The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-12-21

prove that it was not actionabe.
In beginning argument in reply Mr.. Jackson
said he must confess to somewhat disap-
pointing sense of the absence Of precision in
the arguments of the counsel for the state
with reference to the point which he had un-
derstood to be the point at issue. He again
stated the two objections made by the de-
tense and added that he had not heard IN
the arguments of the prosecution single au.
thority quoted unfavorabie to the position OF
the defense
All the rule of Jaw there was on the sub
ject, he claimed said that there must be some
evidence to connect the. accused with the
crime charged The court would have TO De
bound by it. The Minnesota statutes were
quoted in an effort to show that the state
must prove the publication and that IL was
malicious. In the editorial in question, MI.
Jackson claimed that 1t was plain that the
writer was not asserting anything OF his own
information or anything obtained FROM any
other source than the affidavit. In that case
the only question was whether or not tne arr
Gle was fair comment upon the Hart am
davit, and it followed that it was incumbent
upon the state to introduce the affidavit along
with the editorial. He claimed that the case
should have been tried on the Blanchard IN
dictment, that it is an injustice to the trust
company to try the Haskell case now as ac-
cord:ng to his idea no conviction could be
had.
The attorney took up the several points
made by the state and offered his oeduc,
lions to the law in the case as presented
by the authorities. Then he again attacked
the Indictment claiming that under the IN.
dctment the proof offered did not show that
the defendant committed the offense charged:
At the close of Mr.. Jacksons argument
Judge Elliot ruled in favor OF the state lie
said
Two important questions are raised upon
the objection to the introduction in evidence
of the alleged libelous article. First. is there
any evidence that Mr.. Haskell published the
article? Second, can the state offer the eat
torial without also Offering in connection
Herewith the Hart affidavit" which is re-
ferred to therein?
I have already ruled that the order OF
starkie, p. S17, as follows: tUpon. a trial
of an indictment or information for pub
fishing libel, the libel complained of must
be produced on the part of the prosecution;
and after proof of publication by the de-
PENDANT may be read to the jury"
The indictment In this case charges that
the defendant did compose, print and pub
lish in certain newspaper called The Sun
day Times. whereof the said William &.
Haskell was then and there the manager.
ard publisher, a certain false. scandalous
and malicious libel and did cause and pro-
cure to be published in said Sunday Times
said libel Ard so forth.
The state is required to prove only those
allegations in the indictment which are suf-
fcient to constitute the offense charged; in
this case it need prove only the fact of pub
LEGATION III the manner alleged. If the state
has offered the evidence which has ten
dency to prove such publication by the de-
evidence SO far as this objection is con-
cerned.
The crime of libel is defined by section
211 of the penal code, and the gst of the
offense is malicious publication, publication
generally defined by section IA. Section rs
states what will be deemed sufficient pub
LEGATION in certain cases; 1t is a rule of evil
dence only. similar provision states what
shall be deemed a breaking under and in
dctment for burglary. Hence, when the
state shows that the defendant is the man
iT1o< rod toll rt1f oh
the newspaper containing the alleged libel
was published the statute interposes and
says that the defendant is "chargeable with
the publication" of such matter. In other
words, having proved the publication by
the corporation and the relation in which
defendant stands to the corporation SO pub
fishing, the publication by the defendant fol-
lows as conclusion, by the force of the
statute. Publication is the ultimate fact to
be pleaded, and the statute provides what
shall be sufficient evidence of publication
under the circumstances. The evidence need
not be pleaded. Hence, if there is sufficient
evidence of the fact that the defendant was
manager of the corporation, to go to the
jury. the objection is untenable, and l so
rule.
The English text of Folkard's Starkie and
Mr.. Odgers support the rule ably con-
tended for by counsel for the defense on the
other branch of the argument, but 1t will be
observed with the limitation that the alleged
lbelous article contains no personal imputa-
ton. So far as l am able to learn, the prac
l rule that the state in this case need not
offer the affidavit of Mr.. Hart in connection
with the editorial. 1t may be introduced by
the defendant, which Is proper, if he wishes to
raise the question of privilege.
The state may thus elect to offer evidence
Of actual malice In anticipation
Of such en- defense or it o, may rest
arises from the publication. The question
whether the publication was privileged does
not arise and is not determined by this rul
ing.
The objections of the defendant are over
ruled, and the paper is received in evidence.
After making exception, Mr.. Jackson asked
if the court ruled that there was proof of
publication, 10 which the court replied that
there was sufficient evidence to go to the
jury. An additional exception was made to
the introduction of copy of the editorial as
exhibit F. The editorial, however was In
troduced and read then James Gray was
called to the stand and examined by Mr.. Pet
erson.
state whether he knew the signature. Objec-
tion was made, overruled and exception made.
Witness said he knew it. After another OBJ
lection had been overruled he stated that it
was the signature of w. e. Haskell, the de-
PENDANT. He was allowed to go without cross
examination.
w ]. Murphy, manager Of the Tribune, was
next called He was shown Exhibit G, and
stated it was a letter he had received from
Mr. Haskell. He had given it to Mr.. Belden
about ten days ago, when that gentleman had
asked him if he had any letters from Mr..
Haskell. After a cross examination, which
was shut off by objection by the state, Exhibit
was put in and read. The letter was as
follows:
Minneapolis Mimi, March 9, 1S97-W. ].
Murphy Esq. Manager Tribune, C!ty-Dear
Mr. Murphy: 1 beg to acknowledge receipt of
your favor of the Sth inst, enclosing opinion
of your attorney, Mr. Brown, on the bill re-
pealing chapter 191 of the General Laws Of
1885, relating to newspaper libel
You are right in your understanding that
the present libel law Is satisfactory. Prior
to its enactment, and before the provision that
a suitable retraction within three days should
preclude the possibility of collecting anything
but actual damages, the newspapers of the
two cities were kept constantly In hot water
about shysters who constantly study the
newspapers for possible business.
This matter is one which l think is prop
erly in the province of the president and sec
rotary of our association, and 1 will supple
ment the notice which you have probably al
ready sent to them by a letter urging the ne
cessty of their bringing some pressure to
bear upon the committee In whose hands the
bill now is. Very truly yours
Nv. E. Haskell, Manager.
The state then rested. Mr.. Jackson moved
to dismiss the Indictment the ground that
sufficient facts had not been proved against
the defendant to constitute an offense under
the law He argued the matter at length,
citing more authorities to sustain his posi-
ton.
The motion was denied and exception
taken.
The court adjourned until 10 a. m. today.