The Portland daily press., 1896-01-28

mon acceptance perhaps, perjury IS sup
posed to consist IN any false statement
whether taken before a magistrate in a
hearing or whether in an affidavit, but
tho legal definition in order To make it
an offense would require that it should
be taken in proceedings befnre some legal
tribunal, and should be test mony know
ingly false upon matter ma erial to
that issue. Upon the question vi ether
Bartlett was sent by Mr.. Plummer and
saw Plummer the night before, as to
which he was contradiGted by Flummer,
that might not be SO material to he is
sue as to constitute perhaps technical
legal perjury But you will judge wheh-
er the phrase as used in this article was
used-not BY a lawyer and in strict legal
sense, but USED in the ordinary sense in
which that term Is understood by the
ordinary man who is not lawyer.
Well, now, it is said by the defense that
whatever the langu ge means, which
you are TO deterInine-that they have
citing the evidence to you, they say that
Mr.. Bartlett, the Witness told Col. Dow,
IN his so-called confession after the trial
in the municipal court, that Mr.. Plum
mer told him he needn't say he was sent
there as spotter, as Col. Dow under
stood it that he need not testify to that
fact-you will remember his testimony
JouieolVoS. luey say also DarbieIb Sdlu
he tried not to testify, and that it was
suggested to him that purse of fifteen
or twenty dollars would be made up II
he would testify. Whether or not that
has been denied by Plummer, you will
remember; don't remember all the tes-
timony; what effect it all may have
upon your minds as bearing upon this
question whether or not anything &C.
CURED between Mr.. Plummer and that
wltn9SS yvhich yyould ha n foundation,
for the allegation made, whatever you
lind that to be- The testimony of Bart
lett was given there the exposure of that
testimony by Mr.. Plumlner, when it
was done whether voluntarily or not or
whether 1t was drawn out from him re-
iuotantly; whether he stood by consent
ing to the falsity, with view of getting
conviction, or whether he corrected it
with Judge Gould as speedily as he could
DO expected and required to do as an hon
EST man. All that matter is for you,
and you will say when you determine
the facts, whether or not that If it is
called charge in theartiole is or is
not true. That is to say, when say
true, do not mean literally and sub
stantially true, but true in its main eler
ments. practically true; not necessarily
SO IN every particular.
Well, you can come to the last part OF
the article which apparently relates,
not to Plumber alone. but which ap-
parently relates to the sheritf's office, the
liquor deputies as a class You must
judge of it; do not give it to you as a
matter of law: "Come down to the office
and ito business, etc"
Now Mr. Coyle testifies that while his
store was vacant on Fore street he had
conversation with Mr.. Plummer in re-
gard to it, in which Mr.. P|ummer recon-
mended him to let it and he said he
coulcn't let it except to a rumseller
nameu Ioomey, 1 think is the name and
rs Coyle says Mr.. Plummer says:
"Tuonoy would be satisfactory or
something to that effect aud said sub
stantially, rs Coyle testifies, if he let il
Cfntinued on Third Page.