Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1913-06-05
HEARSAY EVIDENCE
BARRED BY COURT
Roosevelt Gains Victory in His
Libel Suit.
COUNSEL IN LONG WRENGLE
JUDGE Rules Out Testimony Based on
What Other Papers Printed
and What Other People
Heard.
COUNSEL IN LONG WR4NGLE

published reports that CoIonel Roose-
welt was addicted to excessive drink
ing and whether individuals heard
such reports. the court ruled Wednes'
day that such evidence cannot be ad-
nitted. This was considered by Colo
mel Roosevelt's attorney in the libel
suit against George A. Newett, editor
Of the Ishpeming Iron Ore, victory for
them. as it will exclude the so-called
hearsay evidence contained in many
depositiors Counsel for the defense
interpreted the ruling to permit wit
nesses to testify to the general repu-
tation" of Colonel Roosevelt with ref
erence to his personal habits.
The courts ruling was considered of
great import, because it affects what
was revealed during the arguments as
an underlying contention Of the de
tense.
In the absence of the jury during a
disputed point in testimony Attorney
BeIden said the defense would under
take to prove that general reports
were ia circulation to the effect that
Colonel Roosevelt used alcohol immod-
erately and that these reports excused
the editorial in the Ishpeming paper.
Counsel for the defense interpreted
the ruling of the court to permit wit
nesses to testify to the general repu-
tation" of Colonel Roosevelt with ref
erence to his personal habits.
The court indicated that the testl-
mony would not be permitted to run
off into discussion of incidents of po-
litical significance when he checked
the cross-questioning of John Z.
O'Laughlin, a newspaper correspond
ent, who was the colonefs secretary
during his European tour after the Al
rican hunt. The voyage of the battle
ship feet to the Orient and the project
ed visit of Colonel Roosevelt to the
pope was brought up, but the line of
questioning was very quickly sup
pressed by the Judge.
Although Colonel Roosevelt. return
Ing to Europe from his African hunt,
was obliged to attend banquets and
receptions rendered him by monarchs,
he never INDUCED in champagne to an
immoderate degree, according to the
testimony of O'Laughlin, VINO said he
had been associated with Colonel
Roosevelt for 20 years. The witness
said he met the former president on
the Nile afte~ the African hunt, and
accompanied him as far as Paris, act
ing as secretary to Mr.. Roosevelt.
Mr.. OLoughlin also accompanied the
fyin in
this country.
During your 20 years experience
with Colonel Roosevelt have you ever
seen him in the slightest degree under
the influence of liquor?
II not only never saw him under
the influence of liquor, but it seems
absolutely silly to me to have any one
suggest the fact that he ever has, re-
piled O'Laughlin emphatically.
AT banquets have you ever seen
him drink any liquor?"
AT banquets he sometimes took a
glass of white wine. / never saw
| him drink more than one glass of
| champagne"
MIR. OLaughlin described the vari-
Gus dinners, official and otherwise,
given at Washington, including din
ners at the Gridiron club
A question involving the custom of
former presidents in regard to liquors
at banquets caused objection by coun-
sci for the defense. The court held
it was competent for the plaintiff to
show whether Colonel Roosevelt fol-
| lowed custom in the use of liquor in
the White House.
O'Laughlin said his first experience
with presidents began with the Sec
ond Cleveland administration. and
| Colonel Roosevelt followed the prece-
dent of Presidents Cleveland and Nc
Kinley in serving wines at public din
ners.
Are you not in charge of some
work of the Progressive party?"
O'Laughlin was asked on cross-exam-
! ination.
Il am not" he answered.
II will ask you if in 1912 and for
some time prior there was not a gen
eral report among newspaper men
| that Colonel Roosevelt drank to ex-
/ cess?" asked Attorney Belden.
OLaUghlin, shaking his finger at
| the lawyer, replied: There was not
! a reputable correspondent in Wash
ington but who thought the report was
silly; too absurd to be regarded or re-
peated."
Counsel on both sides were on their
/ feet with regard to this reply and the
/ jury was excluded.