The Portland daily press., 1896-01-25
LANDLORD and TENANT.
Continued from third pag e.

latter said ne guessed Toomey hadn't paid
anything Hnd that he'd better come up
and see the sheriffs and do business with
them. Mr.. Noble took exceptions to the
Judges admission of the above testi-
mony.
The witnesses above interview with
Coyle was because he sent for Coyle.
Witness told all the above to Editor Nor
ton, probably the next day. WITNESSES
personal business offices are in the same
building as those of the Evening Tx
press. Witness, SO far as he was person
ally concerned, as president OF the cor
poration, believed the statements of
Coyle to be true.
Mr.. Noble objected on the grounds that
the motive or good faith are not in
volved, but simply the truth of news
paper charge. Judge Strout did not agree
with Mr.. Noble.
In regard to the d urant House seizure
in April, '94, witness first saw the ac-
count OF it in the PRESS the next
morning.
eat that time had you instructed
Proprietor SWEET about selling liquors?''
Mr.. Noble objected and Judge Strout
sustained him. After learning of the
seizure Mr.. SWEET came to witnesses
office, and
WITNESS REFUSED TO INTERCEDE
with the officers in his behalf. IT gave
him a blowing up Generosity"
"'I Il jeot," said Mr.. Noble. 1t was
sustained.
Witness first learned of the seizure of
June 25th, the next morning. Between
then and the trial. witness learn some
thing about statements by Plummer and
communicated it to Editor Norton. This
information he gave Norton was that OH
the morning after the second seizure
SWEET came to his office ana witness
asked him if he'd been selling liquor and
he said that he had not and he believed
that the officers came there to get a
whack at the witness because in regard
to the first seizure he had been told by
deputy sheriff that that was intended
as blow at witness Witness told SWEET
that he should send for Mr.. Coombs and
if the latter should find that SWEET was
not guilty, then he was to defend him.
His talk with Norton was because the
batter called his attention to newspaper
article stating that the sheriffs had II
second clse Of liquor selling against
SWEET and would have the witness in
dictcd as the owner of the Building.
Witness had told SWEET that if he knew
of his selling liquor
EE WOULD ASSIST TIE OFFICERS
against him and would turn him out.
LII WAS lIuUOTbduU tilhb MlbuGSS
find out whittier SWEET was selling or
not.
Witness also told Editor Norton that
Coombs had told him that Plummer had
said that he could prove by two witness
es that SWEET had sold beer. Plummer
had said that if SWEET stood trial he
would bring every complaint against him
that he could. Plummer was mad in
earnest. Coombs WAS rather impressed
that it would be u hard chance for SWEET.
SWEET had told witness that Plummer
had threatened to push him. Witness
was satisfied from Swett's statement that
he was innocent, after thoroughly cross
examining him.
Witness also told Norton that Coon BIS
told him that Plummer had shown
great deal of feeling when he learned that
Coombs was to defend SWEET
SWEET informed witness that prior to the
second seizure he was called upon by
Deputy Sheriff Gould and asked why he
didn't go down to the office and do
business with the sheriffs and make
some money, also assuring him that
the first seizure was directed against Col
Dow.
Mr.. Noble took exception to the
Judges admission of wituess's statement
that he believed the above statements,
and had not changed his belief up to the
time Of the publication Of the articles.
On July Sd, the date of the appearance
Of the article, witness had no hatred. ill
will or malice against Chas. A. Plum
mer.
Editor Norton told witness that he
wrote the article
Witness did
NOT KNOW OF THE ARTICLE
before it was published 1t was not
shown to him by Me- Norton and he was
not cons ulted by him. Before that arti-
ole was published and after Bartletts tes-
timony witness told Editor Norton that
on the evening of the trial Bartlett came