The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-12-17
is HASKELL THE MANAGER?
INTENT APPARENT TO DENY EVEN
THE MOST SELF-EVIDENT
ALLEGATIONS.
BUT LITTLE PROGRESS MADE.
City Editor Gray, of the Times, and
Samuel Hill the First Wit
nesses for the State.

delayed to such an extent that 1t has
hardly begun, by the objections put In
by the defense.
All day yesterday the attorney for
the defense objected and argued the
objections, so that a greater part of the
day was spent in trying TO prove what
is almost common knowledge in the
community, that w. E. Haskell is the
manager and controls the destinies of
the Times. When the day was done,
so many objections had been made that
it is doubtful If any direct proof was
made that Mr.. Haskell stood in that
relation to the paper.
On the other hand, an effort was
made by Mr.. Jackson to show by Sam
uel Hill, on cross-eXamination, what
would be practically the province or the
defence's case. He wanted Mr. Hill to
state, on cross-examination what the
duty was of every officer and person
connected with the Minneapolis Trust
company. At the close the defense
even objected to the admission of the
issue of the Times containing the al
legged libelous article, and at that point
the case closed for the day, with the
arguments in support Of the objection
to be made at $50 o'clock this morn
ing.
When the court convened in the
morning the motion for dismissal OF
the indictment against w. e. Haskell
was taken up and argued. The motion
was made by the defense on the ground
of defective indictment.
Mr. Hart read the indictment and
1ai ctracc IN tha "a that II charged
Mr. Haskell with printing, composing,
publishing or causing to be published"
the article in question.
The first claim Mr.. Hart made was
that the publication was made by a
corporation of which Mr.. Haskell was
president and might, perhaps, be ad-
mitted to be a manager. In the next
place, Mr.. Haskell did not compose,
publish or cause to be published the
article in dispute because he knew
nothing of the article until about noon
of the day of its publication. Section
$500 of the Minnesota statutes, under
which Mr. Hart assumed the indtct-
ment was drawn, specifies as subject
to Indictment the editor, proprietor
or manager of any publication. Mr..
Hart argued that Mr.. Haskell, II
manager at all, was manager OF an
incorporated association. The law per-
mitted the Indictment Of a corporation
manager to supply the hiatus In regard
to the possibility of libel by corpora
ton. He claimed the indictment was
defective in that 1t did not allege who
published the paper 1t contained no
allegation that Mr.. Haskell was mana
ger of a copartnership or corporation
publishing the paper. 1t simply alleged
that he was manager OF the Sunday
Times publication. AS Mr.. Haskell did
not compose the article in question, be-
cause Mr.. Blanchard has been charged
with composing it, a charge could only
be brought against Mr.. Haskell as a
responsible manager of a corporation.
AS such he would be liable regardless
of lack of previous knowledge Of the
publication. To sustain an indictment
it was necessary, Mr.. Hart said, that
every material fact to be proved must
be alleged. The defendant must be ap-
prised of the precise proposition he Is
to be called upon to defend. The in
dictment had failed to specify the
name of the corporation, and had fall
ed in many other respects.
Mr.. Peterson in reply stated that
the state at this time did not desire
to argue the question of fact brought
up by the defense. 1t seemed to him
the only question that the court could
hear argument on was whether or not
the indictment stated a public offense.
The judge then stated that, unless
the prosecution conceded that there
was a probability that it could not
prove Mr.. Haskelps responsibility, he
could not consider the motion for dis
missal.
Mr.. Belden sustained Mr.. Peterson
in the statement that the prosecution
would prove Mr.. Haskells responsible
ity as manager.
The court then denied the motion
for dismissal.
made the claim that there was no mo-
ton for dismissal before the court.
The Court understand Mr.. Hart
was arguing something.
Mr. Jackson-This matter was talked
over between Judge Belden and myself
a week or so ago, in which 1 made
the proposal or suggestion that has
been made here by Capt. Hart this
morning, as to the improbability of
holding Mr.. Haskell c this indictment,
and 1 suppose-although of course
ject-but 1 suppose from the nature of
our conversation at the time that
Judge Belden recognized that issue,
and that his own information in the
matter was precisely the same as mine.
Mr.. Belden-I may confess that I did
not feel in duty bound to disclose to
my friend all the information that 1
had on the subject.
The Court-Well, If there was no mo-
ton made, the matter may stand, and
we will proceed with the taking of
evidence.
The indictment having been sus-
tanned pending the Introduction of the
states evidence, the first witness was
called after short recess.
Mr.. Peterson offered in evidence a
stipulation which the defense objected
to in all except one point.
Mr.. Peterson-Defendant is willing
to make the following admission Of
facts, saving all objections and ex-
or competency Of the facts so admitted.
First, that the articles set forth in
the indictment was published in the
Sunday Times, Aug. 1, 1897.
Second, that the Sunday Times was,
at the date of said publication, news
paper published by the Times News
paper company.
NIL. JdchSOH-ODJeCl 10 lHdC as IRE
levant and not pleaded in the indict-
ment.
Objection overruled and defendant
excerpts.
Mr.. Peterson-Third, that the Times
newspaper company was, on said Aug.
1, 1897, a corporation duly Incorporated
and existing under the laws of the
state of Minnes~tA
Mr. Jackson re object to that on
that II was NIL o1p6 In
the Indictment.
Ohinctinn nuarrulad and dafandant