The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-02-02
1T MUST GO TO THE JURY.
Court Denies n Motion to Dismiss
the Haskell Case-Arguments
in Progress.

The beginning of the end of the case
of the state against w. E. Haskell, for
libel, came before the court in Mime
apolis yesterday, and Judge Elliot ruled
against the admission of the Dun re-
port, although the letter asking for
Jackson made an offer, which practi-
cally laid the excluded evidence be-
fore the jury.
Mr.. Flannery completed the case of
the state by reading the decision OF
Judge Russell in the objection to the
receivers account. The decision will
be remembered as a clear and concise
one. Judge Russell had heard the
whole evidence in the case, much the
same as that used at the present trial,
presented by Capt Hart, and, after
thorough examination, made the dec1-
sion that the director had no rights on
its side, and judgment for costs was
ordered against the objector.
Mr.. Hatch arose and made a motion
for direction of a verdict in favor of
the defendant. He claimed that there
were three separate and distinct de-
lenses. He based his motion upon only
one of the defenses; that the article
complained of was comment upon a jul
dicial proceeding, and therefore privi-
legged.
what the public has right to
Know, the Individual mas the IlSill "
state" was the Watchword of his ar
gument. In the afternoon Mr.. Hatch
continued his argument on the claim
that the article being privileged 1t was
necessary for the state to prove NAL
ice on the part of the defense. Whether
the article was true or not cut no fig
ure, because the communication was
privileged. A verdict, even if obtained,
could not be sustained in the present
case. The attorney further instructed
the court in what cases court could
direct verdict in a libel case for
| the defendant and showed authorities
on this claim, of which he had several
! cited
Judge Belden made the reply to Mr.
Hatch's argument, being armed with a
large number Of authorities. He stated
that he was too weak to argue the
| question with any force, but it became
| his duty to do so, because Mr.. Flannery
had not had time to look up the law.
! The attorney took the statutes, and by
! their use proceeded to tear down the
! edifice erected by Mr.. Hatch. The
statutes, Judge Belden said, laid down
rules for the publication of judicial
! proceedings as shown by Mr.. Hatch,
! but the same statutes said that such
| provisions did not apply to any head
| lines or any other writings. added by
| any other person to the article. Even
/ cOuceQIiiS llle privilege Ol lHe al llCl1,
| the privilege had been most grieVouSly
! abused by the defendant and the au-
thority was overstepped. The writer of
the article had sworn that ne did not
think it necessary to examine the evil
dence when upon that evidence had
been founded both the decision OF
! Judge Russell and the Hart affidavit
both of them Numerically opposite
and yet he relied upon the affidavit OF
defeated party, rather than to even
look into evidence upon which a court
and an honest judge had founded a de-
| cision. He condemned the judge who
decided the case, upon the affidavit OF
Capt. Hart, and yet Mr.. Hatch stood
before a court and argued that there
was no evidence to show malice, OF
even lack of good faith.
The speaker took one of the decisions
Of Mr.. Hatch and turned it upon hin
by reading what Mr.. Hatch did no
read, making a strong point for the
! state.
Judge Elliott denied the motion t.
dismiss and Mr.. Flannery began the
summing up for the state.
At the outset the attorney took Thu
editorial which had caused all thu
trouble and, reading it little by little
The attorney took little time in an in
PRODUCTION, but went directly into thu
evidence showing the condition o
things surrounding the West Pullman
tranSa ctiOn.
| Mr.. Flannery will continue the argu
ment at 10 o'clock this morning.