White Pine news. [volume] (East Ely, Nev.) 1920-1923, 1922-05-28

4 II
and the witness seemed 10 have diff
:enlty in rainembering any names
When further pressed, however, he
mentioned the names of County Com
missioner F. NJ. Clark, Orvil Baird
and Jasper Fox. Defendants counsel
then endeavDred to draw from the
witness just what was said, but the
witness could remember only in O
vague way. When asked by Attorney
Zurich as to whether the matter had
SO preyed upon his mind as 10 cause
ii 10 become q blank the witness re-
piled that it had not but said he was
"peeyed." He said that people had
"joshed' him about the matter, bu.
when questioned as to what was said
to him In serious vein he could only
remember that some had told him
the things Zurich was going to do Ia
him. Counsellor Zurich seemed to
enjoy "joshing" the witness as he
said others had done following the
publication of the alleged libelous
article.
A question on the part of Attorney
Zurich as TO whether members of the
grand jury had each contributed to
pay the expenses of the lawsuit
caused some legal sparring by Attor-
ney Quayle objecting to the question
but 1t was later in the case admitted
by counsel for the plaintiff and the
witness himself when called TO the
stand later in the trial said that he
had been approached on the street
and asked if he would put up his
share of the expense and he said he
would.
4 hA of .....
of the plaintiff his counsel announced
that the testimony offered together
with the admissions in the pleadings
constituted the case in chief and
rested.
A twenty-minute recess was then
declared, following which Counsellor
ZURICH Immediately opened the de-
PENDANTS case by calling his code
fendant, A. A. Sherman, to the stand.
The witness testified that he was the
publisher of the White Pine News
and admitted the publication of the
Zurich letter in his paper as well az
the report of the grand jury, both of
which. he said, were published In the
same issue. A copy of the issue OF
the paper containing the two articles
was offered and received in evidence
after being marked by the clerk os
defendants exhibit A. The witness
then further testified when asked as
to how he happened to publish the
grand Jury report, as well as the Ju-
rich letter with reference to 1t, tha.
the report came to him In the gen.
eral course of gathering ne~s and
later the letter was submitted to hin,
by Attorney Zurich: that he examined
both and in accordance with his us
ual practice In the newspaper bust
ness of giving both sides of ques-
tion he published both articles on
the front page. giving the same pull
licity 10 both
Under cross s-examinatiCn by Attor-
ney Quayle the witness testified that
he had been in the newspaper pub
fishing business forty years and as
questions were propcunded TO him
said that when the Jurieh letter was
brught 10 him he read it over and
later told the attorney that he would
publish IL Just as q matter of news
and in order to give the public both
sides of the question, which at tina,
time was of general interest in the
community. Attorney Quayle asked
If he had scrutinized the Jurieh let
ter before deciding to publish it and
the witness said he had. When asked
as to whether ii had occurred to him
at all that the publication of the Ju-
rich letter might be very offensive to
the feelings of the members of the
grand jury the witness replied that
he thought In Justice ii should be
published. When questioned as TO
whether he knew that the grand jury
report was signed by the individual
members he said he did and in
answer to further questions he said
he was aware of that fact when he
was serutinizing the Jurich article
and knew that the plaintiff Swallow
was one of the individual signers.
When asked il he had conceived the
idea that the grand jury report was
very unjust he replied Yes He
was then asked in what respect he
considered ii unpust and replied that
they had charged certain parties with
crime and failed &c bring in an in
dictment. When asked IL he had in
any way criticized the Zurich article
he replied in the negative and when
further asked If 1t had received his
unqualified o. X. before publication
replied Yes" When asked as to
NHtlHcT dlltT SCTullIliLiHs tIlt ~ VI ltii
article 1t had occurred to him that 1t
unduly reflected upon the members
of the grand jury he replied that 1t
had not because his idea was 1t gave
both sides of the question. This led
up to questions along the line of how
the witness would be affected If. for
example. a competitor of his should
publish such an article referring to
, himself and he was asked IL II would
make him mad and he replied that Il
would not, remarking as several
questions were propounded TO him
along the same line that it was diff
/ ficult to make him mad. and es-
pecially If anything was said about
: him that was not the truth He was
then asked as to how he would take
! 1t IL il was the truth and he replied
TO the effect that the truth sometimes
hurts. which caused ripple OF
laughter. He said he had no malice
whatever In the matter and took the
broad ground that without any in
terest in the matter or the parties
really affected by it he published the
article in the interest of fair play and
with the idea OF giving to the public
both sides of the question. which he