The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

, o Bhsh rout. fresh 1 less c>be.f your LINDSAY, THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 1890. inGTORIA SPRING ASSIZES. Several Important Cases. The spring assizes for the county of Vic- toria opened Monday at one o’clock before Mr. Justice Rose. of the local bar there were present B. B. Osler, Q.C., G. H. \Vatscn, Q.C., William Laidlaw, Q.C.. Toronto, and W. F. Kerr of In addition to members Cobou rg. ' ”‘7'."315;.-‘-§~éiirhfif‘wléa-‘fiklc..‘5;"«.’:.“L.V-..I, . *1 _~.'-‘ -~ business. t} Millinery Opening next week, every Wednesday and Thursday. c«c-<=“='olete Stock of Dry Goods ever im- v._r an .34 J u- 13.3;an into Lindsay: There is style far above the ordinary in our imported Dress Goods. Every one says so. People say our Prints and Satineens equal in style the handsome China silks now so much in vogue. Our customers say of our Suitings they have Style, Price and Variety far beyond the ordinary. Ordered Suits made in our best styles from $10 upwards. Pure Silks for Dresses imported direct Black Silks ele- our particular trade. to meet the humblest pockets. â€" Bundas lti’iaveiie Bros. U. W. Coulter, Q C., and A. P. Devlin, county attorney, conducted the crown There were five criminal cases and a long lint of civil actions awaiting trial. There was a large attendance of spectators. GRAND JURY. The following gentlemen were sworn in as grand juror: \V. Eyres, foreman, Wm. Balfour, W. J. Blayiock, J. H. Cassidy, Arch. Cameron, John Coulter, Paul Crego, David H. Dick, Richard Greenaway, Hurry Hill, Jam. Junkin, MorganJohns, Francis Kelly. Thomas B. Laidley, Jame-a Li hgow, Geo. Lamb, George Mattrews, W. Maher, Robert Oxhy. Donald Spence, Jos. Staples, Nicholas Whelen, J. L. Winters. ADDRESS To THE GRAND JURY. HIS LORDsmP in addressing the grand jurors on the nature of their duties said there were not many cases before them, but there were sozne that would rlquire very serious consideration on their part. There was a case of bigamy, one of arson and one of forgery, and his lordship bricfiy dwelt on each case. There were also two cases of criminal libel, and his lordship statsd the law as to libel. Any one who maliciously published any defamatory lan- guage was guilty of libel. They should read the words of the articles, and if they tended to lOWrr a man in the esteem of his- IxtllOWS, or hold him up to ridicule or contempt, it was a libel. There was an errontus opinion that editors and proprietors of neWSpapers had license to viliiiy and defame and write and print words that shou‘d not go into any man’s home; and to use language that did not educate to good morals and to advance the liliel’Pi-«SR of society. No editor had any such ridit or license, and the sooner this was clearly understood the better it would be for the good morals and the peace of this community. He had noticed a paragraph Stating that the publisher of a. leading journa had in forming an opinion of the wrlicleu for pub icstion imagined atribunal Cunninllng of a mother and her three daughters growing to womanhood, and what Was not. fit for them to read alou ‘ in each otht-r’e coulpany was not published. This would supply a good way for the when they passed Dancey’s hill, a mile and a half this side of Omemee; we then drove to Lindsay at leisure and wi h no particular hurry. (Defendant asked witness if the Omemee Warder was a brilliant newr- paper. Objecttd to by counsel and by the court. Was there anything in the Lindsay Warder up to date of this article that would provoke Mr. Cooper. Oojected to and sustained by the court.) Cross-examined by Mr. OSLER.â€"-The removal of the press from Omemee occurrrd over 25 years ago. I merely helped Mr. Cooper to move the press. Mr. Cooper continued to print a paper in Lindsay. A 1 church ; stated him to be a drunkard, a scene in the streets, an unmitigated ass, a biackguard, a rufiian, a political mountebank, with matiuga great big ass of himself, with being a dog, a liar. The defendrnt read the full text of an article of Oct. 31st in the Watchman, and putt one of artcfes and paragraphs in previous ltSUGB of the sane paper. Cross-examined by 3 Mr. OSLER. â€" The Watchman was started ab ut two years ago; it was not supported by the conscr. vulva party; it was so ppor‘od by the k qusl rights party and by the Roman Catholic Vicar-General Laurent er‘e a lawsuit was going on then, but I did not letter “yang h... was: doing all he cculd for then nor do I now understand the nature of the proceedings. The defendant proceeded to re-cxamine witness, but his questions were, ruled out by the court as not proper. J. D. MACMURCHY, swarmâ€"I am an editorial writer on the Lindsay Watchman; I have read an article in the Warner of Nov. 8, and have em: red an action against ; Dr. Clarke for the ftlBe statements therein made. Defendant proceeded to question witness as to the article, but was stopped by the c0urt, as the case against Dr.Ciarke was not to be brought into this action. l Cross-examined by Mr. OSLER.â€"The article in the Warder referred to a firm in town as well as to myself, and to Mr. Cooper and Mr. Sidney McKenzie. In re-examination defendant brought up the Watchman of October 31 and read from an editOIial article therein and from a Woodvilie letter signed “Conservative“ commenting upon the attacks of the War- der and of “Swipes” upon the people of Woodvllie. Defendant asked who was the writer of the letter; witness was advised by Mr. Osler that he need not answer. Defendant remarked that this refusal to answer was an admission that witness wrote the letter, but his lordship said it was no Bdfllll‘fllon whatever. Witness said Mr. Coo; er did not write the letter. THOS STEPHENSON of Omcmee testified as to the establishment of the Omemee Warder as a stock cOmpany by a number of residents (f the villag- _: Mr Cooper con- ducted the paper. (Several questions by the defendant were stopped as not being in evidence.) Some time before the elec- tion of 1887 had convusation with Mr. Cooper as to the candid ates for the house of commons; Mr. Cooper visited Omemee. (Some questions on this line were objected to and objection upheld by the court.) Witness remembered when the press was taken from Omemce and when ii; Was returned by Mr. CoOper; witness had received copy of the Lindsay Watchman, but had not ordered it; Mr. 0 zone: was the township printer of Emzl); his was the Only printing office in the township. (Some questions on this line were objected to b« the court; defendant held they came under the clause “you had a peculiar cwde of morality” in pleadings, but the objection was maintained.) Tnos. MITCHELL, auctionezr and painter, Omemee, testified that he remembered 'he Watchman ; I never a'tsvked Mr. Doom-r, not unjustifiedly.-Mr. Os er read portions of swerai articles hen: the Warder of various dates to show ‘hat the Watchman’s comments were justifiable and in the public interest. Mr. O-ler put in sev-‘ral copies of the Warder articles ‘and whicn were arimi ted by the defendtnt m- havxng bro-n written by hlm.-T"li' de- fendant suggeewo his lordship might wish to have them Hâ€"fad. HIS LORDSHIp.â€"I don’t wish to hear any mor: ii th than is ructsr-ary. EVIDENCE IN BEBUTTAL. Mr. Jos. COOPER, sworn, (to Mr. Os‘ex) stated the circumstances under which the Warder was printed in Omemee. A con- siderable number of stockholders owed him money for subscriptions and printing and they paid him by assigning their slack to him; he thus owned a majority of the stock ; in removing the press to Lindsay he was acting under the advice of his lawyer, Mr. Hector Cameron, af‘cr two applications in the Toronto courts had failed to prevent the removal ; proceedings were taken in chanccry and the chancellor held that under the conditions on which the stock was taken the paper would have to be printed in Orntâ€"Inee, and that if he returned with the press he could not be dispossessed of it. Cross-erramined by Mr. HUGHESâ€"I re- moved all the plant in the daylight; I did not tell Mr. Thompson to keep quiet about the removal of the press; I did not say 1 was afraid cf the people of Ontmee, they were such baroar- lazs; I never used such an expression and was nth-r afraid of the people of Omemce. This closed the evidence and the court rose. On resuming at two o’clock,â€" Mr. Brains addressed the jury on his own ru’lliu‘f. lie txplniacd that hi~ case h d been. very badly prepared by his iuVVlr-rr! (Vieâ€"hers. Hiltirpbih and Jackson) and f»â€" hm' been 0. Illit’lit’d to consult Mr. S. E}. Blake. it was understood that the case would not commence until Monday evening and Mr. Blake had arranged to latten‘, but had found it impceeibic to do so. lie had, therefore, to take charge of his own case. He then went on at consid- erable length to contend that he had always been the party attacked, that he had borne these attacks a long tine, until when the press was taken from Omemcc; grand jurors to test the articles in these he went to Lindsay to serve a paper on caves. if any of these articles would bring »he had found it adVisa‘ule to retiy. bzancheu out into He txttahtC‘Ub matters he blush of shame to the checks of their 3 Mr. Cooper; he met Mr. Cooper on the way several times and had to he chickcd m, ublication was and served on the way. JOHN JONES testified that he held stoc inthe Omemee Warder. Questions auto. disposal of the stock to Mr. Cooper were stopped by the court. To Mr. OSLEB ~Tnere was law and liti ga'ion about the press. JOHN ENGLISH of Omemee testified that he had cue ten collar share in the Omemee Warder. (Questions as to disposal of stock to Mr. Cooper and as to Mr. Cooper’s debts were objected to by the court as it was not an issue in the case ) THos. MATCHETT, county treasurer, testified that he formerly ”Vld in Omemee l l wives and daughters their injurious to the welfare an morals of the congmuniy. MacMurchy v. Clarke The acti0n of Mr. J. D. MacMurchy against D '. Clarke for libel was called at six o’clock, but the defence were not ready to proceed and fully haif-an-hour was ex- pended in trying to get an adjournment to Tuesday or until the next court. Mr,B.B. Osler, Q.C., and Mr. J. McS weyn for the plaintiff were ready to go on and opposed adjournment. Finally his lordship stated that he would adjourn to 8 p.m. when he would take up the first case on the record. On resuming at eight o’clock a certificate was put in from Dre. McAlpine and Bur- rows to the effect that Dr. Clarke was very ill and unable to attend court. After some discussion the case was postponed to the fall assizes, the costs of the day to be borne by the defendant. Cooper v. Hughes. The case of Cooper against Hughes for libel was next called. Mr. B. B. Osler, Q. ment of the Omemee Warder; had stock in it; did not consent to the removal of the press to Lindsay; it was returned to Ome- mee by Mr. Cooper on order of the court; personally witness knew nothing of the purchase of stock by Mr. Cooper. ‘ To Mr. OSLEBâ€"Witness did not know of any other shareholder but Mr. Cooper desiring to remove the paper to Lindsay; Mr. Cooper thought he could do better in Lindsay; the Omemee shareholders were opposed to the removal. ARTHUR MCQUADE was examined as to the removal of the press. Defendant asked k the court, who told him that he could not comment on matters n3}. in evtdeace. C., and Mr. T. Stewart appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Hughes took charge of his own case, assisted by Mr. F. D. Moore. The following jury were empanelled: Arch. Smith, Ephraim Wager, John Ward, Mat- thew Wilson, John Rogers, Reuben Wal- ling. W. Skltch, George Taylor, Jno. Tee], E. Prescott, John Windrlm, John Torry. The defendant in his pleadings justified the article complained of as libellous. EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION. Mr. OSLER briefly and clearly stated the case for the prosecution, reading from the Warder samples of the libellous attacks. FRED. MCBURNEY, law student in the office of McIntyre 8: Stewart, testified that he served nocice of action on Mr. Hughes, and that he purchased copiesof the Warder of October 25. and of Nov. 8, 1889, with the libellous articles charged. SAMUEL CORNEIL, insurance agent, Lindsay, testified that he had read the article in the Warder of Oct. 25 last and understood it referred to Mr. Cooper, the plaintiff; he understood the Joe Cooper in the article of Nov. 8 referred to the plain- tiff; he understood the words “the family" referred to Mr. Cooper’s family connec- tions; Mr. Cooper had lived over twenty years in the town; other sentences in the article were read and stated as referring to the plaintiff. Mr. HUGHES conducted cross-examina- tion and reflected on Mr. Cornell’s memory as “very convenient." His LORDSHIP said Mr. Hughes was not allowed to rtfiect on the evidence of wit- ness in conducting cross-examination. Mr. HUGHES asked a few more questions. and the case for the plaintiff was closed. FOR THE DEFENCE. Mr. HUGHES opened his defence with an address of an hour’s length. It was mainly devoted to reading the articles in the Warder which gave rise to the action. . The court sat till 10 p. m. and then ad- Journed for the day. The court resumed Tuesday morning at 9.30. THos. THOMPSON, farmer, testified that he lived near Cambray now and formerly lived near Omemee; knew Mr. Cooper; a portion of Warder article charging Mr. Cooper with stealing press and printing material from Omemee at the dead hour of hi ht was read to witness, but witness did u t know much about it; as a friend of Mr. Cooper witness offered to draw a load to Lindsay when he talked of moving to Lindsay; Mr. Cooper and others loaded the press on the wagon; could not tell the hour when they left Omemee; it was sunrise pressions Were not evidence. ant said he wished to show what was said to justify his use of the word "stealing” and took an active part in the establish- \ the press. ‘ what the people there called the transac- tion. The court objected that such ex- The defend- The COURTâ€"As it was a matter of 25 years ago I think it possible you did not hear it then. (Laughton) RICH. TOUCHBURN. grain-buyer, Lind- say, testified that he had had conversations with defendant as to the price of grain in Lindsay. (Question as to the conversation stopped by the court as,it was not evidence. Examination as to the price of grain was checked by the court as it was cOVered in the pleadings. against the plaintlfi‘ was that there was a combine in butter, eggs, barley The court said the charge an i flour, and the evidence was to be confined to the plaintifl running such a "corner.” The defendant then asked if Mr. J. D. Flavelle l was a son-in-iaw of the plaintiff, and was, as indicated in the article, behind the plaintiff In these transactions. The court pointed out that it was not here to inves- tigate the produce market generally, and would hear evidence only as to the connec- tion of the plaintiff with the corner in butter, eggs. barley and flour.) J. D. FLAVELLE testified Mr. Cooper was his father-in-law; he had assisted Mr. Cooper flnanclal‘y at the time the job printing office was started. J. R. DUNDAS testified that he was Mr. J. D. Elavelle’s unclr; his firm had assisted Mr. Cooper flunnCialiy in starting a job office in Lindsay. The defendant argued that this estab- lished the connecuon of Mr. Cooper with the firm or the concern. His LORDSHIP held that it did not, any more than borrowing money from a bank made a man a banker. CHAS. S. BLAOKWELL testified that por- tion of the article read referred in his opinion to the “concern” and not to Mr. Cooper. To Mr. OSLERâ€"Witness said he under- stood the articie to refer to Mr. Cooper. S. HUGHES, the defendant, then entered the witness box and Was sworn. He started to read from the Watchman what he claimed was a series of attacks on him to provoke him to retaliate. Mr. OSLER said he would have no objec- tion to go into these matters, but there was a controversy, and it would be fair to have the articles on the other side. The COURT said it would be better to admit the papers and let the jury take them, the defendant making a general statement covering the case. The defendant said these attacks had; He argued that them: stealing" and “brg- King" in the article on Mr. Cooper should be taken in their bread some and not in their narrow technical meaning. He reviewed the articzes on the Methodist conference and on other questions, and ccniended that the Warder had received great pro- vocation, that it was not abusive and that it always came out triumphant. He referred to his attack on the Rev. Mr. Dewey and claimed that Mr. Dewey was still as a warm 5 friend of his {in ever. He ntxt took up, read and commented on several articles in the W'stcnman which he held were unprovoked and personal attacks. He denied absolutely a Watchman statement that the Wardcr’s course was not approved by the conserva. tive party, and declared that it had wide and hearty approval from that party and from Others. The Watchman had dangled before his nose the red rag of persisrent attack, and when he had turned on the Watchman, that paper squealed. The Watchman had tried to [Duke a quarrel between himself and Mr. Hudspeth and other leading conservatives, but without success. It had failed there as it had failed in its attempts to di-credit him before the community, and to hold him up to ridicule and conumpt. Mr. Hughes closed with a strong appeal to the sympathies of the jury. ADDRESS To THE JURY BY B. B OSLER. Q.C. .Magt‘tpleasc Your Lordship, Gentleman of the Jury: No one regrets more than I do that the defendant in this case has been dis- appointed in the large assistance that he hoped to haVe had. At the same time you must all be satisfied that he has from his natural ability so treated his case that nothing has been left undone or unsaid, and that no injustice will Come to him tit all from his want of legal assistance. There Would have been a very much more technical contest, perhaps, if there had been a lawyer on the other Side. I have endeavored in my conduct of the ease for the plaintiff to carefully avoid cmbamss'mg Mr. Hughes in the conduct of his case. And I have given him con- cessions in the matter of very great moment, but concessions we lawyers would not give to one another. New. at the same time, I do not think he has treated his solicitors, HudSpcth Jack- son, very fatrly, when he has said that his case was impr0perly prepared or his pleadings improper. It occurs to me that his pleadings, put everything that he desires upon the record. He has justified the truth of all the important allegations against this plaintiff; he has put that on the record; he has stated that all the paragraphs from six to twenty are true in substance and in fact. Well now, when a man does that, and the charges are so general, as some of these charges were, a plaintifi' has a right to say, I want par- ticulars, I want you to tell me before court what I have got to meet, because a man cannot be called on in the box here to answer a charge that he is a thief, or that he took a press, or that he did that or the other thing. The court orders that some that a plaintiff, whose whole life is in Coxtignscd on page 4. particulars shall be given so- may have a fair chance to meet the »' 1.3.4:“; pm? Hi . . l." '0 if F“! Eluf-w .. “in...“ ..... x51 n.....».....u«,...-.. ,. . H, A 1,, .5. 3-," ‘t _.:..v 4~*;.,;2 .., .. . n . 9“.- . .. W. , ..,,, ,. ... . . a paid-ail" ease Jm‘fdsxlific’iliusfi :3“;in » aw «w». ...~_~