The record-union., 1896-06-05
TAKEN UNDER AMUSEMENT
CONTINUED from Fourth Page.)
AFTERNOON SESSION.

AFTERNOON SESSION.
Court opened again at l p. M, and
Mr.. Reddy having filed his answer, asked
the Court for an order that the Court
Reporter write out a transcript or the
testimony of defendant Talmadge re-
lating to the matter published in the
Bee"
The Court answered that the reporter
had already written it out. The defend
ants had been furnished with a copy or
part of the testimony by the reporter
two or three hours previous to the publ
cation of the article complained or but
did not have the whole of 1t, as the
reporter did not have time to write out
more.
He had read the answer and it does
not present any matter diminishing or
palliating the article complained of. 1t
only argues in defense of the article. 1t
is deliberate, contemptuous and often
sive, and shows an attempt to defend
the former action. In fact, 1t aggra-
Yates the former offense and reirerates
the language before used, and he could
not consider it,
Mr.. Reddy said he would like to be
heard on that point.
The Court said it admitted the article
and that defendant published it. 1t
says it is not true that defendant wrote
| it, but he authorized its publication.
| Mr.. Reddy said he would like to ex-
plain the theory of the answer. The
trial was in progress, and the Bee
published what was alleged to be the
testimony
| The Court said that there was no
Bee reporter present when the testi-
mony was given, and he simply repro
| duced it from hearsay.
! Mr. Reddy said he knew nothing of
that, and it made no difference if that
| were true. He recapitulated the occur
renee on the morning succeeding publi-
ca ton of original report. The defend
ant was not present in court when he
was adjudicated a liar by the Court.
He would like to know by what right
| it was done or why the defendant was
not given hearing first.
| His wished to know if any citizen was
bound to sit still when denounced and
adjudicated liar, had no right to an
| swer the charge and no redress in the
matter. What has a newspaper man
to rely on but the reputation of his pa
per for the truth of what is published
| in it? He thought the adjudication in
this case was without authority and
that the Court stands in the same posi-
ton in this matter as any other citizen
does.
Judge Catlin said that the counsers
| Interpretation of the matter was wrong.
He did not call the editor liar or make
any charges against him, or use any
such language as counsel attributed to
him. He simply characterized the re-
port as false.
Mr.. Reddy modified his language, but
said that the effect of the Courts state
ment was the same in either case.
Judge Catlin said there was much
difference. The Court said nothing
about the editor of the paper in his re-
marks that morning. The editor next
day wrote an article which is the base
of the present proceeding. Plenty of
matter goes into every paper which the
editor does not see, and"the editorial
writer was not accused.
Mr.. Reddy said the defendant was
not present when he was accused and
judged, and had no chance to defend
himself. Was he to sit down without
defending himself?
The court asked if, in case there was
ant said the evidence was lie, If the
court should stop and have him
brought into court and tried for doing
so.
Mr.. Reddy answered yes. 1t was al