The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-01-14
THE LAW OF LIBEL.
Another Chicago Newspaper Libel Suit-Dam
ages Claimed, @25,OOO-Judsment for De
PENDANT.

Another Chicago Newspaper Libel Suit-Dam.
ages Claimed, S25,OOO-Judsment for De-
PENDANT.
From the Chicago Tribune Jan. 81
Four OF the libel suits lately instituted In the Su
perior Court Of Chicago against tine Tribune Com
pany yesterday came to determination oy Judgments
& q osn + n GEORGE the so
Robert Scott, commenced on the 9th day Of Novem-
Der, 1885, In each Of which the damages were laid at
the alleged cause OF action was publication made
In January, 1885, concerning the great fire upon
I. Pirie, on demurrer 10 the declaration.
The declaration contained four counts. The first
count averred that the plaintiff with others, IS
firm, occupied Is lessees certain premises, having IN
them merchandise TO the value Of about $4,000
which was insured and that the defendant, with the
ti (Plriel was guilty Of arson, published OF him as
f0l0ws-"While the above fre was sti at its height
tongues Of nsme were seen to shoot up simultane.
basement In front OF Carson Prize Co.'s wholesale
dry goods establishment, No. 20 Lake street,
twenty minutes to nine O'Clock, and about
the same time that the first walls fell In on the other
side OF Lake street. Amid the smoke and confusion
the fact was not at once noticed BY the department.
whose energies were only too severely taxed already,
and whose efforts on another subject could be III
spared Hence 1t was some time before that was at
tended to- and the connagration had soon gained
fearful Roadway. promising soon to be even more
mystery. IL was thought that burning pieces had
fallen on the premises, but there was little time for
speculation The fire had gained firm ioothold and
was swinging on TO newer conquests. The origin OF
the second IRE question; the building being some
whatremoved from the first scene, and the flames ap-
pearng to some looking on to leap up suddenly from
the basement. Two gentlemen who were standing
on the grating OF Carson Pirie& Co., saw large live
throug the Grating saw that was All on ire below
1t was rumored that this firm had said few days
before that they would soon have to fail and go into
The second count was like the first, excepting
that Y said that the meaning OF the publication was
that the said plaintiff had been and was guilty OF
having wilfully and maliciously set Ore TO SAID
building"
The third count varied to state the meaning of the
ubcation TO be that the said plaintiff guilty OF
and had committed the crime OF arson.
The fourth count averred by muendo that the arti-
Gle meant that the said plaintiff had been and was
guilty OF having wilfully and maclously set Are TO
the said bulldog.
The defendant interposed a general demurrer and
Mr.. Writ Dexter, counsel for the tribune Company,
argued:-First, that the article In question did
not contain charge OF arson; second. that the
which rebutted the presumption OF arson; third,
that the rumor that The nrm had declared
that that they would have to fan and go into bank.
charge Of arson was intended, because such de-
caraton on the part OF the firm would attract atten-
article contained no averment that the pIaintif,s
goods were insured, that the building they occu-
worth more than fifty dollars so as to bring the ACT
81 burning within the statutory definition OF
tne averInents necessary 70 make out such charge
nad 10 pc looked for IN the plaintiffs declarations:
nfth, that charge against firm does not enable an
individual member OF the firm to bring suit az he
might have been in the minority and opposed the
The plaintifrs' counsel, Miller, Van Arman and
Lewis, and Hervey, Anthony and Gait argued that
the article was libel. In the sense charged In the
declaration. II was TO be considered then, whether
the words used were susceptible lin law) OF the
plaintiff III they were then there could be no doubt
e 10 the right Of the plaintiff to maintain his suit
n the article charges the parties with the crime al
Legged then the action IN aacq IA IN
this was only to decide whether any criminal act
wasvmpnted TO the pIantifr as . member Of the
Of the publication or Of the writer OF the ar.
ticle to- convey the idea that, on account OF the
rumor OF the embarrassed circumstances OF the firm
and that 1t had declared at some tune prior TO the
connagruion, that It was about TO go into bank.
ruptcy, and, taking II In connection with the previ
Gus allegation that the location OF the second IRE
was at considerable distance from the FIRST these
parties had get IRE to their storeS II so, then the
and the i allegation would point to the memoess o.
the irm OF which plaintiff Ia one The old rule that
The court should fake the words OF libel in their
midesf sense had been exploded. and the late de-
cisons required that the commonly accepted con.
struction OF the language used should be the con-
HSa Court pa' P d y s1' he following op
] do not think this action can be maintained. for
tue reason that do not think this article pretends
70 account FOR The origin OF the fire. think that II
does not impute to anybody the burning Of the
rhey do not pretend In the article to account Tor the
IRE In any way While hold the rule OF taking the
midest sense Of the words used az having been ex-
poded yet bas not been reversed as TO require
court TO strain language to deduce from 10 crimi-
nal meaning whe there Il none obvious on the face
OF the statement The demurrer should be sus-
taiDed
Judgment was rcndered in each OF the cases for
defendant.
The Chicago Union Christian Convention adjourned
yfs,erday afternoon The sessions were wei at
tended and prominent business men aud clergy alike
A.