The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1879-08-21

TIE .nd Se oadered the jury to return an
Nihlif verdict, which they accordingly
transferring the costs on to us.and
Hre oil six and quarter cents. The II.
,bolods article eon whieh the suitwas
bhaed stated that the defeDdant kept a
aiateputable house. There are suits now
pendirf against the Gazette" concluded
N Reed, "but of course we can't tell
hoN they will result"
NJ Mr.. Siebeneck, of the Chronicle, was
n ext asked to stand up and explain how
much bis paper had suffered by publish.
ing the truth about somebody. Said
that gentleman, "The Chronicle is nine
teen years of age, and has paid $3l0 20
in settlement of libel suits. There is one
case now pending against us, Bloomfield
vs. Chronicle, which has been called up
time and again. but has never come to
trial. The item which led to the suit
was published at the time of the riots,
and was procured in the usual way in
an alderman's office It reflected on the
character of the defendant; however,,
there was no malice in it. Another case
was that of q Washington county man, In
which We were sued with the Post. The
matter was compromised by the Ohroni-
Gle for 5000; the Post paid S526,I In this
instance the article injured the plaintiff,
for IL charged him with. adultery, The
reporter got the wrong name mixed up
with that of the other man who was sued
for the crime, The mistake was parely
unintentional on the part of both papers,
butas the publication did result in an
injury to the young man we settled the
matter by arbitration. The Post would
nst do this, but when they learned that
the plaintiff had subpoenAed several
hundred witnesses in Washington coun'
ty, they concluded the costs would be
heavy and paid the sum stated, most of
which went to the witnesses, who had
been brought on here We have paid
attorney fees in several other cases. and
in another which went to trial we were
found not guilty" all
The Post has been singularly unfortu-
nate. Aside from the Washington coun.
ty case, which cost that paper over $500,
the $40 600 suit brought by William D.
Moore is still in the courts. The Moore
case has been appealed several times
The first time verdict was brought in
for $40 900 damages Anew trial reduced
the verdict to So 600, and still later trial
brought the damages down to So 600,
where it now stands. 1t is hard TO sur
mise what the ultimate end will he. The
celebrated McCandless case, in which
Drs. Guy and Alexander were the plain
tifs, was settled by arbitration and cost
the Post $500, an equal portion of which
went to each of the brothers. The Post
made a mistake in this instance, which
has worked evil in more ways than one.
They were induced to!make a full retrac-
ton, which was unjustly used against
them as evidence by the counsel for the
plaintiffs. The instance cited has had
much to do in deterring other papers
from being caught in the same way, and
hence many a correction Is not made
that otherwise would be. 7ev ..r.a 9,I b.
The Dispatch man was next taken to
task and be humbly confessed that his
paper in its thirty three years. expert
enOe had done penancesto the extent of
500, all told, and had been sued for
something like $7000000.s He further
more admitted that the Dispatch was the
Patsy Bolivar Of the Pittsburg Press,
and generally got punished for the sins
committed by its contemporaries as we'll
as the mistakes IL made itself. The gen.
tleman cited a number of instances
where cases broughtbad come to onought,
and also two in which damages were as
sessed at $3.50 each. He concluded by
saying that they had never published a
line through malice and never would if.
they were aware that malice prompted
1t; that they had never compromised by
paying cent, and would not do so, and
finally that they we're open to convio-
tion, and would always with pleasure re.
tract where an error in their columns
was made apparent. The Dispatch man
also said he thought the libel law just
institution that they considered a
newspaper a public document in which
no man had right to vent his optic, e,and
we're willing to live up to the law, and
when they could not do that to abide by
the consequences.
The Freiheits Freund, so the reporter
was informed by Mr.. Neeb, has indulged
in two libel suits, one of which they
compromised by paying two hundred
dollars, and another in which an intelli
gent jury brought in a verdict Of guilty
against them and awarded damages to
the extent of six and a quarter cents. In
the latter suit damages were asked to
the tune of 5000. Like all the other
papers they have been threatened
number of times. .ls
The Telegraph and Volksblatt, accord
ing to statements made by representa-.
tives of those papers, have never ar
rived at the dignity of having libel
suit. ...u
A recapitulation of the above figures
will show that the total amount recov-
cred in the way of damages from the
papers mentioned will not reach $4,000.
So it will be readily seen that there are
not millions in it" although millions
have been sued for The research de-
veloped another fact, which is that but a
very small per Centage of the suits were
brought by respectable persons; instead,
however, the majority of the individuals
who deemed themselves libeled we're
open to criticism, and people whose &C.
tions would not stand newspaper iEves.
tlgation. J" -..f
The only objections which the writer
heard expressed against the law by, the
newspaper men was that 1t would not
admit the truth in evidence thata per.
son sued for criminal libel was not &C.
corded the same rights allowed other
criminals, that Of producing Evidence to
show why they had published the alleg
ed libel, and that the truth only had been
given. Although this right iis denied
them, i. O., that Of putting the truth in
evidence, the press places its trust in
the good judgment Of courts and juries,
and the instances are rare whrre it has
been misplaced. .a o