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

to continue? A very large section of the town have been suffering for years from the want of a proper outlet for the water which comes pouring down from the western and southwest portion of the town, and what has been gained by the policy of delay which has been followed in this matter? Had a proper sewer been constructed years ago, either on the local improvementpian ' or by the town, would any one have been ruined? The extra burden of taxation would scarcely have been felt, whilst an immense amount of property would have been materially benefitted, a portion of which belongs to the town. If the local improvement plan is going to be adopted for the future in public improvements of this kind, adopt it at once, and do something. There is nothing to be gained by gazing at the difficulty and discussing it any longer. There may bea good deal to lose, how- ever. It would be interesting to know whether the residents of the Lindsay street drain section are to endure another season of stench and malaria from delay in the construction of the sewer in that quarter. Not to speak of me sanitary aspect of the question, we feel sure the owners of property in that section would be the gamers financially by the speedy construction of the drain, even though the cost should reach $1000 or $1500 above the present estimate of the engineer. Let our town fathers settle down to business on drainage matters. Landlords and Tenants, Attention ! Where do you expect to go For Your Spring Wall Paper; Have you thought of going to R. S. PORTER’S, The leading place in Lindsay For cheap 8: beautiful Wall Paper Decidedly good values are these Don’t forget it. (the Watchman. THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 1890. w The Verdict. The trial of the action for libel instituted by Mr. Joseph Cooper, editor and proprietor of the \VATCH- MAN, against Sam. Hughes, editor of the Virtorzrz ll’bra’er has resulted in 8. There is iom‘ithing rGPUISiYe. in denying ’ to Catholics rights and prrvrleges freely verdictfor the plaintiff With nominal jgranted to Protestants. Both should, in damages. It is scarcely necessary to our judgment, be placed in this respect, . . , ,and in every other respect, on the most add that the libellous statements com- 5 perfect equality before the law.” plained of were contained in an open i letter published in the Vz'cforz'a U’am’er of November 8th last, over the sig- nature of Sam. Hughes editor thereof, and addressed to “Joe Cooper and ‘the famil ’ a ThanksrrivinrT bone to, ’ D D . “ The debate, on the whole, was charac- terized with moderation and dignity ; and its most prominent featuresâ€"to many Catholics, at leastâ€"were the ballot and the teaching qualification test, which, we think, Mr. Mowat should have conceded. The above is a quotation from a re- cent issue of the Iris/z Canadian, and 1 voices the convictions of a large class of Separate school ratepayers. The latter as a body are by no means satisfied pick.” The libellous production and with the Separate School act as it now the serious charges contained therein '1 stands, or With the condition of their ag‘tinst the character of the editor of l schools as conducted under it; and had this journal are fresh in the minds of j the advocates of reform in connection The verdict of thejury 011 j therewith been as temperate and the public. _ ,5 Tuesday last pronounced those charges i reSpectful in their use of laiiguage and to he auto/{r mza' afim/zzte/y zmz‘rzzc’. We l as fair in argument as Messrs Mer- shali m: CUliiiilt‘iii, upon what theiedith, Clancy, Craig, and French, the wrdict implies in the minds of allgV’ISt majority of the ratepayers con- i;-);.o;'.ti,‘.v: lira-:1 {0 the man who sofcmuicd would put their convictions .tâ€" ”smile-l us. To oui'Selves itlinto practise and support the desired is enough "that no shadow of StiSpicmn 9 changes. As it is, most of the opposi- l l tron on the part of the Separate school l l . been cat for Lln- past thirty-five years. j question, is the natural result of the \‘v.xv\>, ., ‘lgAA,*.'4- has been allowed to rest upon us In the community in which our lot has ratepayers to Mr. Meredith on this To the most impartial jury it may be a l intemperate and disrespectful utter- difiicult matter to decide whether any l ances of those who do not know how pet: result of an attack upon a reputation, iniary loss has been suffered as a j to argue without ofifence, or do not care to do so. As pointed out by the Iris/z geod or bad, estabiisht-d during a i'csi-; Callaghan, the refusal of the ballot to denc» in the suln!‘ community for over l the Separate school ratepayers is \\'x: , . hill”. ‘v':‘ in « ~ "‘5' accept, tlwrefore, nothing short of an expression of want l . th vcr- Lict as the honest decision of of confidence in their ability to exercise i7 , tin.-- wio null-ind it having regard to I it intelligently and properly. The 4.: , all tilt." circumstances of the case, and " position taken by Mr. Mowat that the ii: ‘ as :t (j(),':,pitfttj vindication of ()lll‘Sr‘th‘s standard of qualification for Separate from the wanton attack made upon us. school teachers must remain fixed at ' ti E ‘ '4 7 from the able address of counsel «.21. vtx. gel ..-. wreck, and from of )1] l'. . -" 3 l - .31 ' . iliL’ll we \\ nl gin,- toour readers which we publish this .1 V y . Zm' ~z.-~,'-.i'-:1t charge Justice 1) [K 3"", in our next issue, the public can judge conclusion we would say that in dis- charge of our duty to the public we of hurtful t0 the In denounced a species journalism which we considered best interests of the community. the discharge if that duty we were what it was at Confederation, cannot be a matter of s tisfaction to those who are supporters of the schools. l\Vhilst the qualifications of public school teachers has been time and again of tin} justice of the verdict better raised during the same period, the . than from any words of ours. In standing of the Separate school teach- remains that of well nigi; quarter of a century ago, and according to Mr. Mowat is as unchange- ahle as were the laws of the Modes and Persians. This is not and cannot be satisfactory to the ratepayer, inter- in" g professron «i . . g, met by a line of attack which could be ested. At the same time the present g", repelled by no other defence than the order of things shuts out to a very one forced upon us. The courts of the land in a civilized community must (lft'itlt: all argunn-nts of the nature of those used against us. Nothing will deter us from a proper discharge of large extent the children of Separate school ratepayers from theteaching profession. In towns and villages where Separate schools exist the line is necessarily tightly drawn between our duty to the public in the future, those institutions and the public and to the good sense and better schools. The child of the supporter of conscience of the community we con fidentlv look for support on the lines and which we are determined to follow, we have laid down THE residents along W'eilington street, and for that matter along several streets, have again suffered through the overflow of thedrain in that part of the luv. :1. ilcw i( 1g is this state Ofthings the former who qualifies (in the higher standard has very little chance for a position in the public schools, and a poor chance for a fair salary in his own schools owing to the competition of the religious orders. The most satisfactory solution of the Separate school difficulty to all parties can only be reached by the adoption of the programme advo- 1rand l'y Mr. Meredith. l . r "- -..’ ‘ * ‘ . ‘~ ( .' > ' y ' ‘ . Mr. Oslcr’s Address. \ 'C'oritinuei from page 1. charges that are brought against him. Now then that application for particulars was made, and an order was made by the court in Toronto calling on him to give particulars. Apparently he was unable to give particulars of the charges in a great many of the paragraphs. For by the order of the court, made apparently after careful argument, it was ordered “that the defendant at the trial of the action be confined in his proof in his place to said: paragraphs 16, 17, 18 and 19 of the state- ment of claim, and to so much of the para- graphs of the statement of claim as in cludes 16, 17, 18 and 19 aforesaid in thei particulars to be delivered in pursuancei of the order, save in so far as the Judge at l the trial in the exercrse of his discretion. may otherwise direct; and in default of delivery of particulars under this order, the defence of the pleas of justification to the paragraphs 16, 17, 18 and 19, and said portion of paragraph 3 as includes those shall be struck Out.” Then you see there was an order made after the careful consideration of the court, after hearing all the parties on the affidavits, and upon that order particulars were de- livered. Particulars were delivered. of various matters, some of which have been sought to be put in evidence by the defendant in this case to-day, and others apparently have gone without providing any evidence for them. Well, of course, where such an order has been made, where pleadings have been carefully considered, and all the charges pro and con sifted out before the trial, it would not be right that we should attempt to try some cases not on the papers, attempt to give some evidence that was not within the particu- lars ; if that was to be the case what is the use of preparing for a trial at all, what is the use of having pleadings or an order '! A man in that case, if general evidence was to be given, might be sued for one thing and have his character taken away for another, on which he was not prepared and with which he had nothing to do. Well, gentlemen, that being the general position of the case let us see what we have to try ; let us see what there is on this record, because you are sworn to try the issues joined according to the evi- dence. You are not here to find that on the whole as between Samuel Hughes and Joseph Cooper, Samuel Hughes is the man that you might like best, or that Joseph Coiper is the mm that you would like best. You are here performing the highest function in the :ulministration of Justice. You are here with the responsibility and the duty, so neatly defined by your oath, to try the issues joined between the parties according to the evidence. Now what are they ? - On the case that is made out the only question, as it appears to me, is simply one of damages. Because it can-- not be that in a civilized community the words that have been made use of in the articles complained of by the plaintifi~ can be treated as not libellous. as I will show you presently. They charge various crimes, they charge him as worthy of the peneten- tiary, and so on. That being the case. and going at the case step by step to see what we must fairly do, your first duty is to say, is this article a libel '? If it is a libel, find that as a principal fact. The next step you have to take is to see what. is the defence. The defence is that i: is true. Well you take the various paragraphs and statements and you ask yourselves is this true. And if you find in that witness box he has proved these articles to be true as proved, that the plaintiff ought to be in the pcnctentiary ; that one of the charges is proved that. he is charged wrth, why that is the end of the case. It is a libel on the face of it, but no man shall pay damages for stating that which though lapparently Iibcllous is true. Now there l is your Second step. First is it libellous Z’ Scoond, are the pleas made out ‘2 \Vell, on this evidence I shall ask you fairly to find that the pleas of justification are not made out. Then you come to the question of damages Now if this libel was against a person who had never en» gaged in a controversy with another, if there was nothing preceding it which in any way provoked it, why then such a libel as this would call for enormous dama- gcs. But on the question of damages you have a right to Consider, I admit that you have a right to consider, all that has fairly gone before which has proVokcd the arti- cles, if provocation in any way justified it. If it was a mere continuance of an un- happy quarrel which only looked for hard Words‘to Say of another, if it was that sort of a libel, then because one man gets more stinging words than the other generally a jury will give very small and limited damages ; if that kind of libel which is fairly provoked, slap following slap,thcn he who gets the hardest slap and who corn- plains does not very often get miich, com- pensatm towards his injured feelings from a jury. ‘ For see, gentlemen, I ant-endea- voring to get at this thing as fairly as I can. I do not want to get one dollar for- my client’fi he does not deserve it. I am going to try and get at the very justice of the case. It, is no part of counsel’s duty to get. a dishonest judgment from any jury. It is his duty merely to do the best he can for his client fairly and honor- ably. Well now, gentlemen, we have to take on these lines that I have outlined, the article, the plea, the provocation, and we have to consider all these. things to~ gcther We say that the article is as bad an article as can be written of any man. We say that article is made a great deal worse by their attempting to justify it here in open court, and failing. Always the jury and court will say, if a man says ev11 of another and then puts upon the plea it is true, and then in open public Court attempts to say further that it is true, that th-xt is merely a matter of aggra- vation, which a jury have a right to give effect to, and ought to give effect to, in measuring the punishment that the defen- dant ought to get. Now we say that the article which preceded the articles com- plained of, that is the article in the WATCHMAN as to “Journalistic Blackguard- ism,” we say that that article was justified by the articles which had been written by Mr. Hughes, and by those which had been 1’ . THE WATCHMAN,_ LINDSAY, THURSDAY, APRIL 10, I890 M written and admitted to his paper by the correspondent from Woodville. We say that that article was one which was called for by the articlesin Mr. Hughes’ paper which pre- ceded it. N 0 articles attacking us, but articâ€" les which Mr. Hughes himself here to-day, to his credit be it said, even if he repents at the last hour, articles which he says to-day he is ashamed of. These are the articles we critictse, articles imputing conduct, articles which can only be described by the words “journalistic blackguardism.” These are the articles that were criticized by the VVATCHMAN, in that article you have heard an article using strong languige I will ad- mit but under circumstances calling for strong language. Now prior to that state of things no doubt there had been squibs between the papers and perhaps names called either way, you have heard them both, but. it was the articles immediately preceding the article of Ocrober “Journal- istic blackguardism,,’it was the articles pre- ceding that, and articles which were not squibs, but articles which Mr. Hughes himself says ought never to have appeared in his paper, which called for the strong language used. Then remember? that it is no excuse to Mr. Hughes here to-day to say, Oh that is “Swipes,” that is Dr. Clarke; that is no answer. He is the pub- lisher of that paper, is responsible for every line that goes into it; he is absclute- ly responsible before the law for every item. The law protects an editor from mistake. The law admits that an editor’s eye cannot always be on his correSpon- dent's writing, but then it gives him relief only if he apologizes, only if he makes amends as soon as he discovers the error. Now then, endeavoring to-do it very short- ly let me follow the evidence in the case on the lines that I have indicated upon which we say that we are entitled to re- cover; and as the articles have been read to you more than once I shall endeavor- merely to point out the pith of the articles without reading then in full. Now it is one thing to remember, a thing that you must bear in mind in this case particularly, mere words of abuse where people have got their tempers up, mere scurillous words, however unfortunate they are, how- ever wrong they are as indicating a. bad moral tone are very different and, are en- titled to be given very different weight to words imputing crime or criminality. Now the first thing we get is in the paper of the 25th of October, 1889 which is, “If he had any sense of decency or any proper idea of the true meaning of the word, any recollection of his past conduct and how much he is despised by the public, he would. hide his head in shame at the very mention of it. It is only the most depraved of fallen humanity, the miscreant lost to all sense of propriety, who would have the audacity to charge another with his own sins for which a term in the penetentiary might not only improve his understanding but mend his . morals.” Now let men abuse each other, l but that is a direct charge of crime. That iis a direct charge of serious crime, for I which a term in penetentiary is what he should get. He says to you here to-day, I gave him a dressing down and did not give him half enough. That is the man 1 that you have to treat with. You have to * consider that the man who has said lthat his neighbor in a rival business was ‘80 guilty that he ought to have had a term : in the penetentiary. He is here to tell you lthathe did not give him enough: he is jhei'c to ask you to justify that language : fire is here to ask you to allow him to do it lagain and do it free. That is what you {are asked to justify. asked to allow by igiving a verdict for the defendant. \Vcll iin the next paragrtph he includes all the bad Words he Cuultl. “One thing is certain this miserable canting morality, which l‘as been so freely indulged in by this phara- saiCal editor of the paper referred to, had better Come to an end or he will get such l a thorough exposure as will astonish him ; and put the public on its guard against such I scandalous villification with which its columns have been filled.” Now these are the items, there are nearly two columns of lit, but I just point out the strongest part of it, the rest is steady abuse. I point you out those tn'o items. These are the two items which he says were not suf- ficient, had not given him h-tlf enough. Then we take up the article of the 8th November, 1889, the principal article which you see gentlemen he published on the principal page of his paper and which is lieadcl in large type, “ A thanksgiving bone for Joe Cooper and family to pick,” and which extends nearly over three Columns, and which is admitted and which in fact is signed by Mr. Hughes himself. Well now in the first place see what he points out; he calls li’m. “ To have noticed you would have gratified your weak in~ tcllcct.” Then look at this. ” And your miserable carcass, so puny as to be free from the punishment such craven wretches as you deserve.” Now, use of abuse of that sort is very apt to commit a breach of the peace if we Were not in such a law abiding country. In many a country a man using such language to another, Violence Would be used. Again he says, “ You are poluting Victoria.” There he insinuates and on fact charges. “Have never sent a paper to a man without its being ordered. Never take the voter’s lists at random and send them abroad. Never dropped them into the houses and stores depending on the law forcing aymcnt as you do.” Charges him with dishonesty in his business as a newspaper man. Then he uses this language, “The grit patent combination, the Romish church combi- nation and the family compact may be dissatisfied. I admit that I am glad of it. The Warrior never had as large a circu- lation by 2,500 names as it has to-day.” All this is with a View of crushing his opponent whose journal was occupying the same field as his ownfh’tdtawing from the same political party, and the whole tone of these articles touched the pocket, and is to a very great extent the expres- siou of venom from a man who feels that he has got an opponent whom it is his duty to crush, in order that his circulation may still keep up. Then he says a good word for himself, that the Warder is being recognized by the eople of Victoria and Durham as 9.1 of this district. Then he .. 0 him as being the f (11:1? 022 page 8. A Hideous Story. MADRID, April 8.â€"A ‘fiorrible story comes from Morocco, A large box was recently brought from the interior to the port of Mazagan for shipment. When opened a ghastly sight was revealed in the box. Packed closely together were the bodies of sixteen young women, one man and a negress. All the Victims had been decapitated, and their heads were missing. The bodies were embalmed, and had evi- dently been in the condition in which they were found for a. long time. The slaugh- ter had been to all appearances the work of some pacha who visited vengeance on his harem for unfaithfulness. 5 54, 6 62' PER CENT. N UNLIMITED SUPPLY 0 Private and Companv at above rates, on good Fa . r 0341 security. in and T own. Debentures, Mortgages and Nor ‘ CS 119'? .: 1. atea to best advantage. - «Ou- BARRON 8: McLArch Solicitors. Linden 39 mom a â€"_A_'I‘-â€"â€" -S. J. PETTY, “THE J EWELLER.” N elW Watches, â€"â€"â€"I Nâ€" GOLD, 511: V5]? mi FILLED CASES. WALNUT and _ NICKLE CLOCKS. ‘ Prices away down. COME AND SEE . J. PETTY, “The Jeweller.” N. B.â€"â€"Please bear in mind, all repairs in our line done as usual. To 2756 Ladies 0/ Vida/'22; Cazz/zz‘y .' ex Having Visited the Fashion Centres of Toronto, Buffalo, and New Ycrk, and made extensive pur- ‘ - - . chases, I have a very Ohorce Stock of Latest Fash- iiiii . o’cl‘il Ions in “ii: NEW MILLINERY, TRIMMINGS, ETC. O‘l mate The , rend ceed the Shapes, Trimmings, Ribbons, Laces, Veilings, Feath- . f9“, ers, Flowers, etc. These goods are now opened out, and ladies are cordially invited to call and in- spect the stock before purchasing elsewhere. MESS O’BRIE N. “'- LOOKED AFTER. DRY KILN NOW IN FULL 0’ . BLAST AND DRY nouns, SASH, monomer,“ no, l Guaranteed With Prices right. . l 'U Parties intending to build should call and inspect our work 4 before buying elsewhere, and W9 will convince them that they W1 save money by doing so. Ingle Ryley. t: 1 1 re,