Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1903-01-10
THAT LIBEL SUIT.
BRILLIANT ARRAY OF
COUNSEL THERE.
EDITOR MITCHELL's DEFENSE T,
Many Witnesses Testify. The
Rights to Publish.
Did Williams Forge the Names-Wit.
uesSes Testify.

Did Williams Forge the Names-Wit.
uesses Testify.
The suit of Nelson Williams, Jr..
against John Mitchell, Jr., for $4,000
has been on trial in the Law & EQUITY
Court since last Monday morning.
Able counsel have been conducting the
case. Editor Mitchell is represented by
Hon. George ID. Wise of the firm of
wise d Watkins and by Hon. Charles
V. Meredith Of the frn of Meredith &
Cooke, and J. Thomas Hewin, ESQ.
(colored) of this city.
Wililams is represented hv Mr. H M.
Smith, Jr., Hill Carter, Esq, and J. R.
Pollard, Esq, colored.
THE CAUSE OF THE SUIT.
The case grew out of the action of
Editor Mitchell permitting the publica-
ton In the columns of the PLANET of
the proceedings of the First Baptist
CHURCH upon the call of the pastor and
the election of Rev. w. T. johnson.
mitchell charges that Williams forg-
eo three names on paper purporting TO
oe an application for church meeting
held for the purpose of excluding
mitchell from the church and which
did result in his exclusion.
THE JURY SWORN.
The jury was called and sworn IT
cor ted of all white citizens Mr.. II
nth, Jr., then stated what his
--peoted TO prove. Mr.. C.. V. Me-
edlth followed with statement of
what the defendant expected to prove.
Inc witnesses were then excluded from
the court room and Nelson Williams.
e .r., the plaintiff was called TO the
stand.
His statement of the case tended to
lnIure him more than the defendant.
He was subjected to a rigid cross EXAM.
lnatlon by Mr.. Meredith and his pre-
dlcament was sorry spectacle to those
VINO had come to hear the case. $50
HIS ATTITUDE DAMAGING.
His attitude ON the witness stand was
80 damaging to the plaintiff side of the
case that his counsel found it necessary
TO recall him the next TUESDAY morn
ing III order that he might be permitted
TO correct some Of the reckless state
ments he had made the day before.
RESTED THE CASE.
He did not help his case any, howey-
er. Then followed q most remarkable
and surprising action on the part of his
counsel. Mr.. Smith announced that he
would rest his case, thus forcing the
de1endant's counsel to show their hand
This they did not hesitate to do and af-
ter asking for a recess of fifteen min
utes, which was granted by the court,
they repaired to the consultation room
to arrange the order for the presenta-
tlon Of their witnesses.
NAME SIGNED WITHOUT CONSENT.
The cnnrt resumed and Mr.. Daniel
Holman was placed upon the stand.
He swore that he did not sign the an
plication for the church meeting ard
that he did not authorize any one to sign
his name to sHch an application The
hrst he knew about the meeting was
the Monday after the Sunday that the
peper was alleged to have been signed
Henry q. Garter came TO his place of
business and told him that his name
had been signed to the application and
asked him If he would permit it to re-
main. He had const N ed to this. He
admitted having told Editor Mitchell
that he had not authorized the signing
Of + g name.
HAYDEN'S TESTIMONY.
Mr. Giles Hay den was placed ON the
witness stand and declared that he had
not signed the application for the meet
ing and that he had not authorized any
one to sign his name to ucb an appli-
cation.
He had refused to allowed Williams so
i to do. He had been threatened outside
in the corridors of the city hall during
this trial by persons who said that he
would be put in Jail if he made this
statement which statement was the
= ruth. He told of William s visit to mis-
residence in an effort to get him to sign
a statement that he did authorized his
name to be attached to such document.
He was subjected to rigid cross ex
animation but his statement was uu.
shaken.
CHAIRMAN JACKsoN's STATEMENT.
\ Deacon Benjamin jackson was place
a ed on the stand. He related the cir
cumstances In connection with the ap-
phcation for the meeting. He told of
the notification by Editor Mitchell of
ehe forgery of the names. He told of the
committee being appointed by the dea-
= eon board for the purpose of ascertaining
whether or not the charges Of forgery
were true. The committee investigated
the charges and reported that they were
true. He explained that he had ruled
that it required Is persons names in or
der to justify the deacon board in call
ing meeting. No one of the deacons