Year: 1879

| [Allegheny Mall Sept sth.l
The most interesting libel suit that
has been on trial for some time is that
of Rev Lloyd Morgan VS.. the Pitts
burgh Leader Sessions are being
held day and night in Kittanning At
late hour on Saturday, the Court ad-
| journed to meet again this morning
The prosecution is of unusual interest,
as it brings prominently into public
notice questions concerning the mean
ing of that clause in the Constitution
extending the privileges of the press.
| The clause referred to is in section I,
article l, of the new Constitution and
reads as follows:


"No conviction shall be had in any
prosecution for the publication of pa
pers relating to the official conduct of
officers or men in public capacity or to
any other matter proper for public in
vestigation or information where the
fact that such publication was not ma
liciously or negligently made shall be
established to the satisfaction of the
jury, and in all indictments for libel
the jury shall have the right to deter
mine the law and the facts under the
direction of the Court as in other
| cases"


The defendants claiming that they
can prove the truth of most of their
statements rely upon this law and ex-
pect to justify their course both as to
the facts and the absence of malice and
negligence. The question 'Is preacher
man engaged in public capacity
within the meaning of the law ~ was
raised at the very commencement Of
! the trial


1t was clear from the great extent of
testimony gotten up by the defend
ants, from their pleadings and from the
opening of Judge Painter that they in
tended to ask for the fullest scope in
being allowed to prove that the charges
published against the prosecutor were
true, and that they were not published
with any malicious intent In order to
have a comprehensive and definite rul-
ing by the Court the defendants sub
mitted the following offer:


We offer to prove by the witness on
the stand that the matter alleged to be
libelous was published by him in the
Leader in good faith, without malice
toward the Rev. Lloyd Morgan, min
lister of the gospel, named in the in
dictment, after careful inquiry and in
vestigation, and upon evidence Of the
facts presented to him by reliable men,
such as ministers, deacons, and others
of the Baptist denomination, consisting
in part of church records, letters, news
paper publications, not denied or con-
tradictcd by the prosecutor himself.
Also, by sworn aflidavits of credible
persons, deacons and members, both
male and female, Of churches in which
the prosecutor had been or then was
acting as pastor. Also, by the solemn
statement, in writing, of ministers,
elders and members of the Baptist
church, (some of whom had been MEM
bers of a church council that had tried
the prosecutor for offenses against law
and morals) addressed to other Chris
tian churches in this county, and that
the same was compared and published
at the earnest request of such minis
ters, deacons and others for public in
formation and investigation, and not
with n view or intent to injure the said
Rev Lloyd Morgan as an individual
or otherwise, but for the protection of
the Church, in the interest of religion
and pure morals, by the exposure OF
deceit and fraud This to be followed
by other evidence in proof of the actual
truth of the charges made of the i'm
proper intimacy Of the prosecutor with
women of his own church, of the pro-
curation, by the prosecutor, of the pas
| toral position and Office upon false ana
| forged certificates, and under false and
| assumed names, and also that, through
and by means of said rccited falsehood
| and fraud, that the prosecutor obtained
credit, goods and money from his par
ish0ners and others with the intent to
cheat and defraud and that, in fact,
| he did, through the means and oppor-
tunities afforded by his office and posi-
ton of pastor, attempt to seduce and
| debauch virtuous females, married and
single, and in some instances succeeded.
And this for the purpose of rebutting
the presumption Of malice and the tes-
timony offered on the part of the Com
monwealth to show malice in fact I;
that what the defendants published is
| true, but if not true, that it was not
maliciously or negligently made; that
they published it upon proper informa-
ton and after careful and thorough in
vestigation, and to sustain the pleas
filed by the defendants in this case.


OBJECTIONS.


|. The Commonwealth objects to
the answer in the first paragraph for
the reason that the publication charged
in the Indictment is not of and con-
cerning the public ministration or pas
toral conduct Of the prosecutor, but OF
and concerning the Rev. Lloyd Nor
gan as citizen, distinct from his cler-
ical or pastoral relation.


9. The evidence does not touch the
charge laid in the Indictment.


3. That the truth of the facts is not
admissible in evidence under the plead
ings in this case.


A. The proof Extraordinarily obtained
goods is not evidence in this case.


5. That the whole evidence proposed
in the offer is irrelevant, important and
inadmissable.


G. That the evidence offered does
not tend to sustain the pleas.


7. That the opinion Of the witness
on the stand is not admissible but that
the jury are the judges Of the charac-
| tore of the nublication from facts not