oS,i,ro,v OF her brother. an honest couh-
49,, merchant. with respect TO the ihoneS
,,ronyht home 10 Virginia 70 be palu upon,
H. gharlottesyille property ms sVou
Nv rad been dragged into this cro"ueH
conrt- honse wherein there was not an
otber member Of her sex TO SIT beside het,
10 give testimony in connection Win "
private transaction. ...,,,. ho,,e
"Thcn too" said Mr.. Thorn, they nav
mt this plaintiff to cross .eNaiilli'a', s,
- four DAYS. Mr. Massey has hau ms
whol, lie for the past fifteen years iAIn
hare before this jury" Mr.. Ihom here
said that Mr.. Massey did not simply wan.
Justice I'm this cause. but that ne wans ..-
| y,n6ica,ion-absohIte vindcation me
counsel told OF a most pathetic inciden' ~
connection with the long and tedious ana
narrowing cross-examination or the pia"-
,isY nv MT Wise. He said: 1T has come
10 nv attention that duging that cross
examination Mr. Massey. this plaintii'
| met friend who said
81 object" said Mr.. Wise, Mr.. Inoul
4. making a witness OF himself, ana L
wall claim the right TO cross-examine
| him" .s,,,. NJ Thom
ling TO transcend the rules In what
he desires TO say.
nv ~. 1,bom: Il shall not. your Honor.