Arizona republican., 1909-07-19
Order ca
 Dozen from Your AX%E Local Druggist h

that Judge Johnstone was quite courteous and fair to and with MT. Anderson, and no exception whatever could be taken to his word or action. I think MT. Anderson has no criticism of Justice Johnstone. What seemed to incense him most, was that an offense, seemingly. had been commit ed by some one, and though not committed by him, the suspicion rested on him, and he could get no public official to attempt to bring the guilty man to justice.
 Relative to the conclusion of Mir. Lyman, to not approve of the com plaint, I cannot, and have no desire to criticise. His reasons. however. for the conclusion reached. are err roneous. and as the attorney for MT. Anderson. l would not be doing my full duty. if I did not attempt to prove them such.
 Tn his interview in the Democrat. MT. Lyman says: 'To be libelous, a statement must have been spread broadcast" That assertion is not in keeping with the provisions of our Statutes, as will be seen from Sec tion PA, Criminal Code of the Re- vised Statutes of 1901. which reads as follows: TO sustain a charge of publishing a libel, it is not necessary that the words or thing complained of should have been read or seen by another It is enough that the ac- cused knowingly parted with the i'm mediate custody of the libel, under circumstances which exposed it to be read or seen by any other person than himself MT. Neis having en- closed the letter in an envelope and posted it for carriage to the Buckeye Lumber company. knowingly parted with it under circumstances which exposed it to be read or seen by some person in charge of the mail for the Buckeye Lumber company, which un- der the quoted provision is sufficient publication At the time of the re- ceipt of the letter in controversy. MT. Anderson was in Flagstaff, and MT. Bahr. the general manager, and Mrs. Anderson, were authorized to open mail and they did open this particu- lar letter. and placed it on file with other letters. where it was possible for any one of the employees to read it at any tiHP There can then be no question whatever of the suffici- ency of the publication, and Mr. Ly- man has misinterpreted the law.
 Another portion of Mir Lyman's interview needs attention. He says: had Anderson remained silent no one but himself and Neis would have known of the check incident That is not in keeping with the facts. for on or before July End, J. P. Graham informed an employe of the Buckeye Lumber company that MT. Neis was charging that the check had been raised, and on the same date, MT Bahr, manager of the company ad- dressed a letter to Mir Neis, asking him to bring in the check. which request was not complied with. On the following day. July 3rd. the letter in controversy was received and opened by Mir. Bahr. Further MT. Lyman says: Evidently he did not think Mir. Anderson raised the check for he continued to do business with him, etc. Mir. Bahr, manager of the company, when asked today if that was correct, said: The only business Mir. Neis has done with this com pany for some time. was the handing over of the check in question. in the sum of $25.17. given in part payment of his indebtedness to this company
 As to the question of friendship or enmity between Mir. Lyman and MT. Anderson, I know nothing, not having been the attorney for MT Anderson at the time of the incl
  the ill-feeling. 1 hope there is nc enmity between them. and believe when this incident is closed. they will realize there are no differences be- tween them