The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-10-18

by the man who wrote the card signed
"A Workngman" called at the Scran-
tonian Office and denied being the au-
thor of the communication.
why did you not act fairly then
and print retractior?" asked Mr.
Kelly
Il was not sure that Davis did not
write it," replied Little.
Did you not have at least as good
information that he did not write it as
that he did?" asked the attorney.
Il think not" feebly murmured the
witness.
You tell us" said Mr.. Kelly. "that
you printed all of these matters to
purify the politics of this city and
county. Are you a voter"
Yes, sir" promptly replied the wit
ness.
How long have you been voter?"
was the next question.
Little hcsitated a moment flushed
and moved uneaslly in his chair and
then asked permission to withdraw
his last answer saying he did not mean
what he. said. He then admitted that
he never voted and has never been nat
uralzed. He denied that he was ac-
tuated by malice in anything he said
about Colonel Ripple and also denied
that he meant to charge the Colonel
with false pretonses in what he said
about his services in the war.
FELLOWS TESTIMONY.
Ex-Mayor John H. Fellows. bonds
man of the defendants, was called. He
told Little in June last that he knew
Colonel Ripple used money in politics
The money was paid to members Of
vigilance committees in the Sixth ward
On cross-examination he confessed that
he had no personal knowledge that Col
onel Ripple paid any money. He was
told that he had. Fellows denied hav-
ing any financial interest in the paper
Wade NJ Finn, another bondsman.
was sworn after Fellows left the stand.
He, too admitted that he told things
to Little What he told Little was that
Colonel Ripple used money against him
when he ran for select council in the
Second ward in 1898. He did not say
what direct knowledge he had on that
subject. Finn denied being interested
in the Scrantonian, but admitted that
he endorsed two Of Little's notes.
Mayor James Moir, to whom Little
went for advice Immediately after his
arrest, followed Finn to the stand.
Some time before July 4 he met Little
and Little told him that certain police
men on the force had used money in
politics. The witness then told Little
that two officers residing in the Eigh-
teenth ward had used money in politics
at one time. He did not say who they
were or who they got the money from.
Witness also told Little that Michael
McQueeney, of the Second ward, had
received a letter from Colonel Ripple
asking him to work against witness for
mayor. McQueeney promised to bring
him the letter, but did not do so. He
never saw the letter, and has no direct
knowledge of it's contents.
McQueeney was called to the stand
but his testimony was objected to and
Judge Edwards heh it could not be
ADMITTED under his morning ruling.
TESTIMONY FELL SHORT.
None of the witnesses testified that
they told Little what Little said they
did, proving the truth of the old saw
that a story increases in size as il
passes along. In Mr.. VidaVer's open-
Ing to the jury he said they would
show that John Courier Morris told
O'Toole that Colonel Ripple had given
orders to The Tribune to pitch lnto the
ScrantOnian. When O'Toolc was on
the stand yesterday he was as silent
as clam on that matter and his a..
torneys were careful not to ask him
about it.
In rebuttal the commonwealth Of
fered the notes of evidence taken IN
the Langstaff election contest in July,
1898, for the purpose of contradicting
John j. OGrady.
A copy of the ScrantOnian of Aug. G.
containing a number of libelous arti-
cles concerning Colonel Ripple was Of
fered in evidence. The defense OBJ
jected on the ground that it was a
subsequent publication and did not
show the state of mind Of the defen-
dant at the time the libel was penned
Judge Edwards over ruled the obiec-
tion and allowed the paper to become
part of the record in the case That
closed the case on the part of the COM
monwealth.
Attorney Smith presented the fol-
lowing law points on which he asked
the judge to give instructions to tho
jury:
THE LAW POINTS.
First-The legal inference of malice in
this case is not pICof but only stands in
stead Of facts until the contrary is
proved.
SeCond-If the circumstances attending
and under which the alleged libeous mat.
ter was written and published, show that
the defendants may reasonably be sup
posed to have just and worthy motive
in writing and publishing the same, the
law will not infer malice from the mere
falsity of the charge
Third-PrObabe cause is a reasonable
ground of suspicion, supported by cir
cumstanCes sufficiently strong i'm them
selves TO warrant a cautious man in the
belief that the person is guilty Of the con-
duct imputed to i'm. And if from all tho
evidence in the case the jury believe that
the defendants had probable cause 10 be-
lieve that the charges in the indictment
alleged were true then the questions of
both malice and negligence are excluded
from the case
Fourth--If the jury, from all the evi-
dence In the case believe that the writing
of the article complained of in the in
dictment did not originate in malice or
negligence, the defendants are eXcusable.
ana they are not guilty. OF writing and
publishing a malicious libel.
Fifth-That malice, negligence and want
of probable cause are the constituent ele-
ments of the offensc charged. That either
or all of these elements are probably only
by Circumstantial evidence. Therefore if
the material circumstances in the case
reasonably admit of two constructions,
the one leading to innocence and the 9TH
er to guilt, the jury is bound to adopt the
construction leading to innocence and ac-