The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-10-23

quite a sensation was sprung ami
exploded in connection with the
Scrantonian libel case Saturday. Cor
nelius Smith-as might be guessed
sprang It. The substance of 1t was
that one of the Jurors, E. r. Allen,
had been tampered with; that he had
be seen talking in n low tone in q
back room Of the st. Cloud hotel Mon
day evening and that the words rip
pie" and "Scrantonian" were used
The witnesses who thought they saw
all this were T. Ellsworth Davis, who
is said to write articles for the Scran-
tonian. and Evan p. DsSjs, who ad-
mits being a regular contributor to
the Scrantonian.
The allegation was made by Mr.
Smith for Editor Little in his reasons
for a new trial, which were filed Sat
urday morning with Judge Edwards
The reasons are fourteen in number
and are as follows:
l. The court erred in ruling that the
alleged libelous matter was not priv
ileged communication.
9 The court erred in excluding the evil
dence offered by the defendants to prove
the truth of the charges contained in the
libellous articles.
g. The court erred in charging the
jury as follows: "In the present case tho
commonwealth claims that not only is
there legal malice, but that the evidence
discloses actual malice upon the part of
the defendants against the prosecutor,
especially on the part of the defendant
Little. You have right to consider tho
question Of actual malice, although it is
not necessary for the commonwealth to
establish the existence of actual malice
in order TO secure a conviction of at least
one of the defendants in this case"
T. Also in charging the jury as follows;
"lf through carelessness and the want of
proper investigation he libels an individu-
al he is guilty although he did not intend
to publish a libel"
GRADY'S TESTIMONY.
5. Also in charging the jury as follows:
you may consider that his testimony is
weakened by the fact that when sworn
| before the commissioners in the contested
election case he testified that he had re-
ceived no money for his vote or for po-
| litical services from anybody in the cam
paign of 1891 1t may be true that he in
| formed the defendant of this fact but
even on that question the jury has the
| right TO judge his credibility."
6. Also in charging the jury as follows;
| ''The testimony of the other witnesses is
| of different character. l refer particu-
| larly to the testimony of Mr.. Finn, Mr..
| Fellows and Mayor Moir. They testify
| that they gave information to the de-
| fendant as to the use of money for cor
| rupt purposes in politics by the prosecu-
| tor. but their testimony is based on what
| is known as hearsay evidence. They do
| not testify that they themselves received
| any money from the prosecutor, but that
| they knew of others or had heard of 9TH
| ers receiving money, and that this hear
| say evidence is not of a very satisfactory
\ character. but we admitted it because il
| true ii came to the defendant and may
| be used by him as an excuse for the pub
| licatiOn of at least a portion of the ar.
| ticle in question, and for the purpose of
| rebutting the presumption of malice"
| !. Also in charging the jury as follows;
81 do not see how you can avoid the
| conclusion that this article is libellous
and that it tends to blacken the reputa-
tion of the prosecutor and to expose him
to public hatred and contempt. An eX.
| animation and analysis of the article will
satisfy you on this point"
s. Also in charging the jury as fol.
lows mo jury can avoid the conclusion
| that to proclaim a man a coward, a hypO.
critic, debaucher of politics, and false
| pretcndCr tends to expose the man tc
public contempt and hatred"
o. Also in charging the jury as fol
lows: You heard the testimony of join
| j. Grady. He says that before the pub
lication of the editorial article complained
Of he informed the defendant Little thai
he. O'Grady, had ten dollars from the
prosecutor to work for Pryor and Kelly
| in 1897, and had been promised a place
| in the county Jail"
"You may consider his testimony l;
weakened by the fact that when sworr
| before the commissioners IN the contest
| ed election case he testified that he ha(
received no money for his vote or for pO
litiCal services from anybody in the cam
paign Of 1897. 1t may be true that he III
formed the defendant of this fact. bu
even on that question the jury has tn,
right to judge his credibility'
FINN, FELLOWS, MOIR.
TO- Also in charging the jury as fol
lows: "The testimony of the other wit
nesses is of a different character. / refe
particularly to the testimony of Mr.. Finn
Mr.. Fellows and Mayor Moir. They tes
tify that they gave information to tn,
defendant as to the use OF money for cor
rupt purposes in politics by the prosecu
tor, but their testimony is based on wha
is known as hearsay evidence. They dt
not testify that they themselves receive,
any money from the prosecutor, but tina
| they knew OF OlnefS or hau nedrd OF Otn
ers receiving money, and that this hear
say evidence they communicated to tn
defer dant. This evidence is not of a yer!
satisfactory character but we admitted
it because if true it came to the defend
ant and may be used by him as an eX
cuse for the publication of at least
portion of the article in question, ant
for the purpose of rebutting the presump
tion of malice. 1t may occur To you gen
tlemen Of the jury, that the defendant il
the exercise of proper care as to tn
matter that went into this newspaper
should have made further investigation
and should have verified the hearsay dec
laratlOns made To him by the wItnesse
that / have mentioned"
Il. Also in charging ;he jury as fol
lows: II have already called your al