The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-10-27

planned. However, IL the common
wealth comes in with proof have the
right to rebut 1t. At the time your
honor ruled on the admission of proof
the truth of the articles was entirely
immaterial."
Mr.. Smith had consumed five or ten
minutes more than the half hour as
signed each side, but the court, after
reminding him of II. directed him to
proceed with anything else he might
have to say.
Mr. Smith departed from his main
proposition, at this. and entered upon
discussion of some of the other rea-
sons.
Referring to the charge of the court
that the article could be libelous. even
though the writer was not intent on
| libeling, Mr.. Smith contended That no
| act with the possible exception of COM
lnitting nuisance, could be crime un-
less there was intent to commit crime.
Other allegations of error touched
upon were that the court should have
| told the jury that the truth or falsity
of Grady's communication to the de-
| PENDANTS was immlterial, and that the
| defendant had a right, under the law,
to rely upon the statements of prom
inent citizens, meaning Messrs Finn,
Fellows, Boland, Moir, Grady, ct. al.
THAT TALK ON THE SIDE.
The remarks made by Judge Arch
bald to Attorney Lenahan during the
argument on the admittance of evil
dence that the purpose Of the article
seemed to be not for the information
of the public but for villfying the
| nrngppntnr VIC NJ Mn
Smith said, which made the trial from
that point on a mere matter of form.
Judge Archibald asked: "Wbere did
you get your information that 1 made
such a remark?"
Mr.. Smith admitted that he got 1t
from one of the newspapers.
We'll, newspapers are not always
infallible," Judge Archibald rejoined.
| Judge Edwards said: AT all events
1t was side talk between Judge Arch
bald and Mr.. Lenahan and the jury un-
doubtedly did not hear it."
Mr.. Smith admitted that he himself
did not hear it. though he was between
the bench and the jury box, and furth-
er that the stcnogra pher did not hear
it, or at least had no record of it, which
Mr. Smith asccrtaired in trying to
|
the words attributed to Judge Arch
bald
| Judge Edwards called Mr.. Smiths
attention to the fact that he had ex-
ceeded his half hour by twenty-five
minutes and requested him to be brief
in any other arguments he wished to
advance.
Mr.. Smith concluded with a state
| mont that n a pA eh Nvl lar
the Scrantonian is published. The only
reference to it, he contended was a
! statement by one witness that it yas
published in the Republican building.
"The Republican building might be in
Russia" Mr.. Smith said.
"Be brief Mr.. OBrien," requested
Judge Archibald when the former fin
ished a last word with his colleagues
Messrs. Kelly and Newcomb and ad-
vanced to make answer to Mr.. Smiths
| contention.
| TEN MINUTES ENOUGH.
| Mr.. O'Brien was brief. Ten minutes
was all he Occupied. Just one-tenth OF
this time was devoted to a reply to
Mr. Smiths main proposition. 1t con-
sisted simply in calling the attention
| of court to the fact that the Act of
May 13. 1856, on which the main prop
csition" was based was repealed forty
years ago.
MIR. O'Brien then cited authorities to
refute the other contention of Mr..
Smith. The case of the Commonwealth
against Costello he argued settled be-
yond all question that the question OF
privilege is entirely for the court, and
the Swallow case the question of prop
| er occasion.
AS to the charge of the court Mr..
OBrien contented himself with saying
that il it erred at ALL IL erred in favor
Of the defendants, but to his mind 1t
was impartial, thorough ard faultIess.
Referring to the comment attributed
to Judge Archibald, Mr.. O'Brien said
that even though the jury had heard it,
there would be no ground for COM
plant, as the court has a right to
draw conclusions and express opin-
ions as long as the jury is not directed
to be bound by IT. The recent case of
Pillock against O'Neil was referred to
as the authority.
Mr.. O'Brien's argument IN the main
was rapid succession of apt quota
tions of authorities and sharp, point
ed, pithy comments bearing directly on
the features of the case at issue. Only
twice did he refer to the books for
the title of a case or the language OF
the law which in view of the character
of his argument as mentioned above,
was remarkable even as a feat Of mem
ory which was its least remarkable
feature.
Mr., Smith asked for more lime when
Mr.. O'Brien had concluded. Court de-
ferred to him again and he once more
entered upon discussion of the Ques-
ton of privilege. threshing over the
matter he had presented in his main
! argument.
Court announced it would render a
decision Saturday.
COURSE OF LECTURES.