The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-02-22

which the Indictment In this case was
found, was in effect or was intended to
be ~ proper presentation of a grave
charge against citizen of the COM
monwealth, whose conduct as "a public
man and an officehOlder was the proper
subject ''for public investigation or in
formation" What il complained of,
therefore. In the third. fourth, fifth, sixth
and seventh assignments of error was
clearly justified by the character of the
publications contained in the Indictment.
The first and second assignments of
error, upon their face. seem to present a
question of some difficulty. but the an
swer thereto Is two-fold: First. the test!-
mony offered therein could not in any
way tend to justify the manner of the
publications, even II all else in them
taken together could be considered as
bringing them within the category of
privileged communications, but, second.
all the facts offered to be proved in the
offers which were rejected were after
wards admitted and the fullest latitude
given to the defendant to prove the truth
of the facts alleged in both of the ar
ticles
THE THIRD OFFER.
1t is true that In the third offer. which
was admitted, the purpose of the offer
differed from those contained in the Of
fers rejected. but the purpose was in no
way controlled, so far as the record
shows, by the court after the testimony
was in, and the defendant would seem
to have had all the benefit of the testi-
mony which he could have had, it it had
been received under the offers, the rejec-
tion of which is complained of in the
first and second assignments of error.
The answer to the defendants third
point might have been different, II the
publications complained of had consist
cd merely of statements of fact properly
communicated to the public; but, under
the circumstances, and in view Of the
character of these publications, as al
ready pointed out. We can see no error
in the refusal of this point.
The admission of the fact as to the
citizenship of the defendant, complained
of in the ninth assignment of error. may
not have been technically correct. We do
not see what relevancy that fact had to
the main Issue; nor. On the other hand,
do We see how the defendant was harmed
thereby. There seems to have been some
latitude allowed both on the part of the
prosecution and the defense i'm regard to
this subject, for the defendant, appar-
entity as an offset to the fact that he
was not u citizen, YVES allowed to prove
that lie had two children who We're citi-
zens. We do not think this constitutes
in the present case reversible error.
The case was fairly, fully and ably
tried. The charge of the court was en-
tircly adequate. We have given careful
consideration 10 all of the testimony ana
the whole case as presented. both by the
appellant and the appellee.
The appellants paper book. it may be
remarked, omitted some of the exhibits
which were in evidence, but that Of the
appellee seems to supply the deficiencies
and We have, therefore. been able to
reach clear understanding of the entire
case and, upon Il careful consideration
of 1t. there Is no ground. so far as we
can see, in any of the assignments of
,ror for Il reversal Of N" Judgment OF
the court below. They are, therefore, all
overruled and the Judgment is affirmed.