The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-03-22

News in the meaning of the provis-
ions of the statute. There was a vari-
ance between the atfidavits of publica-
ton made in 1895 and 1897 The latter
showed that Paradis was one of sew
eral publishers, which would imply
partnership.
Mr.. Durment said that the libel
| charged was against Mr.. Dunn as an
Official. A single libel was alleged and
single libel must be proved. The
state could not prove three distinct
charges and thereby establish the libel.
MI Durment cited number of auth
critics in support Of his position.
MI Durment said there was nothing
IN the libelous article to show that it
was not made up by a number of diff
ferent items. Each of the articles de-
CARED to be libelous was foreign to
the other
Mr.. Zollman replied to Mr. Durment.
He read an affidavit made by Mr.. Para
ols, in which Mr.. Paradis admitted be-
ing the publisher and proprietor of the
MIDWAY News. The affidavit contained
a clipping from the issue containing
the alleged libel. So far as the libel
Gus article was concerned, 1t consti-
tuted one entire article The proof of
any one of the charges was sufficient
Inc entire article and the weight to be
given 1T was a question for the Jury.
Mr.. Butler said he didn't think if
necessary to say anything in addition
to what had been said by Mr.. Zollman
He read the provisions of the statutes
relating to prosecutions for libel, and
held that every person connected with
the writing or printing of a newspaper
containing lbelous article was
chargeable with libel.
Judge Orr refused to grant the mo-
ton.
Editor Paradis was the first witness
In his own behalf Much of his testi-
mony was stubbornly contested by Mr..
Butter and comparatively little prog
fess was made before court adjourned
A lengthy passage at last took place
between Attorney Durment and Mr..
Butler over Mr.. Paradis' recollection
of excerpts from editorials in the
princeton Union, Auditor Dunn's p.-
per.
Mr.. Durment asked Editor Parad
If he had read in the Union the state
ment that the school fund had been
robbed of hundreds of thousands of
dollars by the pine ring
Attorney Butler objected. saving that
the state admitted that Mr.. Dunn had
made such a statement in his paper
Mr.. Dunn had so testified, therefore
there was no use in occupying the time
OF the jury in rehearing the matter
and reading editorials from the Union.
Mr.. Durment insisted that the de-
tense was not obliged to rest it's case
on an admission of the prosecution and
called for ruling. The court over
ruled the objection, but another argu-
ment followed on the same line a few
minutes later, when Mr. Durment sub
m1tted the files of the Princeton Union
to Mr. ParadiS for the purpose of iden-
tlIvlns certain editorials containing the
substance Of the above statement.
Judge Orr allowed the file to he in
troduced as evidence, when Mr. Para
dis referred to a dozen dates of the
Union containing criticism upon the
administration of the state auditors
Office, previous to Mr. Dunn's incum-
bency, which the defense claims fur
n1shed the foundation for the alleged
1belous article in the Midway News.
Mr. Durment then read two of the
articles to the jury. when Judge Orr
adjourned court until 10 o'clock TO-DAY
The introduction of the newspanor
hle and the action of the defense in
presenting each article to the Jury will
undoubtedly cause the trial to DRAG
longer than was anticipated.