Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1898-01-08
FOR THE GRAND JURY
Decision Of Judge Kimball in the Case of Dr..
Boteler.
Bond for Defendants Appearance
Renewcd-Writ of Habeas Corpus
May De Asked For.

DR.. w. c. Boteler, charged with GRIM
inally libeling the milford Company of
Philadelphia, in a certain publication, the
hearing in which was begun yesterday
| before Judge Kimball. was completed this
afternoon. resulting in the defendant being
| held for the action of the grand jury.
The proceedings of today were opened
by Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Baker
| in a speech, in which he disputed the con-
tention of Mr.. Jcffords. Of counsel for the
defense. that the warrant was fatally de-
fective in that the name of the Milford
Company was not correctly stated therein.
Mr.. Baker said there was but one Null
! ford Company and that it's name was cor
rectiy stated in the body of the warrant
ana that the error In putting the name H.
Z. milford instead of H. K. milford, as
the error of the typewriter. He had he
said. been able to find but one authority
to support Mr.. Jeffords in his allegation
that private citizen could not libel a
public corporation.
Mr.. Baker read from Wharton on crimi-
nal law to prove that a citizen was liable
to prosecution for libeling bank or COM
rany OF business men. Bishop in his work
on practice, he said. stated in substance
the same conclusions as Wharton had
reached. The Bishop case occurred he
said, in Missouri, in which the judges de-
cided that the offender could be punished
for libel without an allegation that the
corporation referred to has been injured
thereby, and that the court of appeals of
Missouri stated without hesitation that a
corporation could be libeled by an indi-
vidual and that the latter could be pun
ished therefor.
Mr.. Baker contended that If the warrant
in the present case was defective it was
within the power of Judge Kimball TO
correct the error. ;
Missouri Law Quoted.
George w. Warder, of counsel for DR.. Bote-
Ter, said the law of that state described
libel as an offense by and against a per-
son or persons. The act, he said, defined
persons to mean those comprising the gov
eminent of the United States or the state
of Missouri or any other state, or any cor
poration or body polite.
He read at great length from the Mis-
sol RI statutes to prove that Mr.. Bakers
position was not tenable.
Judge Kinball interrupted Mr.. Warder
to say that there was rot one word IN
anything ne had read which bore on the
question at issue.
Mr.. Jeffords said he had examined a vast
number Of authorities, ard he had not been
able to find single case where q man had
been convicted of libeling a corporation.
There is case right before you" said
Mr. Baker, referring to q book which Mr.
Jeffords held open.
Il thank my brother Baker for calling
my attention to that Mr.. Jeffords re-
sponded, "and what was the conclusion of
the case? Why, the court was reversed
and the cause remanded"
Perhaps the case was reversed and re-
manded interrupted Judge Kimball, for
some technicality not stated in the report !"
Mr.. Baker said he believed such was the
case.
Mr.. Jeffords. resuning said the gov
eminent had intimated what the decision
of the court which now had the case
before ii would be and what would he
done when the writ of habcas corpus shall
be sued out.
Judge Kimball Denies.
do you mean" inquired Judge Kimball
that have given any intmation of what
my decision will be?''
Mr.. Jeffords bowed assent.
Judge Kimhall denied that such was
the fact. He said he would do his duty.
and had not thought of what another court
mere might do, nor had he reached any
conclusion .1tG as to his decision in the matter
, mere are, he went on to say, but
three questions before me. These are: Is
the publication complained of a libel? Is
the war; ant defective? and, can a corpo-
ration be libeled?"
Mr.. JeffordS went on to argue that M
libel had been committed
Judge kimball read the alleged libelous
article referred to from tho North Ameri-
can Medical Review and in conclusion said
ne had no doubt that libel had been pub
lshed In the journal. Had the name been
printed H. c. Milford all the way through
he would have no doubt that the warrant
was totally defective, but the mistake of
placing CO. instead of a 'K' was SO
clearly clerical error that he must rule
otherwise.
DR.. BOteler's Explanation,
Mr.. Jeffords said the court had intimated
yesterday that he was willing that DR..
Boteler should make an explanation of his
part in the matter, and he inquired If the
court was still willing to hear the state
ment.
"Oh, yes" the judge responded. A lengthy
conference between Dr.. Boteler and his
counsel followed, at the conclusion of which
Mr.. Jefords announced that DR.. Boteler
had concluded not to make any statement
at this time.
Mr.. Jeffords asked that Judge Kimball
would not announce his decision until Mon
day. Mr.. Baker opposed this, and Judge
kimball said he was satisfied that the war
rant was not fatally defective and that an
indictment will lie.
The bond given by DR.. Boteler for his
appearance today was renewed, with the
understanding that he would Monday give
a new bond to await the action Of the grand
jury.
Officers Of fhe. (,Oldeu nupa