The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-02-09
N4ksl3g11ghaG1
csaHHazZIZ::Y;2EZzKSlZz2ZTN2EaXdp
Bell Telephone fight he said there was

Bell Telephone fight he said there was
no such contract.
Saunders took fee without know
ing what he was to do. He was en-
ployed by Hunt Chipley to see certain
Councilmen in Clay Ward. They were
Aldermen Harman, Whittet and Seay.
and Councilmen Blanks, Gibson. Cot
trell, Miner and Winston. Two he didn't
see. So he got $1,000 for seeing six
men about a matter Of which he knew
nothing, Can you put that Oh the
same basis as where there was writ
ten contract? He had control as super
intcndcnt of Il ward, aud had a voice
in elections. though I don't impute that
any Clay Ward Councilman received
any of that money" He closed by Il
clear discussion of the courts instruc-
tons, and an appeal to the jury for
minimum damages.
Mr.. SCOTS Argument.
Mr.. Scott opened the final argument,
n logical discussion of more than two
hours duration. in which he nrst held
up the case for actual damages on the
ground of injury to the feelings. per-
son, business. family. standing and
reputation Of his client, and then punt
tive damages as warning and deter
rent 20 others.
viii you iurymen sanction By
small or minimum verdict matter
which the counsel for the other side
himself will not sanction by SO much
4 as Il word? At the opening OF my
| argument point to the fact that the
/ most skiiful LAWYER in Richmond, and
the ablest man I have ever encount-
cred in the trial of case, Charles V.
Meredith, with all his learning and
oht ~ n oil
unable to offer one word OF excuse.
II he can't do it, then | tell you that
nothing can be offered In their de-
fense."
II Mr.. Scott Went into a discussion Of
the law OF libel. and the injury done
by the distribution OF printed libel
when there was no one present to re-
flute or defend. As to the grand jury.
he quoted Chairman Charles +. Taylor
who had testified that in the investi-
! cation nothing had been proved against
I saunders.
And yet the counsel for Williams
and 1oder. admitting thu falsehood of
! their charges, bring here newspaper
references to that grand jury as their
justification, and YOU are asked to put
seal OF approval on foul ISLANDERS
and accused lies by nominal YER
dict! This publication was made, not
by = negro, an Ignorant person or a
felon, but by a man In the gulse of a
preacher who robbed heaven of It's liv-
cry In order that he NAV serve the
devil and his purposes and the Will
liamses printed what they believed to
he s!anderous unless Yoder could find
proof for his assertions, and then stood
here reiterating Falsehoods which you
knew We're fslsehoods.
Royal Proved Nothing.
Nowhere in those papers OF 1905, to
which so much reference has been
made. is there the name of Mr.. Saun-
ders save In the speech of Mr.. Royal
and Royal, with all his intensity,
makes no charge against him by name,
and even in those warm and strenuous
times when Montague and Martin
| fought for the senatorship and when
la grand jury sat twentythree days to
search out the truth and nndssome fact
. that would Justify a prosecution OF
| Saunders, because Royal was there
pressing that ordeal, yet he came out
unbesmirched With all the ability OF
Royal and his strong feeling on the
subject, don't you know he would have
brought fraud TO their attention II
there had been any9
MI Saunders has sworn that his
business fell off $4,000 In siS months.
This does not include the pain and
modification and mental suffering. for
which ! ask compensation. Election
was coming on. and he was held UP
TO foul Islander and infamy all day
long. to fight a losing battle for good
name and credit against a hell-inspired
and malicious falsehood, and the re-
suit OF the election shows the effect:
OF the foul perversion.
And that man had to go back to hi!
wife and tell her of the sings and ar
rows OF an outrageous fortune; hi