The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-10-17

copy of the Scrantonian OF July 3O
which he obtained at the Scrantonian
office.
Attorney John =. Kelly then offered
in evidence a COPY of the Scrantonian
OF July 30, which was identified by
John Osmond. Mr.. Kelly specified the
libellous articles 1t contained.
Judge Edwards was at this .ont
asked by Attorney John r. Lenahan
not to allow the articles in question
to be offered against NJ. J. O'Toolc.
He said O'Toole is the associate editor
of the paper but no more responsible
for what appears in 1t than the man
who sets the type or collects the bills.
1t had not been shown, Mr.. Lenahan
said, that O'Toole had written the
articles in question and unless this
could be done there was nothing to
warrant the matter in going to the jury
to his prejudice.
Mr.. Kelly quoted the testimony that
had been offered with reference to
O'Toole's connection with the paper
and his conversation with Gilman, and
said it was a question for the jury
to consider.
Judge Edwards remarked that as he
for the jury and he dismissed Mr. Len
ahans motion.
The next step in the case was the
reading of the libellous articles to the
jury by Mr.. Kelly, after which Colonel
Il. II. Ripple took the stand. On di-
rect examination he said his full name
is Ezra II. Ripple. He is often referred
to as Colonel Ripple. There is no other
Colonel Ripple in this city.
CROSS S-EXAMINATION.
on cross-examination by Attorney
Lenahan, Colonel Ripple said that he
is engaged in the coal business, Is
postmaster of Scranton and is interest
ed in The Tribune. 1t was also brought
out that he has been entitled to the
title Colonel for about fifteen years,
and that he was at one time mayor of
Scranton.
With his testimony the common
wealth rested, and Attorney G.. Smith
asked that the case be taken from the
jury with the exception of the question
of costs. Judge Edwards reminded Mr..
Smith that unless the defense rested
such a motion could not be entertained
Mr.. Smith said the defense was not
prepared to rest and Mr.. Vidaver open.
ed the case to the jury. He admitted
that Little wrote the libellous editorial
but said that O'Toole was never in
any way connected with the Scranton
ian save as an ordinary reporter and
that the article complained of was
written by Little because O'Toole told
him that John Courier Morris had told
him that Colonel Ripple had given or
ders to The Tribune to attack the
| Scrantonan Mr.. Vidaver said it was
| more of a newspaper war than any
| thing else and that the matter had
| been taken altogether too seriously
| and given an importance it did not
| merit
| John O'Grady, of West Scranton,
was thu first witness called for the =
fense for the purpose of proving that
| Colonel Ripple had been guilty of
| political corruption. The common
wealth was asked to make an offer
stating the object of the testimony and
Mr.. Lenahan said the purpose was ITO
show that the publication in question
was justifiable and warranted under
! the constitution and statutes of our
state To be followed by evidence that
|
TO were communicated to the defen-
dants before the publication in ques-
ton.
MALICE NOT INTENDED.
This is offered for the further pur-
pose OF rebutting malice or any infer
enCe that the publication was negli-
gently made, it appearing in the evi-
dence that Ezra II. Ripple was post
| master for the last year or two. II
is offered also for the further pur.
pose of explaining the motive for which
the publication was made and to re-
but any inference Of malice"
Mr.. Lenahan, in arguing to the
court, said they admitted the publ
cation aud pleaded justification anC
right, believing that the publication
could be sustained on two grounds
First, for the purpose of calling pub
lie attention to a violation of the elec
tion laws, and, second, because the
man referred to in the article is pub
bic officeholder.
Attorney O'Brien, in replying to Mr.
Lenahan, took the position that tn,
evidence it was proposed to Introduce
was in no way competent under th'
offer of the defense or under the open
ing to the jury! 1t is not a privi
legged communication because nothing
had occurred or was about to occu
at that time to warrant such a publ
cation. The mode of the publication
also removed it from the catalogue o
privileged communications. He quotet
decisions to show that sensational
newspapers have no claims to the pro
lection offered by the term "privlleget
communication" Opinions of the su
preme court in three leading cases wer
also read by Mr.. O'Brien to show tina
the offer under discussion was no
competent and that the court coul
not allow the testimony it was pro
posed to introduce.
Attorney Smith, in reply to MI
OBrien, said the question was merel
the admission of testimony not tn
effect of that testimony and quote
an opinion of Judge Parsons to shoN
that somewhat similar testimony ha
been allowed in a somewhat simila
case.
NO EXCUSE FOR IT.
Mr.. Kelly replied to Mr.. Smith an
dwelt upon the provision in the con
stitution with reference to privilege
, communications. There was nothin
going on at the time to give the slight
, est excuse for the publication of tn
articles under consideration. If tn
, position Of the defendant is correc
, then the public has no protection froi
such newspapers. such is not tn
. law of Pennsylvania, and it never ha
been the law" Mr., Kelly said
. Mr. IanAhan said they Mere NJ