The San Francisco call., 1896-03-14
Mr.. DELMAS' ADDRESS.
The Counselor's Eloquent Argu-
ment Before the Jury Yester-
dav Afternnnn

day Afternoon.
The address delivered by Mr. Delmas to
the jury was, in part, as follows:
II your Honor please and gentlemen of the
jury:
1t is not my purpose, gentlemen, to detain
you at any very great length.
AS you all understand, this is q case for
libel brought by Mr.. John G. Chase against
Charles NJ. Shortridge, the proprietor OF THE
MORNING CALL.
Without going into any minute details the
charge alleged to be false is, in substance, that
Mr.. Chase, the plaintiff, while being a member
of the Order of Foresters, was guilty OF embez-
element OF certain sums of money which were
paid to him. The other charge is that Mr.
Chase, while a member of this order, was
guilty of fraudulently obtaining sick benefits
and that on account of these practices he was
finally tried by the order In the court properly
instituted according to its rules and constitu-
ton, and was with disgrace expelled from the
order.
This article was published with the idea that
this paper owed it as a public duty to make
known to the numberless members of this
charitable institution called the Foresters-
people a rule of humble rank, of humble
station in life, as you have seen them-that in
their ranks was man unworthy to be of them;
a man who, instead of seeking the noble and
lofty purpose that they pursued. was ecting to
their detriment. The charges were made by
the newspaper after full, deliberate investiga-
ton, and they are true. We assert that it is
true that Chase, while a member of this
ganization, received moneys in his official
capacity, kept them and appropriated them to
his own use, and that while member of this
association he also resorted to fraudulent prac-
tice In order to obtain allowances of sick bene-
fits to which he was not entitled.
The whole question before you, gentlemen,
turns upon this plea which is called in law
"a plea of the truth in Justification"
My learned young friend on the other side
has chosen to place himself before you in
position of humble standing, alleging his lack
of learning, alleging his lack of experience
Let me tell him that in the cause of truth and
justice these are advantages 1t does not need
a lawyer to point out truth to your eyes. The
truthful woman who appears before you does
not need lawyer to poiEt out to the jury thai
she is good and truthful woman. If the
cause OF the plaintiff is true, If he has been in
jured, if his character has been such in this
community that these charges against him
have produced wrong, his own wrong would
speak triumphantly and be aided by the voice
OF the most part of the world.
Now, gentlemen, let US examine the charges
before US. The first charge is that OF embez-
Element. Well that consists of two items. In
the first place these are not great items. We
do not charge that Mr. Chase embezzled $780,
600 or 500, 900 as some bank cashiers or presi-
dents have done. You have seen these Forest
ers. 1t is the first time in my life that my at
tention has been especially called to them
They seem to be well-meaning, earnest people,
blacksmiths, carpenters, workers of all kinds,
daily laborers and contractors, all flocking to-
gether according to the great laws of the earth
m fnr rnyalQ Orf in r0f
in the hour of sickness and in the great hour
of sorrow and death.
Now, here is humble woman cooking In a
saloon on Second street. do not know why it
lies in the mouth of the attorney of Mr.. Chase,
who himself, although a Good Templar,
kept a saloon on Brannan street. to
criticize her occupation. If there be any
taint or disgrace in the occupation it applies
TO him as well as to her. This woman tells
you that this man came to her after he had
ceased to be member of Court Washington
and collected 81 80 from her-not a very large
sum, but yet it took few days of hard work
from her, and she paid it to him, being ST. 80
for two months dues-65 cents per month
and so cents for death rate. She tells YOU
specifically he took her book from her, and
that money never was paid by Mr.. Chase into
the funds OF that court. We deem that ii he
received it then for that purpose he en-
termine is, Did he receive it? or, in other
words, Is Mrs. Lyons telling the truth? For
what motive she could have for that falsifying
upon that subject nobody can imagine.
The counsel says: "Of course do not charge
that this woman was bought by Mr.. Shortridge.
OF course / do not charge that she was tam
pered with by counsel on the other side"
But he clearly insinuates. and If such be the
insnuation it hardly deserves a reply.
charge of that kind cannot be supported by
insinuation, especially when it would be as
false as it is in this case.
If Mrs. Lyons is telling the truth, therefore,
it being admitted that that money was not
paid over by Chase into Court Washington, it
is a fact that he embezzled.
Mr.. Chase had claimed that the money
received by him from Mrs. Lyons was the
initiation fee to another circle, but Mr..
Delmas dwclt upon the fact that no at
tempt had been made to prove that allega-
ton, which would have been easily suscep-
tible of proof if true. He left to the jury
the question of veracity between Mrs.
Lyons and Mr.. Chase.
The plaintiff had asserted that instead of
being expelled from the Ancient Order of
Foresters he had Withdrawn from it be-
cause it is an English order. Mr.. Delmas
took that up in connection with another
item of the embezzIement charges, and he
said:
We will now take Mr.. Frederickson and his
initiation fee of ST. Mr.. FrederIckson is one