The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-12-18
JURY GInEH A REST
ATTORNEYS IN THE CRIMINAL
LIBEL CASE AGAINST THE
TIMES ARGUE.
EDITORIAL is HELD OUT.
COURT HOLDS FURTHER EVIDENCE
MUST BE GIVEN BEFORE 1T IS
PUT IN.
STATE HAS THE EVIDENCE.
Adjournment of the Case Is Taken
Until MOnday-Minneapoli
EDITORIAL is HELD OUT.
STATE HAS THE EVIDENCE

No evidence was taken yesterday In
the case of w. S. Haskell, manager Of
the Times, indicted on a charge of
criminal libel, the whole day being de-
voted to arguments over the admis-
sion of evidence. The defense succeed
ed in keeping out the editorial upon
which the indictment was based, the
court ruling thatSit could not be put
in evidence until it has been proved
that the defendant, Haskell, wrote 1t
or caused it to be written.
Following that, the attorneys took up
the argument as to the suf1ciency of
the indictment, which the defendant
had argued some days ago, Mr.. Peter
son answe ring for the state. The decl-
sion of the court is yet to be rendered.
The state still has considerable evil
dence to introduce before it would be
ready to rest, if the Indictment was not
held insufficient.
Court last evening adjourned until
Monday morning.
When the morning session opened,
Mr. Hatch, a Chicago lawyer, was pre-
scented to the court as counsel Tor the
defense He opened with an argument
for the defense against permitting the
Introduction of the alleged libelous ed1-
torial in evidence unless accompanied
bv the Hart affidavit. Mr.. Hatch start
ed with the statement that the Min
nesota law makes reports Of judicial
proceedings privileged. 1t also, he said,
permitted fair comment on such pro
ceedings In the matter of evidence,
1t was necessary for the jury to have
the subject matter of the comment to
determine whether or not there were
malice The whole issue Eas whether
in the case depending upon comment
the defendant was entitled to have
the preceding matter or publication,
the subject of the comment, read to the
Jury as part of the PLAINTIFFS case. The
courts had held that it was impossible
to ascertain whether comment was be-
fore the court and jury. If the alleged
libel referred to any other article or
publication, the defendant was entitled
to have the plaintiff put in evidence
the article or publication. Any other
documents which are referred to in the
libel may be put in by the plaintiff
as part of its case. ToWnshend was
quoted to show that whenever defama-
tory language was connected with any
other language or event that affected
its meaning it must be construed in
connection with that other language or
event
THE state" said NJ. Hatch, must
prove malice and claimed 1t was
therefore a necessary part Of the
states case to prove that the comment
IVES unfair and therefore malicious;
that it could not be sworn unless the
facts surrounding the publication were
brought out Mr.. Hatch quoted Town
shend again as citing a case IN which
a defendant had forced the plaintiff
to put the whole newspaper in evidence
when the plaintiff desired only the
specific libel introduced.
Mr.. Hatch quoted from Starkey that
upon the trial Of an Indictment on
information for publishing a libel the
libel should be produced on the part
of the prosecution, and after proof Of
publication, may be read to the jury"
Continuing, he said that, after conclud-
ing his argument, he would make an
other point and objection to the intro
duction of the article. He claimed
there had been no proof Of composition,
printing or publication of the article
by the defendant and that the article
had, under the objections of the in
dictment, in no manner been connected
with the defendant, and, therefore,
could not be introduced as evidence
until that proof had been given. Mr.
Hatch cited a case to show that in
England in a newspaper libel case, the
libel alleged being confined to COM
ments on reports published in the same
paper, the court required the plaintiff
to put in the whole paper as part Of
its comment. The issue was whether
the subject matter Of the comment
should be put in by the plaintiff as a
part Of it's case. Other cases Of similar
nature were cited.
Mr.. Hatch then took up the discus
sion Of the Indictment, stating his de-
sire to make a further objection to the
introduction Of the article, that no