The record-union., 1897-10-08
IT MUST GO TO THE JURY.
JUDGE HUGHES DENIES THE
MOTION FOR A NONSUIT.
Attorneys Are Now Arguing the
Weinstock-McClat Case
Before the Jury.

BEFORE the
When Judge Hughes opened MS court
yesterday morning. Elwood BruLer ol
counsel for the defense, opened ms ar
gument in closing on the motloh Tor
nonsuit in the Weinstock-McClatchy
case
He said he would try to summarize
the reasons for the defendants molloh
for nonsuit. They have for months
denied that plaintiff was Hbeled or that
any injury had been done him. 1hey
could see no reason why this case
should 90 before a jury, but thought 1t
should receive the dispassionate atten-
tion of the court. AS to the matter Oh
the truth or falsity of the article ne
quoted from Greenleaf on Evidence anu
Townsend to show that the plalntlfL
could not produce evidence Of the falsl-
ty of the language published. Secuoh
4S of the Civil Code is directly TO the
point. also. He took it that it is the
province of the court unqualihedly, 10
consider the case and pass upon the
question of guilt or falsity. Mr.. john
sons closing remarks, he claimed, IN
which he asked that the court instruct
the jury to bring in a verdict that the
article was libelous per Sc, bore out his
contention, and made it the duty OF the
court to pass upon the matter, instead
of submitting it to the jury.
He quoted several decisions to sus-
tain his point, and said that where there
was ambiguity of language the plaintiff
by his innuendo must show in what the
To coyafendad that the
court must construe the article, and
that all that was not alleged to be false
must be taken as true and so construed.
Conceding that all they allege is true
it does not form cause OF actloh
against defendants. It is not claimed
that the defense has proved that
combine in trustees existed, or that the
Mayor was a boOdler, but for the pur-
poses of this argument it must be con-
sidered that the facts of the existence
of a combine and corruption must be
taken as admitted. If the whole article
is introduced it must be to show on the
part of the plaintiff that the rest of the
allegations are true.
He claimed the right to construe the
whole article in order to show that there
was no libel. He declared it to be the
law that mere suspicion or an opinion
of the publisher, expressed without in
vestigation, did not constitute libel.
He claimed that the article showed that
defendants had at first only a suspicion
of the matters involved and held them
for three or four weeks, until they had
investigated them, before publishing
their opinion. One of the definitions of
the word indicate" which was not
given yesterday by PLAINTIFF counsel,
is "to point towards" The definition
of the word varies, and is in conformity
with the use of it in any given sentence
In this case it clearly means, points
towards" the things stated. The find
ings in the article state that the Bee"
looked at first with grave suspicion on
the charges. but on investigation found
the facts stated to be true. Sheehan
suggested to Won Arnold that he join
Weinstock in starting the paper. Any
scoundrel may use the name of an hon
est man without the knowledge of the
latter, who cannot help it, and state
ment of the fact is not libel. The best
citizen in the community may accept
the help of the worst scoundrel in it in
an election, and not be disgraced there
by. He claimed that there was nothing
in the article to show that Mr.. Vein
stock had any knowledge of the COM
bine's plans There is nothing to show
that Mr.. Weinstock was connected with
the publishing of a newspaper for cor
rupt purposes. If there is any evidence
to connect plaintiff with it. it must be
proved on the trial of the case that it
was so understood by other parties. He
claimed that the name of Mr.. Weinstock
was not mentioned in the Bees" find
ings, the members of the combine being
clearly set forth.
He claimed that Mr.. Weinstock had
received no injury from the publication,
and that he should be satisfied with Il
judgment of the court that showed he
had been exonerated from completely in
the matters stated, without the case
going to the jury.
NONSUIT DENIED.
Judge Hughes then spoke as fol-
lows:
The first proposition which presents
itself to the Court and requires an eX-
preston Of opinion of the Court thereon
is the question whether or not the Court
should-in view of the fact that hereto
fore and in another department of this
Court a general demurrer was interposed
to the complaint in this action. and there
PASSED upon and OVerruled-in view of
the fact that the entire article, excerpts
from which have been set out and relied
upon in the complaint-be deferred from
refusing to pass thereon, in a motion
for a nonsuit. and to again pass upon
the sufficiency of the complaint. And
while entertaining the view that an or