The Leavenworth weekly times., 1876-02-10
dIeeklp Times
THURSDAY. FEBRUARY 10, 1876.
OUR LIHEL SUIT.

The suit Of David II. Mitchell, OF this
city, against the Leavenworth TINES for
libel has been on trial in the District Court
during the past three days. Yesterday, the
jury, under instructions from the court,
brought in a verdict in favor Of the plafn-
tiff, assessing Mitchel's damages at fifty
dollars
The libel consisted in the publication Of
local item, written by the city editor Of
TIE TINES, without the knowledge or con-
sent OF the proprietor, charging Mitchell
with committing a rape upon one, Miss
Dugan.
Immediately upon reading the article in
question, early on the morning Of its publ
cation, August 2S, 1875, the proprietor of
The TIMES sent for the city editor for an
explanation as to his authority. He re-
ported that he obtained the supposed facts
from Pat McGraw, and that McGraw heard
the story from Sheriff Bond, who was un-
derstood TO say that he then had a warrant
for Mitchelps arrest. Messrs. McGraw,
Joseph Irwin, Jacob Bauer and George
Leuder all united in saying that the story,
as published, was substantially as told
by Sheriff Bond TO them, which
seemed to give the statement semi
official character. Although this statement
WAS made, the fact proved to be that Sheriff
Bond had a summons instead of a warrant
for Mitchell's arrest, and that the charge
made by Miss Dugan against Mitchell was
for assault and battery, claiming damages
ia the sum OF five thousand dollars.
The proprietor OF THE TIMES, in the next
issue Of the paper, made prompt apology
and retraction for the libelous article. On
the Both OF August, only two days after
wards, he saw Mitchell, and personally
apologised to him, offering to make any
further personal or public retraction re-
quired. To all of these offers Mitchell
maintained silence.
1t will be borne in mind that for fifteen
years Mitchell and the proprietor had been
friends. Moreover, at the time the alleged
libel was published, and for four months
prior thereto, the proprietor of THE TINES
was confined to his bed by sickness, and ab-
solutely unable to attend to business, but
while East seeking restoration to health,
Mitchell commenced civil suit against
The TINES for libel, claiming damages in
the modest sum Of twenty-five thousand
dollars.
On his return from the East, the propri-
etor OF The TINES, by accident, found the
official demand for this small sum of S25,-
900 lodged 10 the shrubbery in the door
yard of his residence. Upon the trial the
defense admitted the publication, but de-
Lied all malice. Under the law and the
pleadings las it was claimed) the court in
structed the jury to bring in verdict for
the plaintiff, which they did, assessing his
damage at fifty dollars.
This, We believe, is plain and fair state
ment of the case.
Now that the trial is over, and Mitchell
has got his ffty-dollar Judgment, we desire
10 say again, that We knew nothing of the |
publication of the article until we saw it in |
print. 1t was published against general
rule OF the Office. We were sorry it was
published. We are sorry now. We never
had any malice, hatred or ill-feeling to-
wards Mr. Mitchell, but We might truth
fully add, however, that his perslstency in
prosecuting this case, after such ample pub
lie and private apology and retrac,ion, did
lead to the conviction that he had some
other motive than reparation OF character,
when he sued for $4,000.
The attorneys in the case were Fenlon
and Fitzwilliam for the plaintiff, and Lu-
cien Baker for the defendant.