The Portland daily press., 1896-01-28
OUT ALL NIGHT.
Continued from SECOND Pace.

Continued from Second Page
he could have some protection. Won re-
| member what the testimony Was from
the sher1ff's office. Mr. Plummer SAYS
no such conversation ever OCCUR ed and
there is no foundation in fact fol it at
all. There is an issue between the par
ties. The crsdibility of the witnesses;
their Intelligence and their ACCURACY arr
always questions of fact for the Jury.
MI Coyle further testifies to some talk
about the candidate for sheriff. and that
In that talk, he says, Mr.. Plummer said
to him If he didn't support his candi-
date he mustn't expect any favors from
the sherlH's ofhoe; you have the testimo-
Is it true or not? Mr.. Coyle further
says that shortly after that Conversation
three search and seizures were made
upon Toomey within week. unon the
complaint OF some other officers. That
shortly after that Mr.. Goold, one of the
liquor deputies saw, or was seen 5y
Coyle. and Coyle asked him why
the reply was, If remember correctly !:
+ Probably he hasn't paid as the others
have And the suggestion was made
by Goold to go to the sheriff's office and
do business and make some money. Mr..
Goold has not appeared to contradic
| these statements; you have that evidence.
Now the inuendo which the piainpiff
| attaches to this last part of the article is
that it m cant to go to the sheriff's office
and pay money to Plummer or to the
sheriff or to some other of the liu nor
deputies to secure immunity, His CON
struction OF the article is that that part
of it was general-applying to the liquor
deputies and not to Plummer alone. Now,
if that is the construction which you put
l -
to the liquor deputies a. . GLASS and not
to Mr.. Hummer personally, and il you
relieve that Goold, one Of the liquor
deputies, made that suggestion to Mr..
Coyle and at anosher time made similar
suggestion to Mr.. SWEET. why then. that
part of the article would seem to be
proved to be trueitwould not be necessary
make these statements, but If that part of
the article applied to the deputies as a
class, if snmeof them had given out that
| Information to como and pay tribute At
the herif'sofice and they wouldhave I'M
munity,you will judge whether
truth not ot th T. xou na1. prove t the
But all this matter is for you,
the construction of the ARTICLE, It's naenn-
ing and these other facts as to whether it
was true or false in whole or in part.
Now, il you find the allegations true.
then, as they were allegations In regard
to public officer, in his public and or
ciai capacity having reference to what
he did as q public officer, il they are true,
that is perfect defenoe 1t should not
be so against private Individual. but .
public ofdcer 10 open to criticism in all
his public acts, not Of him personally,
as an individual, but OF his public acts,
official aots no matter how severe is
may be, if it is true that is an end OF
l u is afo Sr,a fnp al nd AvS1
all to be true, then that would be an
end Of this case.
But there is another branch of the de-
Tense II you do not find these allega-
lions to be true, If in part true and not
the rest, then you will proceed to the
other branch Of the case, and that is the
defendant claims that as publishers Of a
oriticise, fairly and upon reasonable
authority of facts the official acts of per
sons holding public offices; the public
had the right to the knowledge and they
had right to give 1t and they say, you
have 1t in evidence from those persons
been upon the stand, that they had in
fact no ill-will, 10 malice towards this
plaintiff, andthat the article was pub
| lished and written solely for the informal
| tion of the public and with an honest
purpose as Mr.. Notion says, of simply
giving the truth. upon what he then
| believed to be the official misconduct Of
the plaintiff.
Now Mr. Norton gives you the infor-
nation he had upon which he wrote the
| article; he gives the article from the
| Argus and the PRESS and the Advertiser
giving an account of the trial in the
Municipal court, ana what Mr.. Dow told
| him, and what he read about it; about
| the proceedings In court and the infosma-
l inn, rJh oh - Iod <fk
| sources. Mr.. Norton tells you that before
he wrote the article he had all of that in
formation and that ne believed it TO be
true That be had been friends with the
plaintiff before; he had no personal Ill
| will, and that in good faith and with An
honest purpose, as he says, he published
the article containing the allegations.
which he had, which covers these articles
in the other papers, the statements Of
Col. Dow and all those matters we're adj
mitted for single purpose and no other.
They were admitted to show upon what
ground Mr.. Norton wrote the charges
and for what purpose Of showing,
| If uhey do show, that he had sufficient
ground to believe them to be true, and
as negativing the allegation OF bad faith
| or malice on his part; for that purpose
| you will use them but not for any other;
| they are not proof of the facts stated, but
| they are OF service and admissible as tend
| ing to show upon what knowledge and
information Mr.. Norton based his article,
and as tending to show his right to bell We
| and his good faith and want of malice;
so far you may use that class of testi-
| mony.
Now I give you a rule of law upon this
branch of the case: If the statement is of
the article complained of were true, sub
stantially true. the defense is complete
and your verdict will be for the defend
ant. I say further that If they were
honestly believed to be true and the belief
that they were true was founded on
reasonably probable cause. that Is, if they
made diligent effort and inquiries at
proper places. and nf proper persons and
received their information from such re-
liable sources as would justify belief, anG
they honestly believed that the charges
were true, and they had reasonable and
probable cause for their belief, and they
were in good faith published for the in
formation OF the people. without malice
they are protected, notwithstanding they
may not be true. With those elements
com bined to furnish basis for the article
the writing and the publication, although
it may turn ont on subsequent investipa-
4 tiOD that the charges are not trua fhav