Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1910-09-24
CARRO[L'S CASE
MUST GO IO JURY
JUDGE HOWE REFUSES TO Di-
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 Carroll's Attack Was an
Official Aet-Caroli Does NOT Clam
Affidavit. Wore True-Judse Howes
sul;no Favors carrolrs Side.
to r,mes-Republican.

specia1 to Times Republican
pes Moines. Sept. 24.-Judge Howe
This morning overruled the motion OF
the attorneys for Governor Carron 10
take the libel case from the jury ana
,rs,ruct a verdict Of not guilty, and an
nounced his intention Of submitting 'iie
case to the Jury, both as to the Ia" anu
+na facts He denied the claim OF the
defandants as to the privileged char-
oc,er Of the communication. ana stat-
"a +,,+ under all the circumstances ne
would not be justified in saying ehae
+hera was no question to be submitted
to the jury.
ou.etions For tho Jury to Decide.
y, -eeard TO what he would do In
instructing the jury Judge Howe saiu'
..The Jury will be told OF tne colsl
tutional and statutory provisions
lating to criminal libel, ana inc taw
in relation thereto. as is usual ~ as.
of this character. The jury Will 10 ~
that the truth. If shown, OF any sIa.
ment or statements contalneu ~ 1.e
ar,ic1e upon which the indictment Is
based would constitute
80 such statement and no con-
vict,on could be predicated there
on. that the defendant, as governor
,ossessed the legal right to deterlnlne
tba manner of the discharge OF nus
official duties, and that his otticlai
acts are privileged and can not Do
-ada the basis of criminal prosecu-
tion for libel; that the general rule as
to self defense obtains insofar as ap-
plicable to the statements lssueu ~ -
defendant. and that when Governor
carrolPs character was attacked III liAe
omen letter Of Mr.. Cownie ne hao
right to defend it, similar 10 the Ilsn'
he would have had to defeno MS per
son had that been a1tacHeo' '-nA' 20
long as his acts consist only OF SEX
defense, he is not amenaole 10 .ae 4aw
of libel and can be held for libel IN
this case only in the event he exceeded
bis legal right, and himself became the
appressor. by mahciously hbehng the
comn,aintant as charged in the indlct-
ment.
a-The Jury will be told further that by
our constitutional provision the people
have reserved to themselves the right
of speaking thru a jury to deal with
the matter of criminal libel: that this
is not with view of punfshing 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 a
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
nave Slaled lAS SiAdA 6SS oAAAJ " sAAS
state senate.
That his claim o. 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 d1-
rect a verdict of not guilty for the fol-
living reasons:
lirst-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 q verdict of guilty
to stand II 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 thu 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-
fendant and therefore the article is
conclusively shown to have been JUS
tiffable.
Third-The evidence discloses with
out conflict that the article complained
Of and upon which the Indictment was
found was published under privileged
occasion and the state has failed to
show by any competent evidence that
the said article was published mahci-
ously, the burden being ON the state