The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1896-01-24

LINZ A1N ~ ALI "a q
eating that the seizure at the Durant
house was the result of purpose to get
even with Col. Dow, because of the Ex-
press attitude upon certain public ques-
tons The article reviewed the Durant
house seizure and Swett's trial at length,
declaring 1t put up job, etc., for the
purpose Of running Col Dow. 1t inti-
mated that Bartlett's perjury was
brought about by Plummer himself, de-
clarlng also that Plummer tried to bull
doze Swett's counsel.
copy OF the Express for July 9th
was offered in evidence, containing an
article, copied from the Bridgton News,
OF similar tenor to the above These ar
tloles were offered to show malice and
Intention Oh the part of the publishers.
OPENING FOR THE DEFENSE.
William G. Eaton, ESQ.,, made the open
ing for the defense. He declared that the
defendants publication was admitted,
and that such publication was justi-
| fable. They claimed that it was right
and duty of newspapers to show the peo-
pie what public officials were doing and
| to criticize their doings. Ii had become
obligatory upon the defense to show the
jury what the facts were upon which
they based their criticism. In regard to
the alleged statements about 'humsel-
lers coming down to the office to do bust
aess, ''lhey claimed that they could not be
considered libellous and that the meaning
attached to those words by the plaintiff
in his writ was peculiar one, and that
the jury must not consider those words
in any but their natural meaning. Ac-
cordjng to law an innuendo cannot be
| l,fr Lao
those words are not libellous to Charles
A. Plummer, because they do not refer
to him. They are general, not special.
The only statement for which they
could be held responsible was that about
the invitation to go down to the office
and do busin sss.' They were prepared
to prove that such an invitation had been
extended. In regard to the Durant
house case they would show that Plum
lner used every persuasion in his power
to get SWEET to settle the case without
trial.
Mr.. Eaton rehearsed the case in the
municipal court anu urged that Plum
mers faction was such al. to indicate that
he was responsible for the perjury of
Bartlett.
COUNTY ATTORNEY TRUE.
County Attorney Charles A. True was
the first witness for the defense. In re-
gard to the action of Chas. A. Plum
mer in going out of town to secure evil
dence against the wholesale druggist
houses by decoy letters, he did not
make any arrangement with Plummer.
The first he knew about it was when
Plummer came to his office in August
and spoke of the sale of liquors by those
houses. They spoke about the necessity
of securing sales. Witness told Mr..
Plummer that from the amount OF
liquor business ii en- going on in Port
land he did not consider it good policy to
single out the wholesale druggists Plum
mer did not send those decoy letters, etc.,
with his authority.
Cross-examined. Plummer showed him
evidence against Cook, Everett & Pen
nell. He disapproved of Plummer's
course. because he din't think the whole
sale ID druggists should be singled out.
why should you think if Cook, Ever
cit Pennell were selling liquors
that was not fair way OF convicting
them?''
IT thought it wasn't good policy when
they were letting SO many other sellers
alone"
MIR. Noble urged that they were not
letting the other sellers alone.
Witness used. Plummer's testimony
against tho wholesale and retail drug
glsts in prosecuting them.
:" Ii the druggists of this city were VIC
lating the law, do l understand that you
disapproved of deputy sheriffs taking
methods for finding them out?'
Il simply objected to the ocular
method that the officer was taking
Witness had known that method used
before. He would say that it hadn't
been used before in this city. He had
nomplaired Of the nt hod before to the
sheriff. lie knew thai it was very diff |
cult to get eviGeace against liquor SELL
ers.
Witness as prosecuting attorney, did
net give Plunimer an order not to take
that method in securing the evidence
against the druggists
CHAS. A. PLUMMER AGAi |.
Mr.. Coombs at this point called the
plaintiff again to the stand. After ex-
aiming the records, the witness found
that between January l, 1894 and June
10th he had 26 cases of search and seiz-
ure. All these cases we're enumerated
and it was shown that none of the re-
spondents, except one were indicted for
nuisance.
The witness declared that he had testi-
FLED that he only brought an action for
nuisance when he lost ON the search and
seizure and not at any case in the mu-
nicipsl court.
How did you know that that case
against SWEET would not be made out,
So that you though it best to get out
nuisance indictment against him before
the trial.
"You told me 500
Mr. Coombs asked in regard to the
number of rum shops then selling in
Portland.
MIR. Noble objected and Judge Strout
sustained the objection.
GEORGE N. COYLE.
George N. Coyle testified that he was
porn in Portland. In April, 1894 he had
charge of building at 1886 Fore street.
1t belonged to his chill dren, inherited
from their grandfather. About the first
of March, 1894 witness talked with Plum
mer about renting that building, the lat
fer ASKING WIN If wasr,S LEFT Witpasa rsid