Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1903-10-22
ederal Jury at Rutland Find
Him Not Guilty Of Slander.
ing s. d. Wilson. @
PLAINTIFF DISSATIS : I'd
kks That Verdict BE Set Asit q Find
inE of the Jury Causes No : g Use
In Rutlnnd-Judge Nheelcr's
Charge-Grand Jury Reports
Ii True Bills Found.

Rutland. Oct. 2l.-In the SANDER case /
Fought by Samuel d. Wilson against Per-
val w. Clement, the jury in the United
[ates circuit court late tins afternoon re.
Irned a verdict freeing the defendant |
ON a charge OF using sanderous words. |
alleged by the plaintiff. The paintln
Fixed that the verdict he set aside. Three
'guments and the judges charge in the
hse were made to-day. There was quite
display OF oratory. Mr.. Clement was in /
urt listening to his lawyers address to
be jury this morning the first time since
Z vas on the witness stand. on the 9TH
hand the plaintiff has been in attend
hce every minute of the trial assisting his
torneys materially The verdict causes
b surprise here.
At the opening of the court this morn
g the grand jury reported IA true bills
bund and two not found.
THE JUDGES CHARGE.
Judge Hoyt IA. Wheeler began his
large to the jury shortly after three
clock, speaking % minutes He said in
brit:
II wish to remind you that you are
bt discussing any question of politics
any one idea but you are trying the
vii right between two men. You must
bnsider the right of the plaintiff and the
frinpement on that right, il there be
hy, ana determine WHAT "Oulu Ne " Ian
bmpensatlon.
YOU are not prohibitionists or high
cense men. but just a jury to try the
use according to law As to the right
free speaking, our forcfathers were so
areful that When they loliheu me coll-
tuition of the state they put IN mat
eople should have the llght TO express
themselves on public quesuons' ana the
ght to meet together to discuss any
iestion of general interest. So. MIR Glenn
ht had the full right to hold ana adoress
heetngs and to express MS sentiments
Jncerning the transactions OF the govern
Ient in any fair way. But WINE thIS Is
b. he did not have the right to charge
le plaintiff with any crime.
Free speech consists of expressing one
EFF on all public questions ana "len tile
efendant began to charge the p'alhti1
With murder, if he DID. ms freedom OF
peech ended. lie could not 10 IL W'H""t
lcurring civil liabilities. we all nave
ght to go where we please ana ne iFCe
rom attack. The character OF man Is
(art of his personal properly. Inc ohiN
Question Is whether Mr Clement wrongly
ttacked the plalntln by speaking tne
'ords charseu anu Il ne ""9' nv 80 ''''"'1
1t Is WrOng to attack IA man charac-
or by charging crime eltncr ny nISlhud-
ion or by direct words. IL M tlelllehl
harged the plaintiff with being muir
erer or said that murder had been com
nitted IN reference TO "hhl u"e mn ,'..
III so that any nearer khe" Wlid' M"a
neant that will make case ne ia't
hat Mr.. Clement did not kllo" ne plai
if made no difference II the utlei''iaI NJ
sed words showing u'at ne roloIieu u
he piantlI .,..-.
Murder is Dig CRIME anu 10 o"' -
to a man is 10 MAKE an d''a' ul'"i lI HIa
haracter. 80 the HrSl l'llHE 10 "''tUV ~
lid MIR, Clement Speak tite "oI"' 'He7eu
20 that those VINO ne!n~ l.iili p' Il'
Won don't think so. find a verdict for
he detehdaht rlsir 'n,i' -, t,,,', tr('..a
hon or sups Nl5'M ~ '',''' % ,,ol
no heard MN ,'ioe, atoo1 80, " "'''''' '''
hen ma lot tne !'!ai'tii' - .,,i. ,.,.o r,.
There Is no JuS'"'t" ll,ii 80 ,l,,, l,a
ne defehdaiit mas ~ ,.,1t ,,,.., tr,,l
Rords cnarseu 10 -il ~ ,.,,,,,a wit
lNruer Is kllllHS d i'''". 49,. T. ,,,,,
malice ana Ioie'l.'"6i'. ~ tl,+ ,boso
ne IN thc cd7c l''i' ~ ,1 t,,d -
xisted. II there wa ~" T"'N ,.,.
lerdlct Tor the uelci','''' - -" t,o da,.-
eated the WORDS III S""9l GO N'
aratlon alleges ,r.,,.
IF your Ntndlrt IL i"i VIC f.
why that ends the inquiry II ~ - w. iDl
t,att q q =