Norwich bulletin., 1914-07-01
JURY FAILS TO REACH VERDICT
Unable to Agree in craney Donovan Sander SuitDe- liberated Over Three Hours-Reported at 7:I5 Tues day Nght-Judse Shumway Will Have the Twelve Men Continue Their Deliberations Today.

ter o'clock, when Judge Milton A. Shumway finished his charge which occupied 50 minutes.
 At Is minutes after the jurymen returned to the court room and report ed to Judge Shumway that they had been unable to reach an agreement upon a verdict. The judge excused them until 10 o'clock this morning and allowed them to depart to their homes They will come together again this morning to consider the case further. This is the last jury trial at this ses- sion of the court.
 When court came in on Tuesday morning. which was the seventh day of the trial Attorney Joseph T. Fan ming made the first argument for the plaintfff, speaking for 65 minutes and claiming that $10,0OO would moi he an excessive amount to be awarded MT. Craney for the damages which he claims to have received
 According to the court regulations each side was given two hours for argument The spectators seats held about To men during the day and all gave close attention to the Arguments MT Craney. the plaintiff. was in court all day but MT Donovan, the. defend ant. did not put in an appearance Neither were either MT. or Mrs. Will lard A. Church present.
 Attorney John H. Barnes for the defendant followed Attorney FAnnine and concluded his argument at about lO minutes after noon. He claimed that MT. Donovan had proved all he claimed and should be vindicated.
 Attorney c. w. Comstock for the defendant occupied the rest of the time until l o'clock recess and then resumed for g minutes after dinner. He spent much time with the part Mrs. Church had with the case and quoted few lines of poetry which he said were applicable to her.
 Attorney Roderick M Douglass made the closing argument for the plaintiff. He spoke for few minutes short of an hour and made his chief argu- ment of the claim that the testimony or MT Donovan had been proved un- worth of credence. He had a few lines of poetry to match Attorney Comstock, quoting Shakespeare mon the irreparable damage done in steal Ing mans good name. He also laid considerable emphasis upon the let ters in the case and claimed that MT. Donovan wrote all of them.
 In giving his charge to the jury Judge Shumway told them that if they found for the plaintiff they would find Tor general damages and would not nave to particularize an amount for each of the four counts in the com plaint. He took up the difference be- tween islander and libel and told the Jury lHdt the QeIenOant admitted the words quoted in two of the counts but denied another count but claimed what he said was true and the fudge said that the burden was on the de- fendant to prove the truth of the de- famatory statements that he had made. He said that the allegation Of adultery is ibelous and slanderous and that the law presumes that the publication of an article slanderous per SC is without malice and that ab- Sence' of malice is never a complete defense.
 Requests to Charge.
 Counsel for both sides had handed to the judge before he made his charge the points upon which they made requests to charge:
 Plaintiffs Request.
 After defining islander and libel, the attorneys for the plaintiff made the following requests to charge: In order to sustain an action of islander or libel the words spoken or written or the matter of any other kind published, which is complained of must be false and the utterance or publication must have been prompted by malice
 As to Malice.
 Malice does not necessarily mean spite or hatred: in it's broad sense it is that state of mind or feeling which prompts an individual to do as act whereby another is injured or may be , injured, wrongfully and intentionally without just cause or excuse. Malice will be implied and presum- ed from the mere publication or ut i terance of words which are in them selves llbelous or slanderous. especial ly if the words are false To show malice it is sufficient to show that the defendant was actuated by improper n lIr1in let h l. the words complained of or making the publication which is the subject of the action.
 The defendant is allowed to prove the truth of the words uttered or writ ! ten if he can do so. and the truth, ii established. will justify him in what h. has done; but Justification is a suc- cessful defense only when the de- fendant proves upon the trial that the plaintiff was guilty, and the plea a,I defense of Justification of the plain tiff of the acts charged against hin Is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Suspicion by the defendant that the plaintiff committed the acts in ques- ton Is not justification which would free the defendant from the oblIga- tion of paying damages. The only suspicion which defendant might ha se ] of the plaintiffs guilt which might avail the defendant in the matter 0. reducing the damages Is such reason | able suspicion as might arise Tn fair and unprejudiced mind from facts l and circumstances fairly calculated ol tending, to establish the plaintirrs guilt
 Upon the counts in The complaint 1T which the defendant has admitted t'ic truth of his statements. if tha jurA lind that the statements were false a= claimed by the plaintiff, the piaIrtif Is entitled to such damages as would be a compensation for the injury sus- tained as the natural or probable con | sequences of the islander or libel. Tie damages would be what the tacss U, l the case would justify.
 If the jury find the allegation con | tained in the fourth count to be true | or to be true substantially as aieEe1 then it may be said that, upon all :i.t counts of the complaint, if the J1ry 1 finds that the statements charging rht plaiEeiff with committing crime were | false, the plaintiff is entitled to sucf damages as would be a compensation ! for the injury sustained as the naturL | or probable consequences of the slaud. CT and libel. The damages awar.ief should be what the facts of the cast would justify.
 ! Malice Implied.
 When the statements uttered or pub. i lished in a case in which lfbsl aTt 1 islander are alleged are false and sucl 1 statements contain the charge that z l crime or crimes were committed l which involves moral turpetude whicl | would or might subject the plaintiff ! to imprisonment the malice of the de | fendant, is implied and to enable thu tw@ls. .fw.%s a. r..