The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-06-29

I courtesy"
Mir. Thorn insitscd that this was a
! legal question.
Caetain Wise rctorted: you gentle
men don't want to ply sharp practice
| on us"
Air. Thorn took umbrage at this express
| sion and would perhaps have retorted
sharply. had nor Judge PreEtiss remarked
that there was nothing IN Captain Nise's
remarks that called for an angry reply.
THE LITTER RULED OUT.
Judge Prcntiss ruled that the letter
! was privileged and could not be used as
evidence by the plaintiff.
Mr. Gibbs then resumed his testimony
as follows:
Il do not know who wrote the article
] Of December B. 1894. l know that IL
was in the onlce-por,ions Of 1t at one
time, and then at another-but j ola
4 not read the article before or since its
publication / could have read n.
IL was the secretary OF the Board. prin-
c!pally. and these memoranda are all the
minutes In my possession. l did mol
write them I'm n book and that Is my
| fault because I was ovcrwOrked.
was there not a meeting June 9th or
| 7th. at which II was discussed that Byrd
was the author OF this article. and as
| the agent Of CHM & Co. and would have
| all the expense Of this trlal?'
Captain Wise objected. and tho Court
ruled the question out. Mr.. Gibbs was
asked If he did not himself agree that
/ CHM & CO.. were responsible. Mr.. wise
objected The Court ruled that Mr..
/ Gibbs might be asked what no admitted
and agreed. and what the Board did
/ Executions by defendants were noted.
Mr.. Gibbs-"I have never recognized
| CHM & Company as responsible 20 my
self or the Pilot Company IN any way.
| So far as | am concerned. ! never helo
anybody responsible but the Pilot PUP
! fishing Company. ! did try TO get "liin
! & Company. for certain reasons, to aid
/ in the expense, and they refused
CHM co
after this suit began. the Pilot people
! tried TO interest these people ana get
! them 10 help US defeat II, but they
/ would not respond. j went to them my
self and represented that they and other
| book companies should aid us in the
/ matter. ! have not claimed That they
were more responsible than any other
nuhlishing house ] claimed that they
ought to help us. because ! believed that
/ they were behind the publication, al
| though | did not know IT, "a strong
argument was here made against inc
/ questions as TO Mr.. gibbs having Co.'
| fronted CHM & Company with a state
mont that they were the authors or TINS
article. Judge Prentiss ruled the ques-
tion admisslble) -,
Mr.. Gibbs sad he had charged them
with bringing the article into the Ilio''
and they said we had nothing 70 snow
IL. That was I'm Boston. They asked
! II | was going 10 other book COMPANIES,
ana SAID was. and / did. thought
for a time they would make MS contri-
| bution but they did not. ] ga not make
any demand on CHM & Company Tor inc
| facts on which to defend this suit.
asked them for all the ff-ts in their pos
session
Il desire TO say in order that no in
Justice may be done TO Mr.. small lidt
| at the beginning of this matter, he anu
I discussed it. and while Mr.. Massey
name was. as | knew. TO be connected
vim this matter. yet Mr. Small. Indicated
no malice toward Mr.. Massey. II was
| tho Book Company he was AFTER.
,houqht all the facts In SUPPORT OF the
matter IN the office. but ana not KNOW
what Mr.. Small turned over to the at
tornevs as the evidence for the defence
Il have called upon Mr. byrd 10 ASSES,
| I'm furnishing evidence because DeHeNcu
he was the author OF the article
THOUGHT Mr.. BYRD HE AUTHOR OF IT.
~, AIR. Thom-'I had conversation with
Mr. Byrd in the presence OF Mr. Zachary
and MIR sheldon. MI. Byrd mas zee"
] ,o,rnsal for the Pilot from the beginning
| ,ronrt here ruled all questions out that
related 10 Byrd while counsel Tor the
! puot, II could not tell you when ne
| b.came counsel for the Pilot PUBLISH
inc COMPANY ] may have had one l"ih
win MIR Byrd before The institution OF
the suif acted on the hehel 'lal VII
Dvrd was the author OF the article, az,
though he never told me so. Mi. Sl'an
told me so several times, anu Pr,
| ,ho publication | saw MIR. fhmptoh III
N.o,. york and held TO my claim as
"a d, poston. that his firm was respoh-
~ through Mr. Byrd. as their az
.arno,, and AGENT lie said we had 40
80, mon Them. but would consult MI
I,',1 and replv. After waiting a Week
"a NOT hearing from him. | wired LOT
| RE replv. and he answered tha' IT, "'"''
90 nothing. .e.,., ,,.a,.s di1 dis
o.,ss alonp the line you suggest that
| 80, & company ought to help u'ie"t
,his mi, because they were. as we Il"
,oiieved back of the article that was
~ saw only a part Of the manuscript
81 tho article. and Mr.. Small toiu i'3
,bo, the article showed the conhec'io"
Of Mr. Massey and the state Boar" VIZ
| ,h. letting of the book contracts lie
! ar
oniv saw one of the notices advertising
,he article before il appeared.
~. Air Neely-"Did YOU not say the
,,n6te to the Pilot from the publication
would more than compensate Tor any
exncnse that might come from the sun
| counsel for defendants objected To 'he
question. The Court overruled the ques-
PIa,ntifrs counsel offered a card issued
iv the Pilot TO advertise its report OF
/ Tho suit. objected to, and ruled out.
SENSATIONAL ARTICLE
AR Gibbs was asked II he thought me
article would make a sensation. Inc
| Cont ruled that question proper ana
! Nr Gibbs said that because the Ameri-
can Book Company was biz concern
| and covered many States, the arucie
| would attract general notice
| Adjourned to 1879 \. NJ tomorrow
NOTES or TIE DAY.
Rrsiness Manager Gibbs has been quite
IN with iaundicc since his return from
| ohio. The court officer found him IN
bed to-day. but he arose and went to the
courtroom against the protest OF his
| physicians.
majority of the directors Of the Pilot
COMPANY are constant attendants upon
| the trial.
Mr.. Massey spent portion OF the day
as Yesterday. in making notes. in book
on his knee.
In order to keep a circulation Of air
through the room. a rail was placed out
Of no. ri