The Washington herald., 1909-03-17

After dragging along for several weeks.
the termination OF the libel suit brought
by United States Attorney Baker against
Bralnard H. Warner Is now IN sight.
The plainuns opening statement 10 the
jury was made yesterday afternoon. and
unless some unforeseen event transpires
the verdict as TO the character and
amount OF damages to which Mr. Baker
is entitled. under the ruling Of the court
that the article in question constitutes
a libel per Sc. viii be announced to-day.
Technical Arguments.
Little testimony was taken yesterday.
and the greater part OF Jne morning ses-
sion was devoted 10 the consideration Of
the prayers presented By each side. and
10 spirited technical arguments between
counsel. IN which ths forceful elOquence
OF Mr.. Davis. counsel for the plaintiff.
was pitted in a legal battle. against the
keen analysis and relentless logic Of At
torney Darlington. for the defense.
SO intense and absorbing cid the dis
cussion OF the law OF libel and the rela-
tionship between intent and malice be-
come that the court did not adjourn for
the noon hour until nearly 100 clock.
The feature Of the afternoon session
was the opening argument 10 the jury
by Attorney Frank J. Hogan. junior
counsel for the plaintin- Seldom has the
jury Of Circuit Court No. . been treated
TO a more vociferous peroratiOn. With
the ardor OF a high school sophomore
brimming over with memorized passages
from DemOstheRes. philippics. or Cicero's
orations. Mr.. Hogan. summoning all the
energy and voice at his command,
launched forth in an impassi0ned IN
vect-ve against the evils Of libel, which
infect the body polite Ike an insidiOUs
poison
Vivid Word Pictures.
He attempted to impress upon the jury
the great responsibility which rested upon
them. 10 rescue the community from
this dire evil. by granting a suitable COM
pensation 70 his client. In vivid col0rs.
and sharp contrasts, he made a word
picture Of the defendant. as IN embodi-
ment OF vice and OF the plaintln as the
personifcation OF all that is virtuous.
Thief. pickpocket. assassin. and .nur-
deTer. were some OF the subjects Of the
J figures Of speech in which he made com
T parsons with inan who sought excuse
TO- a lbelous article On the ground Of
I TX of intent 90 libel "HOunded by
/ preachers, press. Commissioners. aud
/ elements I'm the community he said. the
district attorney, firm in the conviction
that he was right, had refused TO prose
cute the bookmakers."
Epithets Used.
A witness who sold out" and was
made out "a miserable wretch and cru
elf e. by Mr.. Warmers testimony. the
foul brain that conceived the libel" the
foul hand that wrote il 90 who gave him
the lie direct," facts that would make
the stomach Of honest men gurgitate,,
were few OF the expressions which were
hurled ar the jury by Mr.. Hogan
Speaking OF Judge Gould, he declared
that the defendant had no more respect
for the erTnine than 70 couple his name
with that OF the district attorney in this
article
At the morning session George ". Es-
terley. deputy auditor OF the state De-
I partment, was called as a witness bv
the defense 10 testify that Mr. Krou, an
enploye Of the Government Printing Of
fee. had called al his Office with Mr.
Warner in reference 70 a transfer several
months before the date on which [ron
vas asked by letter 70 come TO Warner 5
Office in regard 10 the primary campaign
in Montgomery County
Tired Me Out.-
Mr. Warner was called 10 the stand.
and testified that Mr.. KrolI had been
20 -
getting him a promotion that he quite
| tired me out"
On croSs-examination Nj Davis con-
( tinually referred 10 this remark, and
asked why, II the witness was tired
out" he wrote TO Kroll inviting him 70
come 10 his Office. Mr.. Krou was called
/ again, and denEd that ne went to the
Office OF Mr. Esterley with Mr. Warner.
B. II. Warner. IT., was then called, and
1 IN his testimony contradicted AIr Krol
/ The more testimony that was taken on
this subject the more confusing il be-
came, and It was finally abandoned by
/ each side.
Before the termination Of the morning
session. Chief Justice Clahaugh rendered
1 his decision on the motion made by Mr..
I Darlington on the day previous TO in
Z struct the jury TO render a verdict for
/ the defendant He held thar the motion
was not made at the proper time. but
might be made after the verdict was
rendered as a motion in arrest OF judg-
ment.
( In the six years In which he had pre-
sided over the Circuit Court, he said that
/ he rad never had this question raised
| before
Try ROse-Mlnt Tooth Powder.