The Washington herald., 1909-03-09
LIBEL SUIT STATUS
DECIDED BY COURT
Demurrer Filed for the Plain
tiff Is Sustained.
EXTENDED ARGUMENTS MADE
Jury Is Excluded, While Contentious
Are Raised and Diseussed-Chief
Justice CIabHuEh Makes Complete
Review of Case, So Far as Inter
probation Is Concerned.

/ - (.
/ but with the question and extent OF the
| compensatory or exemplary damages still
TO be decided by the jury. is the status
OF the suit brought by United States
Attorney Baker against Brainard H
Warner for $4,000 damages. The hear
| ing was adjourned yesterday afternoon
until 10 O'Clock to-day.
After extended arguments by counsel
for each side. during which the jury
was instructed to leave the court room,
Chief Justice Clabaugh sustained the
demurrer made by Attorney Davis. OF
counsel for the plaintiff, as TO the ad-
INSTABILITY Of testimony offered by At
torney Darlington. for Mr.. Warner. in
proof OF the facts alleged in his opening
statement TO the Jury.
In deciding this point. Chief Justice
Clabaugh made a complete review OF
tho case. so far as the courts inIerpreta-
ton Of the alleged libelous article is con-
cerned. he declared that If the article
were capable OF more than one intorpreta-
ton by reasonably intelligent men Il
would be his duty 20 submit 10 the jury
the question OF which Interpretation was
the proper one: but that when IN the
opinion OF the court the article IN ques-
ton was susceptible OF but one inter
pretation. it then became his duty to de-
eide upon the question Of law.
I can make only one thing out OF f."
he said. adding that the question of
where the money came from that was
used in the Pearre campaign by United
States Attorney Baker had the same sig
nihcance to his mind as II Il were said
directly that It came from the race
track.
Atmosphere Material.
At the opening OF the hearing yester-
day Mr.. Darlington argued that the at
mosphere Of the case was material to
the issue, and should be considered by
the jury in deciding the question OF
damages. provided the court should hold
that the article in question was Iibelous
per sc.
He then introduced as evidence a copy
OF The Washington Herald OF March :,
and started TO read an editorial entitled
"Washington's Disgrace" Mr.. Davis.
counsel for the plainun sprang 10 his
feet Immediately and offered objection, on
the ground that this editorial was hear
say and everything else" One OF the
attorneys present made the remark that
this was the broadest objection he had
ever heard offered in a court room. This
objection renewed the question OF the
demurrer offered by Mr.. Davis last Tues
day, and after the jury was dismissed
the argument of counsel began.
Mr.. Darlington contended that every
thing which went TO show the condition
of affairs at the time the article was
p- llished. and under which its meaning
should be interpreted. was germane to the
case. and should be admitted in evidence. |
If the court later decided that the article |
was libelous in itself, he declared this |
evidence should be submitted 20 the fury, /
so that they might decide the character !
Of damages. whether compensatory or eX- I
emplary, and likewise the amount 70 be 4
awarded.
Questions for the Jury.
Extraneous circumstances are admissa-
bic, he said further. IN order for the Jury
TO decide whether the inference OF malice /
was conclusive. whether there was reck-
less Indifference to the plaintiffs rights. |
whether a state Of feeling existed between /
the parties to the suit, and whether there
was failure on the part Of the defendant (
TO exercise reasonable care in ascertaining
the truth or falsity OF his statements.
In the midst Of this argument Col. /
George A. Pearre. Representative from /
the Sixth district Of Maryland in whose /
interest United States Attorney Baker and /
Justice GoulG had made the famous trip !
10 Rockville, entered the court room. An
attendant, who recognized him. rushed /
up with a chair, and thOughtlessly placed !
Il right along side Of that Of Mr. Warner,
who was Col PeaTre's opponent in the ;
bitter primary contest for the nomination
last summer Some amusement was ere
ated IN the court room as Representative
Pearre picked Up the chair. carried * 70
the other end OF the table, ana took a
seat by the side OF Mr.. Baker.
After the noon adjournment. when the
jury returned. James T. Purdum. Of Mont
gomery County. was called TO the witness
stand, under agreement Of counsel that
his testimony should be received by the
defense. subject to objection IN case the
court later ruled that It was inadmissable.
Money for Campaign.
Mr.. Purdum testified that he was pres
snt at the Rockville meeting, and that
Mr.. Baker asked him and other men from
the several districts in the county what
the chances were Of carrying them
against Mr.. Warner. He told Mr.. Baker.
he said, that with money It might be
done. He testified, furthermore. that Mr..
Baker took him out in the hall and told i
iist Blair to give him $50. with the un-
that he was later to receive
80 more. He said, upon cross-examina-
ton. that there was but one set Of dele
gates from his district, and that they
vent TO the Rockville convention unin-
structed.
The jury was then dismissed once again.
md counsel for the plaintiff resumed their
In support Of their demurrer.
dr. Hogan cited many decisions In ex-
the law Of Hbel as applied TO
he case in question, and Mr. Davis made
! forceful argument, in which he con-
ended that the alleged lbelOus article
vas capable OF but one Interpretation. and
hat It impugned the honor Of the district
-ttorney. He declared that it was a pleas
lse TO him TO defend Mr.. Baker, who. In
efusing to yield 70 strong pressure to
'rosecute the race track gamblers, had
one exactly as he had done on a former ,
occasion wheP he occupied the Office OF
United States affor-pav II