The Washington herald., 1909-03-16
OPPOSING COUNSEL
HAVE LIVELY TILTS
Unusual Motion Made in Ba.
keP Libel Suit.
SEARCHING FOR PREfDENTS
Mr.. Darlington Asks Court to In
struct Jury to Give Verdict for De-
fense-Warner TestineS ns TO His
sons Activities at ROekvIHe-Let-
ters Are Placed In Evidence.

After a lively session, in which wit
nesSes hauy contradicted each other And
counse. fer the opposing sides ''reseu1ed"
the impuJatioLs which flew oack and
forth. and aEologized to the court for
their heated remarks. and even tho chief
justice LOST for a few moments his ac-
customed equanimity. the hearing OF the
Baker-Warner libel suit was brought to
an adjournment yesterday afternoon by
an unusual motion on the part of Mr.
Darlington. praying the court TO instruct
the jury to render a verdict for the de-
fense.
Mr.. Darlington's motion. which came
as a surprise. and set counsel for the
plaintiff 10 work searching records for
precedents. was in effect that the declara-
ton was defective.
Consists of Three Parts.
A libel suit. he said. consists Of three
parts, the inducement. in which offer is
made to prove what is alleged. the col
loQuium. which alleges the publication OF
the words that constitute the offense. and
connects them with the plaintiff. and the
innuendo. which is used to point out the
application OF the injurious statements TO
the person aimed at.
The rule Of law is. he continued. that
the cause Of action must be stated, and
cannot be ebed out by innuendo.
The declaration in this case. he said.
nowhere claims that the words upon
which action is brought make any refer
ence TO the refusal Of the district attOr-
ney 70 prosecute the race track gamblers,
or 10 the source from which the plaintiff
obtained money for use in the political
campaign in Montgomery County.
All Of these averments he said, are left
entirely 10 the innUendo, which is merely
explanatory of the matter mentioned be
fore and is not subject of proof
Chief Justice Claybaugh declared that
the motion was like a demurrer 10 the
declaration. and should have been made
at the beginning Of the hearings. Il or
no other Judge wants 10 sit throughout a
long trial and have such a motion made
al the end OF it he said. He reserved his
ruling on the motion until this morning at
70 o'clock. when the hearing viii be re-
sumed. II is expected that the suit viii
terminate to-day
Offer to supply Funds.
The case opened yesterday morning with
the cross-eXaminatiOn of Mr.9 Warner by
Mr.. Davis, counsel for plaintiff. Mr.. War
ner was asked If he did not. on a former
occasion, request Mr. Baker TO support
him in his efforts 10 secure the Con-
gressional nomination, and offer to supply
the funds necessary 10 defray all ex-
penses.
Il most certainly did not, and / am
astounded that Mr. Baker would make
such a statement" declared Mr.. Warner.
emphaticauy. Asked from whom he
learned Of what transpired al the Rock
willie meeting. attended by Mr.. Baker
and Justice Gould, on March p, 1905. he
answered that he heard it directly from
James T. Purdum. A. A. BraddOck, and
B. II. Warner, jr., and indirectly from
many others.
Wasn't your son in Rockville in your
behalf. and with your knowledge and
APPROVAL asked Mr.. Davis.
Fuss, with Mr.. Baker.
only so far as a son naturally looks
after the interests Of his father He told
me he had a fuss with Mr.. Baker. and
1 reprimanded him. and said 1t was an
undignihed thing 70 Go"
Were you actuated in publishing this
article by what your son told you took
place at Rockville"
No" replied Mr. Warner.
rs II not a fact" asked Mr. Davis.
that your son reported TO you that he
and Mr.. Baker had a coIloquy. IN which
your son announced, We will get even
with you. We will drag you from your
ofice'?"
He said no such thing" replied Mr..
Warner
In spirited argument between counsel
as to the relevancy OF some Of Inis Ques-
tiOning. Mr.. Davis snapped e. Mr. Dar-
lingtOn. who seemed not 20 understand
what counsel for the PLAINTIFF was trying
10 say: 7 supposed there was no intel
lect within reach OF my voice that could
fail 20 understand what I said"
Letters In Evidence.
Letters written by Mr.. Warner 10 the
Attorney General were next offered in
evidence In these nAIr. Warner COM
planned OF the ''pernicious activity OF
the district attorney. and appealed to the
department TO take some action in the
matter.
Former Attorney General Bonaparte
replied that If it were pointed out to him
just where Mr.. Baker had violated or
ders OF the President, he would call upon
him for an explanation.
The question then arose as 10 when Mr.
Warner first received intfmation that the
article published might be Hbelous. Mr.
Davis asked him II the same article had
not been refused by another paper Of the
city on this ground. Mr.. Warner replied
in the negative. and said he thought the
article in question. which was not the
same as that alleged to be Hbelous was
refused for publication because Of the
friendship Of the paper for some of the
persons concerned.
In the colloquy between counsel regard
ing these questions, Mr.. Davis remarked
to Mr.. Darlington: MY friend must be
out OF condition. or his breakfast has not
agreed with him
After Mr.. Darlington declared that
counsel for the plaintiff "garbled" Mr..