The record-union., 1896-06-05

answer entirely deficient. In place of a
defense, it was a reiteration of the
statement made and was an aggrava-
tion rather than palliation of the Of
fense.
Mr.. Reddy asked to be permitted to
introduce evidence to show that the
statement was true and the cause of
the trouble He also contended that
there had been no contempt
The court said he would have Steno-
grapher Duden sworn as to the evil
dence.
E. L. Duden swore that he was the
official reporter in the case and fur
nished the Bee" with a partial trans
cript of the testimony at it's request,
about half-past / o'clock next day, for
that paper. Charles McClatchy had
asked for 1T. 1t appeared on Saturday
in the Bee"
He read the testimony as published
in his transcript.
The court said the transcript was
read in order to show that the Pee
had possession of it before the article
complained of was published, ard
showed that the report originally made
was not true. He asked Mr. Duden if
Talmadge stated Jones gouged him
out of $4,000, and at another time
Jones and Simmons got 81, 700 out of
him for nothing, and the latter an
swered that he did not.
Witness resumed, stating that Tai
madge denied the $4,000 statement
Immediately afterward, and that any
one who heard the statement must
have heard the denial also. Talmadge
said nothing about visiting crib"
and did not say that he saw the letters
were forgeries, and that Jones said it
made no difference, as the woman could
use them anyway. Talmadge made no
allusion to the $4,000, except the one
time, and only referred to the transac-
ton with Jones and Simmons once.
He was a very peculiar man to re-
port, having to use an ear trumpet
and the attorneys found it difficult to
examine him on that account. He
himself probably missed some words.
but nothing of any Importance, or that
altered the sense.
Mr.. Reddy wished to examine Mr.
Duden on the whole testimony, and
offered to do SO, but the Judge refused
to allow him to do so.
Resuming, Mr.. Duden said that Tai
madge's testimony was given on the
18th, and the transcript was given on
the 10Th, but was not published till the
30th He did not tell two Bee" re-
porters that Talnadge spoke SO low
that he had to guess at a great deal
of what he said.
Mr.. Reddy asked to be allowed to ex
anime his notes, and the Court allowed
him to do so, and he examined Mr.. Du-
den upon them and the latter explained
some corrections. Then the attorney
wanted to prove that the reporters S
notes were not correct, and that the re-
port in the Bee" was correct. He
called Charles Williamson to prove it.
| Judge Holl objected, and the Court de-
cided that he would allow no testimony
except the reporters notes.
A j. Bruner said he had been charged
with giving the report to the bee" J"
He wished to state that he never fur
nished the Bee" with any report
J. B. Devine testified that newsboys
were selling the Bee" containing the
article complained of in the corridors
OF the Courthouse that afternoon after
Court adjourned. He said he bought
one at the head of the stairs, but after
wards remembered that it was just out
side the south door of the Courtroom
opening into the corridor. He called
the attention of the Court to the first re-
port.
Mr.. Reddy offered to prove that por-
ton of the answer that alleged that the
first and only publication of the first
report was by Devine and the comments
of Judge Catlin on it in the Court
Or
feet.
Then he wanted to prove the report
true and without malice. The Court
asked if he wanted to prove that the
Bee" had a reporter present who heard
the testimony and made his report from
hearing it. He declined to answer and
the Court refused, but offered to allow
him to prove that the report and article
on the language of the Court and Devine
was without malice. Reddy did not want
to do this without proving that 1t was
a fair and true report, and this was also
refused
Then the Court successfully offered to
allow the defense to prove that the arti-
Gle was without malice; that the defend
ant believed the report to be true when
he published it, and also, if possible,
that Devine. at the bar, and Judge Catlin
lin,on the bench, had combined to close
the doors to the open exposition of a
vindcation, Mr.. Reddy having offered
to prove each subdivision of the an
swer in full, but he refused to attempt
to prove what the Court allowed.
This closed the hearing, and Reddy
objected to any judgment or punish
ment being pronounced by the Court on
the defendant on the ground that he
had not been allowed to prove the de-
fense set up, and that the Court had
neither power nor Jurisdiction without
allowing the defense to be heard to pass
any sentence on him.
The Court took the matter under ad-
visement till 10 a. m. to-day.
Notice.
For the benefit of those who wish to
%1l,