The Portland daily press., 1896-01-27
THE PLUMMER SUIT.
The Testimony ALI in Saturday Night.

saturday-Judge Gould Says PIummer
| Told Him Bartlett Lied.
The $4,000 libel suit OF Chas. A..
| RUNNER against the Evening Express
Was continued in the Supreme court Sat
uruay. MIR. Coombs resumed the direct
examination of Editor Goo. ". Norton.
Before writing the article of July Sd
witness read the PRESS report of
owetS's trial and compared it with that
OF ths Argus and Express.
Mr.. Coombs offered the article and
Mr. Noble objected ON the ground that
~ was hearsay and newspaper reports are
uoe original sources of information
The judge admitted it. Mr.. Noble took
eAoepSlons Mr.. Coonbs read the report
The report of tho SWEET trial by the
ADVERTISER was offered and read and oh
Jectsd to and admitted like the Others.
. " l6Aess had also read that account be-
lofs willing the article in suit. Mr.
Goonps offered the report of the Express,
Juoge Strcut excluded it because it was
| the defendant's p.nar Ioan4ione
| taken.
AT the time witness wrote the article,
iio pelleved the information which in
snired 1T. He had no iIl-will against
Chas. A. Hummer.
What was the object in writing that
Mr.. Noble objected. Mr.. Heath con-
eenGeu hat the defense had to show good
faith.
Mr.. Noble commended that the question
was coming and the line of demarkation
was to De made between defamation and
oommenG, between criticism and aoousa-
tlon. Ihere was discussion as to the
rignt OF paper to criticize men in pub
nc anu private POSITIONS, Mr.. Noble
| oontending that only the truth was in
| volved.
Judge Strout excluded the question.
MT. Heath commended that it was in
cumbent upon the defense Gn show that
MI. Norton wrote that article from q
sense OF duty as journalist
Mr.. Coonus asked if in writing that
article witness acted from a sense OF
duty to make what he believed fair
81 did,"
Witness attention was called to an ar
tlcle in the Express of April 4th, '94,
which he wrote. entitled the County
commissioners Report, two days before
the first seizure at the Durant House.
Mr. Heath said that it was offered as
showing reason for spite on the part OF
the plaintiff against the Express.
u
MIR. Noble objected TO the question a.
to whether, previous to April '94. witness
han CT iticized the liquor deputies Mr..
Coombs contended that IL it could be
shown that the first search was the re.
suit of spite, this matter should be adj.
mltted. Judge Strout excluded it.
RECORDER TURNER.
At this point Recorder Turner of til.
Municipal court, took the stand He had
with him the docket for '94. The object
of introducing this record was to cunLra.
dict the plaintiffs testimony in regard to
his always bringing q nuisance inuicI.
| ment when the search and seizure cast
Was weak one.
Mr.. Noble objected, contending that il
was the Judgment of the officer, not the
record of the court that determined
| ~ neither the case was a good one or not.
Judge Strout excluded the Municipal
court records.
| Mr.. Noble then offered inunicipal
court record for the purpose of impeaoh-
ing the credibility Of Chas. S SWEET
The record was in regard to the pay ment
of fine of 800 for search and seizure
case at Swett's hotel on Temple street.
| This was admitted.
CROSS EXAMINATION OF EDITOR
| NORTON.
| Witness had been engaged in journal.
ism since 's8. He was reporter till '9a,
upon the Express only. He was assigned
to City Hall work from '8S till 49, He
was then brought into intimate oonnec-
t1on with the courts and officers and
thei methods. He knew that the liquor
shertffs were in the habit of employing
detectives. He saw Liquor Deputy
Plummer nearly every day and had nc
personal differences with him. While
| witness was rep rting he regarded Plum
mer as very faithful, fearless. efficient
and impartial officer.
Prior to April 9th '94, nothing had ap-
peared In the Express editorially, criti-
clzing Plummer by NAME When wit
ness became editor he hal general over
sight, not entire charge, of what went
into the paper.
Sometime during the middle of April,
Col. Dow communicated the Information
to him in his private office. Col. Dow
probably did not call witness into his
Office. He told witness that he got bis
Information from Coyle. Witness took
memoranda of the conversation. Hs
was collecting at that time all possible
ment of the liquor law Previous tc
then he had written articles criticizing
the sheritf's Office. Prior to the second
seizure at the Durant House, no article
had appeared against Deputy Sheriff
Plummer, by name.
| No editorial was written about the first
selzure, and nothing as indicating that
there was any spite in that.
The article In suit was inspired chiefly
by the trial of SWEET. The Express was
represented by Mr.. Bigelow, who was
assigned to the City Hall reporting. The
latter spoke to witness about the trial
He told him nothing about Plummer's
stepping up to the Judges desk during
Bartlett's testimony.
Witness didn't remember about Bige-
lows telling him that Judge Gould
spoke out sharply to Bartlett and said
do you mean to say that nobody sent
you there?''
The reports of the trial said nothing oil
that or about Plummer's going up to
speak to the Judge during the testimony
Of Bartlett.
In Col. Dow's office he told witness
what BARTLETT said to him at his house.
| Mr.. Noble asked if WITNESSES knowI-
edge as reporter was not that it was
the custom of the officers not to MAKE
public the names of their detectives.
The question was excluded but MI.
Heath admitted that that was the
custom.
Col Dow did not tell witness that
Bartlett told him that Plummer told
l L. IL