Widnes Examiner. — 1888-07-07 (Widnes, Cheshire, England)

FOURTH DAY. COLLAPSE OF THE CASE. This trial was resumed on Thursday, when the Attorney-Generaleontinued his address to the jury on behalf of the defendants He said he would now deal with the alleged libel published in the "Times ,' of April 18, 1887. The article referred to the letter which the " Times " had published purporting to be written by Mr. Parnell, describing the death of Lord F. Ca,endish as an accident, blit stating that he "cannot refuse to admit that Burke got no more than his deserts." The article also included the manifesto issued by Mr. Parnell and other leaders after the Phcenbc Park Murder, and commented thereon. After reading this the Attorney-General said it would appear from this that the worst libels were on Mr. Parnell, and he was not the plaintiff in this action, and they contained no reference to Mr. O'Donnell.— At the close of the Attorney-General's speech the Lord Chief Justice expressed the opinion that there was no case for the "Times" to answer.—Mr. Ruegg submitted there was libel in the statement that Mr. O'Donnell went to Willesden to meet Mr. Parnell, and that he seconded a resolution.—The Judge demurred, and Mr. Ruegg he would consult his client.—The Court adjourned for luncheon. On the resumption of the court at two o'clock, Mr. Ruegg said he had had an opportunity of talking to his client, and he had taken his adTice. Be had also spoken to the Attorney-General. He could not shut his eyes to.the significance of what had been said by his lordship as to the general libels alleged against Mr. O'Donnell as one of the leaders of the Parnellite party. With his Lordship's permission he would abandon the allegation of libel made against Mr. O'Donnell as one of the leaders of the Parnellite party, and would proceed to address on the other libel, viz.. that in which Mr . O'Donntll was mentioned by name.—The Attorney-General said he had no objection to make to the course proposed. Mr. Ruegg then addressed the jury on the points which he had named, in which he alleged that Mr. O'Donnell had been personally libelled. He Contended that to connect Mr. O'Donnell with Byrne in the Willesden incident was libellous, and that references in the "Times" article on Mr. O'Donnell's letter were also distinctly libellous. Whatever the result of the case might be, he contended that Mr. O'Donnell had cleared his own character, since the defendants had publicly declared that they had nothing to say against him. The Lord Chief Justice commenced to sum up at ten minutes past three o'clock. He said he was thankful that the issue was narrowed. Thearticles inthe "Times," published under the title of " Parnellism and Crime," plainly accused certain persons by name with having a guilty knowledge of criminal acts, but throughout the whole of these articles Mr. O'Donnell was not mentioned. Mr. O'Donnell seemed to think that he was such a prominent member of the Irish party that anything that was said about Mr. Parnell and others referred to him. His lordship then proceeded to state the circumstances under which the special libel had appeared, and the limits to which it extended, remarking that the points on which information was offered was the most utterly unimportant and immaterial that could be offered out of the 60 pages of indictment of, the "Times." The question for the jury then was, whether having regard to the circumstances under which O'Donnell inter posed in the Parnellism and Crime controversy the article in the " Times " of the 17th June was fair comment or not? If they thought it was then there must be a verdict for the defendant. On the question of damages, his Lordship added that the plaintiff had not .gone into the box to say that he had suffered one smgle farthing damages. The jury, without leaving the box, returned a verdict for the defendant.