The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1896-06-30
GRAND JURY IN A oUANDARY.
INVESTIGATING Az ALLEGED IL
BEL AGAINST ID. d. LESTER.

Itor Murray Refused to Testify on
the Ground That He Would Crimi-
nate HImseIf-NO Action Taken in
the Case.
The grand jury OF the city court had
/ rather unusual case 20 deal with yester-
day afternoon. and it was dealt with in
a rather unusual manner. The case In
/ question was one Of alleged criminal libel.
Mr.. y. j. Lester having brought TO the
attention OF that body an article publish
ed in the Evening Herald Of June II. in
| which language was used in connection
! with his name, that Mr.. Lester and
his friends that he spoke 10 on the sub
! ject considered ibelous.
The matter was brought TO the attention
/ Of the grand jury some time ago. but
/ final action In the case was postponed I'M
! III further inquiry could be made.
/ That body had not determined
/ what to do with the matter yesterday.
| and when Il had disposed Of its other bus
mess. It came down to ask instructions
from the court.
| Solicitor General w. W. Fraser stated
| to Judge Norwood that the grand jury
I desired TO bring to his attention an al
| legged libel published in the Evening Her
| aid OF June Il. the libel being against Mr..
d. B. Lester. Mr.. Fraser then read the
law Of libel from the state code. The
definition Of libel, "a malicious defama-
uOn," was read from section 1921 Of the
code, and then the solicitor read section
45Zz, which makes the printer or publisher
Of a paper in which a libel Is printed a
I witness. This section provides that If
the printer or publisher shall refuse to
give up the name Of the author of the al
legged libelous article, he shall be consd-
cred the author himself and be indicted
and punished as such, land may moreover
| be punished for a contempt of the court
as any other wisness refusing TO testify"
Solicitor General Fraser said that Mr..
/ A. n. O'Keefe, the publisher of the pa
| per, had been summoned and testified that
| he was not In the city at the time the
article In question was published; that he
| knew nothing about 1t, and did not know
| VINO was the author of 1t.
Mr.. +. j. Murray" said the solicitor
general, testified before the grand Jury
that he has nothing to do with the paper,
| and takes advantage of his constitutional
! privilege, saying that he would criminate
/ himself II he testified with regard to the
matter. Now what the grand jury wants
| to know is, first, can O'Keefe be pun
/ ished as for a contempt OF court In not
| giving the facts and second, can O'Keefe
! be held responsible for criminal libel
| when he was out of the city at the timer"
These were the questions submitted to
| Judge Norwood, who took the code and
examined into the Law in the matter.
The judge said the solicitor general had
read the law on the subject. but he
would read 1t again.
IF the printer or publisher refuses to
testify or to give up the real name of
the person or author" JuCNs Norwood
said, then he shall be considered the
author himself and dealt with accord
| ingly. But If he does not refuse to give
up the name of the author and should be
willing to give the name, If he knew the
author, he Is not liable nor could the
court punish him for contempt The
court could only punish for refusal to
do what the witness was directed to do by
the grand jury, but II he says he does
not know, the court cannot punish him
for contempt.
again If a witness refuses 70 testify
and puts II on the ground that II he were
to testify he would criminate himself you
cannot compel him to testify. The constl-
tuition affords him an especial protection
in That. As long as he puts his refusal on
that ground you cannot compel him to
testify and neither can l. The law con-
templates that libel is a malicious act It
| says 1t is malicious defamation. and If
the person under investigation by the
grand jury should satisfy it
that he had nothing TO do with the trans
action, and knew nothing Of it. the grand
jury would be at the end of its investiga-
ton so far as that person was concerned
But If he refuses to testify, the court can
compel MIN 10 do so or punish him for
contempt. Gentlemen are there any ques-
lions which you wish to ask?''
Mr.. J. p. Williams asked II where a wit
ness admitted that he knew who the au-
thor was, stating that he was the editor
and that such matters went under his
scrutiny, but refused to testify as to the
author because he would criminate him
self, such witness could be held liable for
contempt of court. Judge Norwood re-
piled that in that case the witness could
not be held liable. Mr.. Williams stated
that the witness in question, meaning
MurFaW ~ nor
before he would be brought into court for
contempt he would answer the question
Judge Norwood said he would only repeat
what he had already stated
Mr.. Ambrose Enrich asked the court
how the grand jury could get at the au-
thor OF such articles. Judge Norwood re-
piled that he could not go into that ques-
ton, as 1t was a matter for the investi-
CATION of the grand jury.
Mr.. Williams then stated that the grand
! jury had found there were two contribu-
tors to the paper IN question. One testi-
fed he was absent from the city and the
! other stated the local articles were writ
/ ten by himself
Judge Norwood said the court could
/ make no suggestion to the grand iury az
/ to how to find an indictment
THAT" he said, sis entirely ont Of NV
power. / could not even intimate anv
/ opinion. Such case would come before
me and would have to pass on the le-
/ gality of the indictment, and the question
\ of guilt under the statute l can only
state to you the law, and under what cir
| cumstances a party would be subject 10
! punishment"
Judge Norwood suggested thar the
/ grand jury take down in writing such
/ questions and answers as 1t might put to
/ the witnesses and submit them to him.
/ lie could then pass upon whether the wit
! nesses had complied with the law.
Mr. G. y. Richardson stated that Mr.
Murray was asked several questions
| which he refused to answer on the ground
I that he would incriminate himself. Judge
! Norwood told him the grand Jury cOuld
! then 30 no further.
i will state. however" Judge Nor
! wood said. that the answer Of the Wiz
! ness does not debar you from drawing
any conclusions you please and indicting
/ anybody you please. 1t does prevent
/ you, though, from inquiring any further
into the matter from that witness"
The grand jury retired again. and Mr.
I Okeefe appeared before IL as a W,itnee
( When the jury returned it presented Ger.
/ tain questions and answers taken dow.
IN writing. Several of these questions
! Mr. O'Keefe refused to answer. Amorg
I them were questions as to whether he vas
the proprietor of the Herald. who was tbe
1 proprietor Of the Herald, and whether IN
was partnership or a stock company.