Richmond planet., 1903-01-24
VIRGINIA Stale LlBRARYl
RICHMOND

mas ruleQ that " WIS -Trfvil-
hsh it. W pun
This article was true II statad tb,
facts. There has been no one ON tbi,
witness stand who has denied that il
was true. 1 give you proof, 1 give Won
written proof that no one has CHARGED
that 1T was false; Nelson Williams II is
it is So A'i
CITED THE CHARGE.
First Baptist Chucrh,
To John Mitchell, Jr.,
Dear Brother
You are hereby summoned to our
next church meeting, the first Monday
night IN August, 1901, to show cause
why the hand of fellowship should not
be withdrawn from you, upon the fol
lowing charges
Brother John Mitchell, Jr., is hereby
charged with publishing the pri-ate Ief
ter of Rev. Johnson to the church and
the business of the church in Clisrapard
OF the church polity and the authority
Oh the Baptist Church, same appearing
III the Planet Of July 9th, 1901.
Nelson Williams, Jr."
Done oy ORDER or the church July Is, '01
isSN. l. IL DriSSS, CHAIRMAN.
h. L. Nandervall Church Clerk.
Not that he falsely published, but
that he had published the letter of the
pastor and the business of the church,
QUESTION FOR THE JURY
If Nelson Williams makes the charge.
are you to aggravate it, or is nv friend
smith to aggravate it ? 1 stand up ON
Nelson Williams platform but for mo-
ment; no false publication, but he had
published the business of the church.
he was guilty of publishing a letter
addressed to $500 people. 1 was public
letter and His Honor tells you that he
had right to publish it.
For this Mitchell was excluded from
the church. Not single word that Mitch
ell said was false. it is admitted that
what he said was true, and vet for this
he was exc uded from the church on
motion of this man williams.
THE CASE EXPLAINED
I'll explain this case and then see if
you will take money from the pocket of
one and give it TO the,other
First, the defense is justified as to
Jones, Hayden and Holman
Second, the defense proposes to saw
that 1t was q privileged communication.
Now, says His Honor, if this man Will
hams presented that paper, / was iusti-
fled IN making any statement in connec-
ton with that publication. And again
hrst, i made those publications; second,
believe they were true-that was JUS
tilted IN making any such publication in
order TO protect myself
Now says the court / have got a right
to make any attempt Co defend myself,
you have a right to do it. If it be true
what Nelson Williams says then there
was no private malice.
PROTECTED THE WIFE.
The counsel referred to the fact that
we dragged in this court the wife of
Williams. 1t is shown that John
Mitchell protected Williams wife.
No where in the PLANET can a line be
found referring to the trouble in the
Grand Court. 1t was only when forced
to do so upon the witness stand and in
the protection of his own interest that
Mitchell told of the shortage by Will
Jams wife in the Grand Court.
1t is shown that the shortage was paid
by check drawn by Nelson Williams,
Jr.
Mitchell must not only be driven out
of this church but he must surrender a
little pittance that he has been able to
make during all of these years. don't
speak of the christian spirit now, l am
being tried by human tribunal have
the right to strike back
STAND JUSTIFIED.
His Honor tells you that we have the
right. Did we do it too much? Here we
stand justified in making this publicat-
ion. Here stands Williams dragging in
the church and he appears here as its
champion If did not do it too much
then l am justified.
Then on justification if publish it too
much, you are to give punitive damages
4 me down to the fact whether he was
justified and see if Williams is entitled
TO receive even $100 damages.
His Honor says if, he continues the
attack upon me can continue to publish,
If he stops then l stop. John Mitchell
makes publication, publishing both
sides. John Mitchell publishes what
Prof Jones says concerning his utter
anceS.
A STRAIGHT FORWARD STATEMENT.
Then came a meeting of the deacons,
who knows what took place?
GOhu0hdH lS SIl66ESl dJ DeCduSe he
sells fish ISM t it an honorable calling to
sell fish? He made a plain, straight
forward statement on the witness stand
and his testimony has not been contra
dicted.
Nelson Williams said he had nothing
to do with this call, and yet not a wit
ness here has sustained him. He made
a statement that not even his own wit
neSseS back him in
Nelson Williams sat down on the seat
and did nothing. That one of the
females, "that fieshy sister, as Mr..
Smith describes her, showed him to the
front Therefore we have Nelson
Williams denying the purpose for which
he called this meeting There was the
private malice to injure man who was
painfully called upon to make his wife
refund the money which she had mis-
appropriated.
WOULD NoT STATE HIS PURPOSE.
Well what was the result? The result
was to turn him out the object was To