The Irish standard., 1915-02-20

vile things that We're to be said about
the priests or the Catholic Church: he
confessed The Menace dealt only
with the vile stories circulated about
the Catholic Church, her priests and
sisterhoods
He was then questioned about the
story of Father Rossman and on what
authority it was published. He said
the story was sent to them by sub.
scrlber in Wheeling, whose name he
could not recall and could not find in
the files at the office. He knew moth.
ing about the subscriber or his rea-
son for sending the story. The Menace
has no regular correspondent in Wheel
ing, according to Mr.. Brown, and
when the story came it was not in.
vestigated, although Mr.. Brown had
previously stated I'VE usually make
some investigation" Mr.. Brown was
then questioned closely about the
proof he had for wheeling friends"
and for some facts about the detec.
tive and the robbery of The Menace
Office. Although his attorneys in their
opening declaration promised to prove
that Father Rossman had hired a de-
tective to make away with certain
papers necessary for The Menace to
properly defend itself" Mr.. Brown
knew nothing of it. He said the name
OIL the correspondent was somewhere
i'll the office but he could not find it.
The testimony of Mr.. Brown brought
plainly to light that he published the
Story without having any proof of it
or without even knowing from whom
it came. He made no attempt to
Justify the publication or to establish
any just reason for accepting the story
as true.
At The conclusion of Mr., Browns
testimony Judge Van Valkenburg read
his instructions to the jury. A few
extracts will convince even the most
rabid enemy of the Church that the
methods OF The Menace are about as
dishonest and lew as any ever con.
ceived by human brain. The court,
after defining the duties of a Juror.
and explaining the nature of a libel
and damages, took up the question of
defense against libel. He said:
The defendant in cases like this,
where the plaintiff has gone to this
extent in his prima facie case may
defend against such libel in various
ways. 1t may plead Justification, that
Is, 1t may plead that the matter is
true and IL that is established to the
satisfaction OF the jury it is COM
plete defense And it may plead that
the matter which is published is privi.
legged, and If 1t is privileged as mat
ter Of law and it establishes the fact
OF the privileged condition which
brings about the privilege, that also
is defense. The defendant in this case
has not pleaded justification of any
sort. The defendant. by it's pleadings
nor by it's proof, has not sought to es.
tablish that the charge as made there
is true. but has stated that it does not
mean what the plaintiff says it means,
but there is no pleading or attempt to
plead justification in the sense l have
defined justification. There stands
before you in the pleadings, in the
answer of the defendant, no pleading
of privilege. The courts decide that
under the circumstances of this case
and the pleading Of a charge of this
nature there could be no privilege
which would exempt and defend their
liability for. any aspect of the case
whatsoever. So these two defenses
are not before you believe
it was stated that it was entitled to
publish it because at the City Of
Wheeling it had various correspond.
ents. 1t was for them to show that
it was published in good faith and
good intent without malice or spite,
or sent to it by correspondents whose
accredited fitness for that it had as
certained upon investigation that the
| uA INic Al AuSoLioII "do III WdluCu "
defendant by one of said correspond
ents, duly signed by said sender, that
upon receiving said article the de.
fendant investigated and ascertained
that the signer and sender thereof
was one of it's duly accredited CORE
spondents and relying upon said cor.
respondent and the correctness of
said article and upon prior communi-
cations Of a similar purport, the de-
fendant published same honestly and
in good faith and without any malice
towards plaintiff; that defendant filed
said communication on the regular
filss in its office but cannot now state
, the name of said correspondent be-
, cause said communication has been
stolen from it's files and made away
with There is one thing
that appears from the testimony un-
disputed. Mr.. Brown stated that the
paper was engaged in the purpose re-