Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1902-11-20

be directed to return verdict for the
defendant"
The Testimony.
Mrs. Crawford, wife of the plaintiff,
was the first witness called by the
prosecution. Being sick herself and
having a very sick child at home her
testimony was taken Immediately and
made very short. She testified to
Crawford's absence from Newburg for
about six weeks subsequently to his
disappearance with the stock to Chi
cago and the time of the protested
checks. She explained that Crawford
took trip out west writing her from
points in Nebraska, Wyoming. Mon
tana and North Dakota. Under cross
examina ton she admitted what the de-
Tense would have found difficult to
prove had not the plaintiff put her on
the stand, that Crawford wrote her
to sell the home and apply the pro-
ceeds on the debts which she did do
receiving 5000 for the home of which
she sent $3.50 to Snyder's bank at Grin
NELL that she took the deed to Mason
City where she met Crawford and
where he signed it but did not return
with her. She admitted further that
she signed bill of sale to her brother
in-law, Bonsall for some corn which
Crawford had bought by means of
Bonsalrs security on note. She also
admitted that during Crawfords mys-
FERROUS absence letters from her to him
We're mailed on the train to avoid hav-
ing them pass thru the local post
Office.
Mr.. Nathaniel Cox, father in-law of
Crawford, was then called by plaintiff.
It was Immediately disclosed that the
purpose of his testimony was to divide
the responsibility for the false weights
episode. He testified that Crawford
was in his employ at salary of $50
per month at the time of the weight
controversy; that H. w. Clay did catch
Crawford at the scales with an extra
pair of weights, which, when tested,
were light: that a few days after
ward he, Cox, paid Clay 5000 to set
tie the trouble and broke the false
weights in the presence of witnesses.
Then he told a very improbable story
about the weights having been used to
balance the scales and that he had
balance the scales preparatory to re-
ceiving and weighing some stock that
night or the next morning. He claimed
that there was so much litter on the
scales that it took more than the slide
on the double bar was capable of do
ing to balance the scales, stating that
more than ton and half of weight
must be overcome in the balancing.
Cross examination failed to develop
plausible excuse for sending Craw.
ford to balance the scales so many
hours before weighing was to be done
or to explain the payment of 5000 to
Clay except that he, Cox, and no+
Crawford, paid the money and that
he did it to shut up the talk" altho he
would not admit that either he or
Crawford had done anything wrong.
talk about which could injure them.
Mr.. Cox's testimony was not COM
pleted at the close of the first day, but
was continued on the day following.
AT the opening of the morning session
While waiting for the witnesses to ar
rive on the train from the south George
Swift, farmer living near Newburg,
testified that after the publications
complained of he would not take Craw-
ford's checks in payment for cattle, but
had no recollection of Crawford ever
heving offered him a check.
Then occurred a strange procedure
in libel practice. Counsel for the plant
if placed upon the stand, as witness
for the plaintiff, Mr.. D. w. Norris, Jr..
editor of the Times Republican and
party to the defendant Mr.. Norris.
whose testimony thereby became the
testimony of the plaintiff, introduced
by the plaintiff in support of his case,
testified that he was the editor of the
Times Republican and that the arti-
cles Were published under his super
vision because he believed them TO be
true and because he believed it the
duty of his newspaper to inform the
public as to what a man like Crawford
was doing. When questioned as to
Why he did not first attempt to verify
the report received before publishing
it, witness replied that he relied upon
the accuracy of his information in the
first publication and that subsequently,
Crawford upon two different visits to
the newspaper Office admitted to him
and to other editors in the presence of
plaintiffs present attorney that the first
story as printed was true except that
he, Crawford, when caught substitut-
ing false weights was working for his
father-in law and therefore relieved
from responsibility for his act. Coun-
sci for the plaintiff undertook to i'm
peach the accuracy and good faith of.
the informant upon which the editor
relied, but the court held that the news
paper alone was responsible for the pub
fishing and circulating of the alleged
libel.
William Paul and John Paul, farmers
living near Laurel and Gilman, were
then called by plaintiff to testify that
they had read the newspaper articles
about Crawford and had become sfraid
of his checks, but did not remember of
his having offered them any checks
George Sievers, blacksmith living
at Gilman, testified for the plainitiff that
Crawford had told him several times
that he was going to take a trip out
west, that he was quite friend of
Crawford, aw him two or three times
week, was visited by Crawford on.
mere social errands and, when the OPP
posing lawyers got thru with him, wit
ness admitted that he had once been
convicted for felony and was then out
of prison on parole.
Briefly, 1T-year-old boy who hangs