Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1922-10-08
MAGEE $4,000
LIBEL SUIT IS
NOT COMPLETED
Case to Be Resumed Mon
day; Trial Develops Into
Legal Battle of Admlssl-,
biIity of Evidence.

Preliminary pleadings in the
$4,000 libel suit of A. B. McMil-
len against Carl C. Magee and the
Journal publishing company,
which is being tried on its merits
in the district court after almost
a year of technical battle on the
part of the attorneys in the case,
have so set the issues that, accord
ing to a series of rulings handed
down by Judge M. e. Hickey, trial
Judge, the defendant, Carl c. Ma
gee, is precluded from attempting
to prove the truth of the alleged Ii
belous editorials or to explain how
they came to be written in order to
show lack of malice on his part.
The issues, as interpreted by
Judge Hickey, are such as to also
prevent any one else from testlfy-
ing to anything which might tend
to prove the alleged libelous mat
ter to be true or show that Magee
had information leading him to be-
lieve it to be true-or to show a
possible lack of malice in the pub
lieations complained of.
Yesterday, the second day or
the trial, was almost entirely con-
sumed in a series of legal argu-
ments on various questions center
ing around these points.
Attorneys for the plaintiff rest
ed their case early yesterday
morning after completing the
reading of the series of editorials
written by Mr.. Magee while he was
editor of the Morning Journal and
published by him in that neWspa-
per. The editorials, according to
the plaintiff, were maliciously di-
rected against him and have dam
aged him to such an extent that
he asks $4,000 as damages.
The losing battle for admission
of evidence which was fought by
the defendant started with the Sec
ond witness called by his attor-
neys. Judge e. r. Wright of Santa
Fe, was placed on the stand and
was questioned regarding claim
which his client, Mrs, Francis
Jaramillo, had against the Occi-
dental Life Insurance company.
One of the editorials complained
of by the plaintiff, being in con-
nection with this alleged transac-
ton.
1t was at this point that attor-
neys for plaintiff brought up the
question of the issues as defined in
the preliminary pleadings and con-
tended that nothing could be given
in testimony tending to prove the
truth of the alleged libelous state
ments or the lack of malice con-
tanned in them. The court upheld
the plaintiffs contention and Judge
Wright was removed from the
stand.
Ruling along the same line OF
law, Judge M. e. Hickey refused to
allow A. B. McMillen, when placed
on the stand by the defendant to
state how much property he held
in Sandoval county or whether he
was taxpayer in the county. One
OF the statements in one of the al
legged libelous editorials intimated
that the plaintiff was a delinquent
taxpayer in that county.
The defendant, Carl c. Magee,
later took the stand and although he
occupied for it more than an hour
yesterday before the court was ad-
JUL ullllt utu
but little testifying, due to similar
court rulings based upon the pres
ent condition of the preliminary
pleadings which. according to trial
judge, preclude the testimony
which attorneys for the defendant
were attempting to obtain from
the witness.
The suit was filed almost a year
ago and since that time, has come
up for trial on technical questions
number of times. The plaintiffs
attorneys claimed that during these
trials or as a result of them, or
that at some stage of the filing of
answers in the case, the defend
ant should have made legal provi-
sion for the admission of that type
of evidence he attempted to pro-
duce and which was ruled out by
the trial Judge yesterday.
What line the defense will take
in the case when it is, resumed
Monday morning at 9 o'clock was
not intimated by attorneys for the
defense last night.