Show falit al AT judge s in our IM case VEN it clearly appears from tiie charse theresa gets 8 in our court report published yesterday which was all received by telephone from nephi we could not well give a bambary of the arguments of the attorneys or the judges charge to the jury As this is our sixteenth libel suit and we have kept a full record of each case before so we also wish to do in ahia case yesterday afternoon mr warner opened the argument he addressed the jury briefly and said there had been no evidence to contradict the fact that irvine had copied the two ballots and put the originals in the DOS mr booth argued for the defense though tho defenda defensa admitted the publication li of the articles they claimed that the publication was without mal ice the plaintiff was to blame in this case for failing to abow the existence of malice having failed to do so it was not for the defence to enter into that question the testimony had really shown that irvine himself was the only person actuated by malice there could be no question as to irvine putting the ballots in nia pocket irdine himself admitted he had but whether he had put them in his pocket a gacond timo is a question to consider pyne mcewan and judge jones had claimed the originals pocket a second time while beck and claimed they were copies not the ori inala thera we re witnesses who testified that irvine could not have copied those ballots at the table without their seeing the copying done irdine stands alone in his theory of putting the bal lots in the box beck stands alone in his theory but pyne mcewan and judge jones agree exactly in their theory in regard to irvine furnishing supplies to tho city while he was a member of the council if it was ehorn that he had done so and that it was unlawful under territorial statutes the jury must find a verdict of no cause of action mr geo sutherland made the closing arguments for the defense there were but iwo questions at issue in this case one was as to whether what transpired at the polls as reported by the paper was true or not the other question was whether it was true as to the unlawful furnishing of city supplies the basis of the allegation of malice on the part of mr graham was bbown by irvine to rest on the fact that a year and a half ago graham in soliciting for a christmas write up had actually ethod there before irvine on that occasion and bummed and cawed hawed mr su therland proceeded to the testimony given on both sides as to the transaction at the count irvins had not on the stand denied saying to pyne that the ballots were in his pocket and they were going to stay there it was shown by irvings vines Ir own statement that these ballots were put into and kept in his pocket will could not and did not testify that he saw any more than that irvine went to the curner of the room whether to get a chew of tobacco or a drink waa not shown becks testimony was perfectly unreliable he first said he knew the bal lota were put in the box and then said he believed thay were put in the box it had been a own that the boxes were sealed The boxes were in the poe session of irvion aiom nov aib to dec and when opened the boxes found to be in a condition that at any time might have been by irvine secretly wilb no other eye to witness the deed and the original ballots then and there put in the plaintiff had brought here mr halliday and mr and if the testimony of judge jones and mr holbrook waa not correct they would have been called upon to so state L must be accepted therefore that the statement state mant of mavor holbrook and in to the cita supplies it w shown that irvine had actually in the city council furnished furnia hed so the city and approved the b self mr erland read J making it unlawful for jus ce ceedola edla mr sutherland conc ing to the fact ing the cas closed to it bilty minute lowine how v a had little toa mj warner mad lent was an aphea n at a ho address was HE comp ae noticeably ng the facts in the caa g rall rf lf l f duenna and thought it to touch even indirectly on the testimony adduced bv his own bid julep smith th en proceeded to charge alio jary G of the jury the plaintiff in this case BUGS to re cvar damages upon five 5 causes of action in the aggregate amount of 25 00 the earn 0 5 upon each cause of action As to the third ard fitch of plaintiff di hs ac toi and clairia aitt in ill i h rere bere ibo is for 1500 OU up n canges of tor each I 1 charge yon however abat may the t aird ald natu public iona ia c inaction with the charee that all me were made ath galsce thu actions arp for libel it i claim ed that the defendants in a in w paper called the DAILY ale certain milicina milic iua laiad aau matters of and that in the farat cause of acain is ae follows hee tiie gnott tion from that mr irdine put in and carried about in hia pocket two ballots al gnp last election 1 the defendants admit that the published this article and anat it refer red 10 the plaintiff now I 1 charba on ai a matter ot law that ahia article charged the plaintiff with the commission of a crime and wa in terms libelous and defamatory if files so as to this case of action xou will se s e there are three facts for you tj determine from the evidence first was the charge ma ie in this article against the plaintiff in effect that be had illegally taken two ballots from the bos and vas still carrying them about in hia docket on the alth day of november false second was it malicious if you find it was false and malicious then third to what extent has the plaintiff been damaged by its publication the burden is on the plaintiff to chow thac it waa in fact that is thai ill will was entertained by defendants toward the plaintiff at the time of this publication the defendants allege the charge was true when made upon this defense and claim the burden ia upon the defendants and they must convince you by a fair preponderance derence of the evidence aaa plaintiff irvine ia actually act nally guilty of the crime charged against hira unless the defendants haye him to be cuilty then the pub li cation of this article willfully and de is suet a as would in law raise a presumption that it was maliciously published the defendants in addition to the plea that this charge made against the plaintiff was true also plead in mitigation that this matter had come to them as a public rumor from various persons and they published it merely as a matter of news you will first determine whether this claim ia and if it was and the defendants houe atly be liavaa that it was and used all reasonable means at their command to deter mine its truth before they published it then you may consider this not in justification for the publication but in mitigation of the amount of damages you will allow the plaintiff but I 1 further charge you that it is no excuse and ig not to be considered in mitigation at all that this publication li happened happ enad to be made at about election time or at a time when party feeling was running eiph the law allows no man any greater license to tell a lie or to publish one at election time than at any other time and you must not consider thia fact if it be a fact in any gense oi the word what I 1 baye baid on the first cause of action applies very to the fourth cauce of action As to the second cause 0 action the plaintiff alleges ahat it was made of and concerning himself and partner mr barney aad abat it waa false malicious and defamatory and that he hag been injured bv it to the extent of the publication is as follows ahtie appears our article charging that arvine barney illegally supplies for the city that both were quarrelsome and abat they engaged in disreputable competitive methods I 1 charge you that this publication if made of and concerning conc ernins the plaintiff in connection with another person was libelous and defamatory if false it was a matter calculated to impeach both the honesty and reputation of the plaintiff in business in which he was engaged this publication elc braces practically two charges against the plaintiff first abat bis firm waa illegally used to furnish supplies for the city second that he was quarrelsome and had resorted to disreputable competitive methods in business you must first determine from the evidence whether either or u charees are true or balei go yon aa a matte law naiff waa a member of the cit k officer of the city legal for him to cell tk gooda or other thing P ba paid lor out of th id city if he did BO the an he illegally is true and canic lasis of any action its if he did not then it i at deliberately published il it was s and the i for iab publication learge that be wi to bus T or not waa if it ia not and ia false then it deliberate publication which is ad bitted by tha defendants in law kaisep I 1 an inference ot malica and the plaintiff is entitled to recover tor it the judge then enlarged in hia general on the cointa riven above making everything every thine very clear as to watt malice and what may be considered as mitigating cir cumb the biral ballot of the jury stood 9 for 10 cause of action at the third ballot there was one for the plaintiff this juror held out for over two and then a unanimous verdict been seduced andor of mar diaze plaintiff testified that fhe ard la boa were ecta sed and ehe exhibited a riep her as a token of her en garf ement her mother aal a lady friend had often lefia the couple to sether pl a child birn to her from her association with defendant there was no jelense Se lense and the jury after retiring for a few in a verdict for plaintiff tor dam agea laboa is servine four months in the penitentiary for the sams ottense mr ato sutherland albo won the case of justice W seeley vs E H parsons et al bv plaintiff to co led after a in dement was batis fied the daiy allott d all that plaintiff prayed for |