The twice-a-week Twin Falls times. (Twin Falls, Idaho) 1916-1918, 1917-02-20
CHARGED WITH PUBLISHING RE-
PORT OF PINKERTON DETEC-
TIVE ON RIVAL CANDIDATE
BOND FIXED AT 81 600 BY THE
PROBATE JUDGE
Defendant Claims That Report Was
True and That it Contained Nothing
Degogatory to the Character of DR..
y Emes, the Complainant.

At $3.50 o'clock Friday afternoon,
Probate Judge o. p. Duvall bound over
Charles j. Crosby to the district court
on the charge of having libelled Dr..
c. A. Emes. The bond was at once
furnished. The trial aroused con-
siderable interest and drew a large
crowd that remained to hear the
sheep of written statements segregat-
ed from the goats of inference in the
testimony, and to hear the counsel for
defense argue that the written state
ments so far as shown by the states
testimony had been either commenda-
tory or harmless and that it was i'm
possible to libel a man by publishing
the truth about him, especially when
the acts published we're not unworthy
or disreputable.
The first witness for the state was
Harry James Kingsbury. Kingsbury
said that some time in the latter part
of October, 1916, Crosby stopped in at
his printing plant, apparently while
on the way back from the postoffice,
in order that he might read proofs
on printing which Kingsbury was do
ing. Crosby had a letter which he ap-
parently had just got out of the office,
been opened before coming in, but was
not certain. Crosby mentioned Emes
by name, saying that he was in Salt
Lake as manager of the Keeley insti-
tute. Crosby then said that he had a
report from detective. Witness be-
lieyed that the paper was typewriter
on blue paper about the standard let
, ter size but was not certain about
that Kingsbury did not read the let
ter himself but heard part of it reat
by Crosby. The part of the report rea(
by Crosby said in substance that thu
subject had gone out at certain hour
presumably from the institute at which
he was staying, and had entered sa
loon from which he came out shortl,
afterwards. The report also said tha
Emes later went into a house whicl
:, bore bad reputation, apparently TO
Nthe purpose of looking for some on
and came out in very short time. Th
report also said that Emes took WON
an to the picture show and later re
turning with her to the institute, wen
in. A short time after Emes and tn
woman went into the institute, tn
light in the hall was extinguishe'
Shortly afterwards, when the person
who went into the house would hav
had time to reach the third floor,
light appeared in a room On ths
floor. The window shades were dow
but the silhouettes of man and
woman who might from their appear
ance have been those of the subJe'
and the woman, appeared on III
shades, as if in the act of going to be-
In a few moments the lights was e.
tinguished. Kingsbury said that u
impression he received was that u
silhouettes were those of Emes an
the woman and that they were in Il
room for an immoral purpose.
On cross examination Kingsbul
said that Crosby came to his place
transact business and that the latt
did not pretend to personally kno
the facts. He said that Emes WI
referred to as "The subject under
pervision," or something like that I
said that he could not tell wheth
# Crosby read all the statements
which he had testified from the
per or had made some of them oral
that were not on the paper.
thought that he read some and to
some.
Counsel for the defense moved
strike out testimony Of the witness
the ground that he had apparent
mixed oral with written statemen
- without determining which were OF
- and which were written. The col
ordered that all oral statements,
read by witness or read by Crosby
him in relation to the case should
striken out During the direct exar
nation much legal lore was display
by attorneys on both sides in regs
to the use of the word "inferenc
bv the witness when he used su
terms as "the inference was, et'
Counsel for defendant claimed u
not only inference but the impressic
received by the witness in the CT
were immaterial, since he might hs
received a wrong impression. Coun
for the state contended that the
preston conveyed to the mind OF
average man was what governed,
that if it gave him the impression q
it was libellous and injured his re-
tation as a result Of this meaning
conveyed it constitutional libel.
court struck out the word lnlerel
but allowed the witness to testify
regard to the impression which
report made upon him.
City Treasurer II. e. Rounds
that he saw the report purporting
have been received by Crosby v
reference to Emes sometime in
(Continued on Page 81