Waterbury Democrat., 1900-11-13
0lh.sa1Isl DUH .
Judge George Wheeler Hearing
 the Evidence To-Day.
E. L. MALONEY ASKS DAMAGES.

Cause of the Suit--.Sevcral Witness
 es Gave Evidence in the Case
 Other Court Matters Taken Up Dur
 ing Recess.
 Inc superior court opened this morn ing it ll:3o o'clock promptly. The "1sr of Edward l.. Maloney against Christopher r. DoWney was put OF. Mr Adl0EcE seeks to recover $5,OOO damages for alleged libel. This suit arose our of an article which appeared Ill the Evening Globe one day last Win ter. IL was signed Chris r. Downcy'' IL put the plaintiff iu a very HNorable light before the pub lie and was the talk of the city for q long time. interest ill the case was revived a few weeks ago when it was rulEored that 1t would bc heard this term ef the superior court. There are QHitc :i numbC" of witnesses in the case. and besides them there were q number Uf i'romiLcut men present in jlp court room.
 Alr M&loney Was represented by }lvSsIS bI!pee and Ca:mOdy. and Nir I1oWney by HicSsr}; Cole ami Root Nt the outset of the hparing 1t was eyi- dent that tht ease would hc tedious and fuil of Interruptions. for Judge Root began to block it's progress NitL objections. Mir Maloney was the first pat On tn" stand. He testified that the alleged liheIous article was writ t'u by the defendant, aud that he recognized the latter's style of writ ing. and that he had interests in the ENcu-nG Globe. All this eyiIruc2 Was contested by Judge Ro0i.
 Attorney Byrne was the ncxt wit ness. He was put on to prove that the defendant mad financial interests in the Globe and that he wrote for thl paper, and this he testified to, He also testified that q meeting of th" di- rprtorS of the Globe company was held the morning after the alleged SlandeToilS article appeared At that meeting q form of retractiOn was dra Wn up and signed by all the directors pres cnt except the defendant, on tle grounds that they were trying to set him into trouble; that the article vas none of their affair. as it was a signed article. He also objected to the re- traction appearing in the Globe untll told ti.at it would appear in the Amer jean if it would net appear in the Globe.
 Tn reply to Judge Root witness said that the retractiOn did not appear as it was originally drawn up, the part defendant objected to bein" taken nEt.
 VI. J. BrZczinski testified to seeing defendant on the night the article ap: peared he thought. and spoke to him about the article. He said to him that he injured the dignity of the paper in calling the plaintiff q namn and rt- fcrrinE to him in such ScurriiOuS manner and defendanf answered that it was a typographical mistake. C. P. Hayes. who was a reporter on the Globe at he time the article ap- pcared testified that the defendant implied he would ''roast' the plaintiff This occurred on the day the article appeared
 James Murray was the noT' witness. He said that one evening q few weeks 1 after the article appeared he was | sitting in a cafe with friend and the 1 defendant said to him: Tt won't be long before I'll have MaIoncv and the l Democrat by the throttle"
 Joseph A. Cullen testified that oG tlc l evening the article appeared thc de | fRndant said to him: ''Thprn is SOmp- | thing in the Globe I want you to See.'' ! Witness was rot sure that defendant mentioned plaintiff name or not. but l he thought he did. vet he rOuitl not h2 | positive. He identified the 'ticln aS that to which he thought tn" defendant had called his attention.
 1 At this iunctTrC Judge Root arose and claimed that his clionI had not been ideuttied so far With tilH article in question. and Mir Hayes was ,c- called 10 the stand. He tcStiftee! that np saw the article on the day tlrc de 1 roast, the plaintiff, after the Globe haG been issued. and also that ne had seen it in proof in the Globe office thai same afternoon after leaving the Ge i fendant. The court then allowed the article to be admitted into the ease The plaintiff was also recalled He identified several newst ter --arEfrle' and a quotation from q of his own
 reports of the case of Henry C. O'Sui liyan against the Globe. This quota
 ton headed the alleged libelous arti
 clH. Plaintiff admitted borrowing S1O0 from the defendant and that the latter took out $5 IS percentage. The 1 loan was for us1 in some SnortS he
 WHs interested D.
 Recess for dinner Was taken af 1
 o'clock. and before pxcUSing the iurl
 the court warned them tn nc ca:Cfu
 not to discuss tnc case with any one. James F.. Marianne or New Haven
 formerly of this city. was the first wit
 ness put OF after dinner. He cOrrob
 orated the testimony or Mr Murrai
 regarding the defendants remarks t
 them in the cafe. He added. however
 that the defendant was sarcastic at tlH;
 time hp spoke. Regarding the date D
 ihe article, witness thought it occ;Irref
 about q month following the plaintiff
 marriage, and his own. On this poin
 his evidence differed from NIr Mul
 rays.
 Deputy Sheriff Ramett. took tht
 stand next. He recalled a statemen
 defendant made to him al the time tlr
 Globe was attached in which he sait
 something to the effect that there ii
 not room enough for both of Us {,
 live. meaning. said witness. s'him self and Mir AIaioney, and that one O
 them would have to die" Constail, Carmedy who assisted in mal,iiig tn
 attachment. advised defendant to b careful in his speech. Under cross
 examination by Judge Root wieues M said the above were not the eNac :