The Portland daily press., 1896-01-28

Express which prior to that had criticized
the liquor deputies.
Mr.. Heath called attention to the
plaintiffs reckless swearing upon the
stand. He has put himself against Coyle.
Either one or the other has sworn falsely.
Judge which it is.
You have heard him on the stand say
in that tory of his infamy ut Lock 8
Mills, that he acted BY the authority Of
the County Attorney.
You heard Mr.. True upon the stand
say that instead Of by his authority it
was against his advice. Judge you
which one spoke the truth, fearless
official, like Charles True, or this plain
tiff, smarting under the excitement of his
trial.
Mr.. Heath commended that the article
was published in an honest belief
of its truth and Lurely froro good
motive, and without malice. The jury had
heard Mr.. Norton on the stand give b a
idea of the duty Of newspaper editor.
He is fearless. honest, upright man
and it would be better for the State if
there were more Nortons t the head of
our newspapers that they might take
such stand as his that the enforcement
of the liquor law today might no longer
be stencil in the nostrils of hte people.
But my friend may argue that Col.
Dow had some malice in his heart. But
he has declared that he didn't and it the
jury find, as they must, that Col. Dow
did not even know that the article was
to be written that matter cannot enter
into the case.
But my brother says that Norton should
have gone to see Plummer before he
wrote Gentlemen when 1.-THE time comes
that the newspapers of New York must
90 and consult Tammany boss before
they criticize him, then where is the
liberty of our republican institutions.
Mr.. Heath commended that Mr.. Norton
had certainly abundant and probable
cause to believe that Plummer told
Bartlett to swear falsely about buying
the beer. That remarkable sospe in the
court room where Plummer appealed to
the judge for protection certainly justi-
fled Mr.. Norton, like everybody else, in
believing that this public officer was
put in position where reasonable men
would believe that he was doing wrong.
If this was the result of his misfortune
or his fault, he cannot complain if the
public press, the only mouthpiece that
the people have, should criticize him.
Referring to the matter Of ''spite,'' Mr..
Heath said that it was strange that in
that six months there was only one
hotel in this city that the p laintiff saw
At to raid.
Mr.. Heath then referred in very un
complimentary terms to the rumshops
and open bars and ''gilded hells'' Of
Portland to show that it was strange that
Plummer should pick out the Durant
House as a proper place to raid.
1t was legal of course to select Mr..
SWEET, as the only hotel keeper in this
city to be punished in six months. Mr.
SWEET had the misfortune to be Col
D owls tenant.
The consp tracy went on. Can he tel
why he used no "spctter'' against Other
| hotels in this city? And this hotel was
| innocent There is no proof that Others
were or were not. But, like the rising
and setting of the sun. some things re-
quire no proof in Potland.
In regard to the passage about sac
cepting the invitation to come down te
the office and do business" Mr.. HEATH
argued that this was general in it's sig
nif1canoe and could not be considered
libellous to any individual.
The failure OF the plaintiff to call
Harold Gould to deny it, is proof posi-
tive that what Coyle and SWEET testified
he told them is true.
In closing Mr.. Heath reverted to his
original position that the case is impor'
tant i'll it's principle and that as the first
of it's kind in the State involving moral
principles of law, it must establish an
important precedent, as to the rights Of
the public officials and the Limitations
ard duties of the newspapers.
He appealed to the jury to stand by a
fearless public press.
ARGUMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF.
Mr.. Noble began by stating that it had
been wearing case and had taken
longer to fight than expected. 1t had beer
fought by the defense with obstinacy,
ingenuity and fertility of resource, paral
leled by few cases in ahe history Of the
State of Maine. No stone had been LEFT
unturned by them to secure evidence tt
bolster up what is believed to be a hollow
defense; defense without reason or au
thority, illogical, illegal-yes, and inhu
man. since it has brought singing
sarcasm and whitening irony against
Charles A. Plummer for just one thing,
and the jury know it, and that was tbs
honest and fearless discharge Of his duty
as he saw it and knew it.
1t was an important case as 1t brings
up the rights, duty and responsibility Of
newspapers. and also because the charact-
er of Charles A. Plummer will have
found vindioation or else you will have
witnessed the ruin of that fearless off
Ger as a man and the triumph of tht
Evening Express, that standing on the
ruins of this man, will 60 on publishing
chalg,s as malicious lying and coward
ly as those they published against this
plaintiff based on no better foundation
than that derived from those in their