Evening star., 1897-03-30
CASE DIS NJ | S Sc D
Judge Bradley Orders Verdict in the
Conn Case.
FINDS THE INDICTMENT DEFECTIVE
Argument by Mr.. Davis on the
Legal Points.
QUESTION OF RESPONSIBILITY

Times, charged with having criminally Ii
belsd District Commissioner George Trues-
dell IN issue of the Evening Times of
the I'd of last December, was adjourned
yesterday afternoon by Judge Bradley in
Criminal Court No. District Attorney
Davis had announced to the court that with
the possible exception of a single witness
he had no further testimony to submit on
behalf of the government. At the hour OF
adjournment the question of the right of
the prosecution to introduce in evidence
and read to the jury the alleged libelous
matter was still pending, the matter having
been, at the suggestion of the court de
TERED until after the close Of the govern
ments case.
Upon the resumption of the trial this
morning, the court room being crowded,
Mr.. Davis stated that he would call but one
other witness, Mr.. Bernard NJ Bridget of
the firm of Parker, Bridget & Co. He also
stated that last night he had examined a
hufnoer OF authorities. which, he believed
sus tanned the right of the government to
submit in evidence the article in question
counsel for the defense objected to fur
tner arguments on the point but Judge
bradley remarked that he desired as much
iight on the matter as he could obtain and
decided to hear Mr.. Davis and if they
wished, counsel for Mr.. Conn
MI Davis then called Mr. Bridget to the
witness stand, handing him an advertise
firm and Mr.. Conn. as president of the
Times Company. Mr.. Ralston objected to
the introduction of the agreement because
the witness could not swear to Mr. coun,s
signature '
Then. Mr.. Ralston," remarked Mr..
Davis, Il will call you as a witness to
prove his signature
Well then said Mr.. Ralston Eve will
admit that the signature is that of Mr.
Conn"
The agreement offering Mr. Bridget's
firm stock in the Times Company dollar
Tor dollar of the amount of advertisement
placed in the Times by the firm was then
read to the jury by Mr.. Davis, his purpose
being to show that Mr.. Conn was the re-
spohsible head and manager of the Times
MIR. Davis Argues
Mr. Davis then announced that with the
exception of the alleged Hbeious matter he
had no further testimony to offer. and
he proceeded to address the court in oppo-
sition to the objection made by Mr.. Conn's
counsel to the Introduction in evidence of
the complaned-of words.
The defense, said Mr.. Davis. based their
objection on the ground that as they as
serted, the indictment charges Mr.. Conn
with having composed and published the
alleged ibelous words. whereas, the de-
fense further asserted, the words We're the
quoted ones of another, a so-called western
senator In other words, explained Mr..
Davis, the defense claimed that the in
dictment is fatally defective because of
the alleged variance between the proof and
the allegations of the indictment. But,
argued Mr. Davis. there is no variance be
cause the defendant qualified the libelous
words, or attributed them to another, or
used them with other words. The indict
ment charged him with having published
the alleged false and libelous words, ad-
mitting, III fact, that he published them
together with others. Therefore, the in
dictment does not charge the defendant
with having published the whole article,
said Mr.. Davis. but does charge him with
having published the particular words COM
quainted with what he was charged. and
the proof submitted by the government
does not require him to make, after hear
ing it, a different defense. Hence, sub
mitted Mr.. Davis, there is no variance be-
tween the allegations of the Indictment and
the proof and the objection should be
overruled.
Replying to Mr. Davis, Mr. Ralston stated
that the defense had not and would not
claim that the Indictment should set forth
the article in full. But he said, the de-
fense insisted that that part of the article
which attributed the alleged offensive
words to a western senator should have
been included in the indictment
MIR. Conn's Connection.
Before deciding the point, Judge Bradley
notified counsel on both sides that he de-
sired to hear them on the question as to
whether there had been sufficient evidence
Introduced in the case tending to hold Mr.
Conn responsible He intimated that it
had not been shown that Mr. Conn pub
lished the paper
Mr.. Siddons, replying to the courts sug-
gestion, submitted that Mr.. Conn had not
been shown to have been responsible for
the publication. He had simply been shown
to have been the president of the Times
Company. and while he might have been
the business manager of the paper or COM
he nj fbarn ,flyz
argued Mr.. Siddons, for what appeared in
the newspaper.
Mr. Davis. calling attention to the testi-
mony in the case, said that it clearly show
ed that Mr.. Conn owed majority of the
stock In the company; that he was the
manager of dts business affairs, and that
he was the conductor of the paper. Being
such, said Mr.. Davis, he became RESPONSE
BILE for the publication of the alleged Ii
belous matter.
Concluding the arguments on the point,
Mr.. Siddons, said the author, the printer
the proprietor, the publisher and whoever
engages In the publication and distribu-
ton of libelous matter with knowledge OF
Its character. are responsible. But, he In
sisted. MIR. Conn had not been shown to
have occupied any of those positions.
Judge BrndIey's Ruling.
In rendering his decision Judge Bradley
| remarked that the case had been fruitful of
interesting questions. The scheme of the
| liolStiueut SteiHeO 10 nave charged the de-
fendant with every step and every in
gredient of libel, but it did not pretend to
allege his connection or association with
the Evening Times. although accusing him
with having been actuated by malice and
with having written and published and
with having caused to be written and pub
lished the alleged libelous matter If the
purpose Of the pleader had. been to hold
the defendant responsible for the publica-
tion it was enough to allege that he pub
lished It, When he went further 1t be-
came necessary for him to prove all he
alleged.
The mere writing without publication ts
not an offense, but, having charged that
the defendant both wrote and published
the alleged libel. the government was
forced to prove both
The Times Company. said Judge Brad
ley. was shown to be a body corporate
the defendant being at the time of the
complained-of publication it's president and
general manager The company had
various other officers, but what their re-
spective duties were the government failed
to show. all being left to inference. Brt
| 1t was apparent that each had some par
ticular duty to perform, and was thereby
vested with certain control and super
vision. Yet what knowledge the defend