Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1910-09-24
CARROLL'S CASE
MUST Go 70 JURY
u,ncE HOWE REFUSES TO d.
RECT VERDICT FOR DEFEND.
ANT IN LIBEL SUIT.
SAWS LAW AND FACTS
ARE QUESTIONS FOR JURY
Ono Question For Jury to Decide is as
70 Whether CAROLS Attack Was an
oH;e;,, Aet-caroll Does Not Claim
Affidavit. Were True-Judse he"es
eu,;no Favors CAROLS Side.
- r,nes.Republican.

Special to Times Republican
Des MONIES. Sept. 24.-Judge Ho"e
.h,s morning oyerruled the motion OF
the attorneys for Governor Carroii ~
take the libel case from the jury siiu
instruct a verdict Of not guilty ana an
nounced his intention Of submitting 'iie
case TO the Jury, both as to the ia" anu
the facts He denied the Claim -
defendants as to the privileged cii"'
o,+.r NJ the communication. and stat
ed that under all the circumstances ne
would not be justified in saying 'ha'
there was no question to be suoiii'''eN
to the jury.
Questions For tho Jury to Decide.
In regard to what he would 90 ~
,nstructing the jury Judge Howe salu'
.The Jury will be told OF the cohsei-
+u,ional and statutory provisions re-
,..;ne to criminal libel, ana lhe "a"
;r relation thereto, as is usual III CASES
of ,bis character. The jury Will be tolo
that the truth, If shown, or any saa
ment or statements contained AZ l4.o
ar1icle upon which the indictment IS
hased would constitute oeiehse
- such statement and no con-
y;ct,on could be predicateo there
an. that the defendant. as governor
possessed the legal right to oetel.n t,
4be manner of the discharge ol ii.1
official duties, and that ms oii-e,A.
acts are privileged and can not 10
made the basis of criminal prosecu-
ton for libel; that the general rue d
10 self defense obtains insofar as ap-
',..ohl. ~ the statements issued by the
defendant, and that when Govern
c.rroll,s character was attacked IN lhe
o,an lerter Of Mr. Cownie he had
7ioht to defend it, similar TO the Tlsh-
he would have had to defeno ms pei
SON had that been attacked '-naI 50
long as his acts consist only OF a sen
defense. he Is not amenable 70 the law
~ libel and can be held for libel IN
mis- case only in the event he exceeoeo
his legal right, and himself became liio
aegressor, by maliciously hoenhs tne
complainant as charged III the iiio'S
ment.
The jury will be told further mat Ds
our constitutional provision the people
hove reserved to themselves the right
of speaking thru a jury to deal with
the matter of criminal libel: that this
is not with a view of Furnishing the
Innocent. but in order TO give the jury
greater latitude to say whether the ac-
cused should be punished or whether In
view of the circumstances OF the case
the interests of society will be sub
served by acquittal."
The Issues Involved.
The principal Issues raised by the
defense are:
That Governor Carroll was privileged
in publishing the charges against Cow
ME.
That the article published by the
governor was not libelous in itself.
That no testimony has been intro
duced by the state showing malice on
the part Of the governor.
The main contentious OF the state
are:
That Governor Carroll was privi-
legged in no degree in publishing
single one of the charges against Cow
ME.
That his published letter answering
Cownie's statement was libelous per Sc.
That Governor Carroll overstepped
his right and showed malice in telling
editors and politicians of the charges
against Cownie. and that he should
have stated the charges only to the
state senate.
That his claim OF privilege. under
the law, is an admission on his part
that he believed the charges made
against Cownie were untrue.
Other questions were raised by both
sides but these were the main ones
argued to the court by counsel for
each side.
pefense's Motion for Verdict
The motion for directed verdict
was in seven sections. and as dictated
irto the record by Judge Parker for
the defense, is as follows:
Now at the conclusion of the taking
Of the testimony in behalf of the state
the defendant moves the court to di-
rect a verdict of not guilty for the fol-
10 wing reasons:
.rirst-There is no sufficient evidence
upon which the jury would be war
ranted in returning verdict of guilty
in this case, and no sufficient evidence
upon which the court would be war
ranted in permitting verdict Of guilty
to stand If one should be returned in
this case.
Second The evidence discloses
without conflict that the article was
published in strict reply to an attack
made by Cownie upon the character
and official conduct OF the defendant
who was then governor of the state Of
Iowa, and the said reply did not go be-
yond and was germane to the charges
made by John .Cownie against the de-
PENDANT and therefore the article is
conclusively shown to have been JUS
tifiable.
Third-The evidence discloses with
out conflict that the article complained
of and upon which the Indictment was
found was published under a privileged
occasion and the state has failed to
show by any competent evidence that
the said article was published malci-
ously. the burden being on the state