Waterbury Democrat., 1900-11-14

| to testify and frequently gave answers before the question was half uttered. 1 In the hands of Colonel Burpee wit ! ness was quite Voluble. He contra dicted Mir Walsh. saying that it was himself who went down stairs and stopped the press, and that defendant l tied up the papers in bundles. Yes terday the defendant said he did not know who tied up the papers. and Mir Walsh said it was the defendant who went down stairs and stopped the press. This closed the defense, and the rebuttal began. i The plaintiff was put on the stand. The circumstances regarding the loan were gone into. witness denying that he ever made certain statements to 1 defendant at that time. \ paper was introduced. maintaining the plaintiff on this point. He said he first saw the article in M copy of the Globe handed him by AIr Curley, and he inn
 mediately said: This means q libel suit"
 Chris J. Porzenheim corroborated i plaintiff and cCntradicted MT Curley regarding what was said between them | in IIodsOnS cafe the afternoon the article was published
 Cornelius Hayes was recalled and
 testified that on the afternoon of the publication Of the article, and while
 there Mr Culley showed him d proof
 and asked what he thought of it. He said there would be a TOW or that there
 would he hell to pay. or something like
 that. Nothing was said about the i heading at that time.
 On croSs-examinationu. witness tCS
 tifed that the article was signed when i he saw it. and he thought there was
 51 iN1h rfI. hp
 saw Curley and asked him if he was
 going to run that article and Curley
 said that Chris was there and was
 after writing a head for it. Did not l see the head until it came out.
 Attorney Byrne testified that lie re-
 proved Mr Curley for allowing the ar
 ticle to 90 in the. paper and NE.Gnrley
 replied that he could not helssAaksES if was brought in by defendant; also
 that AIr Walsh was not employed on the paper during the week the article was published. Witness was treasur-
 CT of the Globe company and he would Lhave seen AIr WalSh'S name on the payroll if he had worked that week. ! This closed tine ease. and d short re
 cess was taken.
 Attorney Carmodv began the argu- ments. He quoted from the article, Fcomparing it's expressions with his re
 marks to some of the witnesses. 1r the article the defendant said: Shall
 I quote namps:" Yes" said Mir Car
 mody ''he did not mention any names
 when he was On the stand. He laid
 stress on the fact that he had to go
 into the Globe office to procure his evi-
 dCnce. had to put mon on the stand
 who are identified with the defendant
 in his every day life. The evident in
 T. .J.,I,4 4 .ff9 94sN-
 ment that he wrote the article. left if
 on Mir Culley'S. desk to De published land vet the first he knew Of it was
 when he saw it in the paper Then
 he rushed back to the office. stopped
 the press and called ill all the papers
 that had been sent out. Ihe
 fact waS he went on, was
 that the article WaS published
 to defame the plaintiff and to create
 sensation and sell papers and there could be no doubt that it succeeded 10 q great extent. Instead of calling in the edition. additional papers were
 published and three times more could have been sold merely on the strength
 of that article. The motive Of the arti- cle was malice. base and foul. "A
 more inconsistent story than that told by Downey could not have been i'm
 agajned DoWney lied in the article
 and he lied tilere. said Mr Carmoi;y, pointing to the witness stand. Judge
 Cole followed. He had not proceeded far when he was interrupted by the court and informed that he was mak- ing improper use of certain parts of } the evidence. Colonel Rurnee also , made several objections to the man. t ner in which Judge Cole twisted other | parts of the testimony. aR8 , The closing argument was made by - Colonel Burpee. He crelAIRsl liaass ee : fendant with putting up ah Ingenious l. defense and that the arguments of his 9 counsel tended to befog the minds of Q the jurors. and detract their attention Q from the real issue involved. The de 0 fendant put up no allegations of de' !. fense; he did not even plead justi1i : cation. He put on a bold front, put UT .- q bluff. as it is called. in entering a Il general denial. vet when he is put ol . the stand he admits writing the arti l. cle and that he retracted it. The case Q differed materially from any to bt t found in the law books of the state q It is not q case where newspaper lS t sued. and says it. was misled. but the z actual writer of the article is brought Q into court and. like a whipped dog. ht r takes the stand and admits he wrote
 the article Colonel Burpee then quot l. ed from the books. He followed II c with quoting from the alleged libelouE y article, and said that defendant in tha n- article did not say there was any re n port, but the actual fact was charged s Defendant did not follow up that ar
 ticle even on the stand. He gave nc 7. evidence whatsoever. showing that an! Q part of the article was true. or ever r. based on report. In that respect hi: It evidence was very weak.
 Il In the colonel's opinion the question = of damages was the only one the jur! 1t could consider. the defendant havin:
 admitted his guilt. The colonel ad t. nrittef his inability to understand tn :" first paragraph of the article in ques J. ton. in which the defendant referred a to himself asa painter of great fame l. q painter of allegory. He believed tn e defendant. when he wrote the article !. was unable to control his mind an' d his thoughts. and the; words simpl, " dropped off his pen with venom an'