0-9 | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z

3 > Page 3 of Argument of Hon. Henry L. Stone of Mt. Sterling, Ky. : delivered May 20th, 21st, and 24th, 1880, before the jury in the Jefferson Court of Common Pleas, at Louisville, in behalf of the defendant on the trial of the celebrated libel suit of Thomas M. Green vs. Thomas F. Hargis / reported by Charles A. Graham ; with an appendix containing the pleadings, instructions, verdict, judgment, executions, officer's returns thereon, and sketches of the jurors.

ARGUMENT OF HON. HENRY L. STONE. The gentleman who preceded me (Mr. Larew) would have you believe that he is the most disinterested gentleman imaginable; that for the mere supposed good of the Commonwealth and his love of jus- tice, he is here to-day to prosecute the defendant. Were I to inform you, gentlemen of the jury, that Mr. Larew was in the Owingsville Convention as a delegate from the county of Mason; that he was one of the Committee on Resolutions which reported that they had confi- dence in the integrity and qualifications of all the candidates before the Convention, and that whoever obtained its nomination should receive the cordial support of the entire Democracy of the District, and that he was then present in making that nomination, you would doubtless be astonished. We learn, further, from the testimony of Mr. Green, that Mr. Larew, on the night of the 5th of May, 1879, was the amanu- ensis- of Mr. Green in the revival of these charges, copying his two letters, afterwards published in the Cincinnati Contmercial, dated the 5th and 6th of May. Yet, he comes before this jury and tells you he is the most disinterested man in the world, and that he has said nothing in malice against the defendant. Of course he has none of the motley jingling in his pockets which has come out of the bank of Pearce, Wallingford Co., and he is here prosecuting this case without fee or reward. We thus see, from the evidence, gentlemen of the jury, that this controversy was revived in the town of Maysville upon a letter written by Mr. Wadsworth, whose law office was about fifty yards from the Eagle office, the plaintiff's printing establishment. It will strike you as something remarkable that one gentleman residing in the same town with another shou!d write a letter of the character of the one which has been read of the 7th of May, 1879-the letter which heads the arti- cle of that date. Mr. Green says that of that issue of his paper he got off three thousand three hundred extra copies, and of the articles pub- lished in the Cincinznati Commrcial there were some four thousand extra copies printed. They were received by Mr. Green or his agents for the purpose of being circulated against the defendant the week before the special election of the I2th of May, 1879. They were sent by ex- press, by mail, and special messengers, all over the accessible parts of the District As to who paid for those extra copies, and at whose expense they were distributed, we called upon the plaintiff to testify. The moment we struck that point the gentleman representing him objected. Judge Hargis was traveling in company with Mr. Holt, his competitor, up in the Sandy Valley, one hundred and fifty miles away, with no time or opportunity afforded him to meet these charges or counteract their baneful effects before the election, while these gentle- men in Maysville were getting off these extras and circulating them by thousands among the people, in remote counties where he had no pos- sible chance to contradict them previous to the election. These gen- tlemen who acted as the amanuenses of the plaintiff in getting up those articles for publication, now have the hardihood to come before an hon- est jury of Jefferson county and say that they have said nothing in malice, and are as innocent as doves in this whole transaction. Not stopping, however, with what had already been done, chagrined at the fact that Judge Hargis was elected, this infamous warfare upon him is kept up after the election under the pretense of correcting mis- statements of the public press. Article after article is written to the 3