The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1919-05-22
WHOLOONEY NOW?
NOT Mr.. CHALONER

NEW YORK. May ga verdict Of
$50. 600 in favor of John Armstrong
Chaloner. author of who's looney
now?" was returned by the jury last
night in the libel suit brought by
ChaIoner against the New York
Evening Post in the United States
Circuit Court
Mr.. Wherry moved that the verdict
be set aside on the ground that 1t was
not warranted by the evidence before
the court. Judge Hand took the mo-
ton under advisement and said he
would announce his decision IN three
days.
ChaIoner's subconscious personality
was submitted to a grilling' by Mr..
Wherry. counsel for the Evening Post,
in his summing up.
you never say a more brilliant
case of a man affected by insanity
than you see on the witness stand
here" he said. when he speaks of
his subconsciousnesS, L say it is his
delusion and it was his delusion and
not his subconsciousness that was
testifying. The decisions colored ali
the circumstances around him.
The defense of this newspaper, is
that in the alleged libelous article no
reference was made to the plaintiff
Chaloner's imagination"
Chaloner declared today that he had
been proved sane and that property
now can be left by him to the Uni
versities of Virginia and North Caro-
line without fear OF interference by
members of his family.
Jury Out Fifty Minutes.
The jury was out for fifty minutes.
The case had been on trial before
Judge A. n. Hand and jury for four
days actual court time.
The defendant put in no evidence.
leaving the jury to determine on the
matter produced in behalf OF the
plaintiff.
The verdict declares Chaloner sane,
which gives him the same standing
in New York State that he has had
in the State of Virginia.
Attorney Wherry, for the defense,
opened the summation. He began by
asserting that the competency OF the
plaintiff to be in court was a factor
in the case. He said the plaintiff in
the case was incompetent. He de-
clsred Chaloner had been put in the
insane class by Joseph H. Choate, and
he, Wherry,' did not pretend to be in
the same class with that leader of the
American bar. But. he argued, the |
mental status of the plaintiff was a
vital concern in the trial then pend |
ing.
Insanity Basis OF Argument.
Mr.. Wherry's argument was. based !
almost exclusively on the theory that
Chaloner, being OF unsound mind,
could not testify in any court on his |
own or any other behalf He spoke |
Of the habit of the plaintiff to carry
pistol in his pocket while in his |
house. He commented on the fact
that Chaloner had held up four auto |
mobiles at the point of a pistol on |
the open highway.
In concluding, Mr.. Wherry read the |
from the New York Times |
offered in evidence to show that the !
story Of the killing of John Gillard |
had been published and circulated in |
New York. The said ChaIoner. ac-
cording to this story, admitted hav- |
ing killed Gillard, but said it was in |
defense Of helpless woman. He |
argued that there was no suggestion |
or defense on the part Of ChaIoner |
that he was insane when he did this |
act.
In reply. George NJ. Curtis, for the |
plaintiff, said that the story read by |
Mr.. Wherry to the jury was a story !
taken from the Times of March IS. |
1909. But, he said, Mr. Wherry had |
neglected to tell the jury that the |
was part of the answer of |
the Times in a suit then pending |
against the Times for having pub
lish this very libel. Mr.. Curtis, in
his summary, went into the family
trouble.