Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1880-02-02
JURIES CRITICISED.

How Giving Democratic Patronage To q Re-
publican Paper Mixed Up the Commits
si,ns.
To the Editor of the Globe.
Allow me to remind your readers of the
frequent newspaper allusions that have b2en
made within the past few years relative to
trict court of Ramsey county by ihteYi-
qenH p iuries; and then allow mo to illustrate
the finding of verdict that was rendered on
Thursday last in the case of J. Q. A. Ward
vs.. The st. Paul Dispatch Company by an
intelligent jury, in favor of the defendant,
which l think rather caps the climax.
The action was brought to recover balance
of $226 alleged to be due the plaintiff for
salary and commissions while engaged oa
the Dispatch from 1877 TO 1879. At the
time the action was brought DULY 30, 1879
the editor made al editorial allusion to the
matter, as follows:
"Mr J. @. A. Ward filed his com plant to-
day July 30) against the ST. Paul Dispatch
company, alleging that 1926 ere due to
him on an unsettled account for
commissi) etc. As the defend
ant only admits an Indebtedness of $40, which
it offers to pay, the chances are that tn, county
of the occult mysteries OF newspaper bust
ness"
This same admission was made on the
witness stand by Henry A. Castle, and yet
this intelligent jury was not satisfied that a
dollar was due the plaintiff. 1t was also
proven that the plaintiff had performed ser
vices according to the directions of Mark
Flower, the manager of the institution,
amounting to the sum of 1858, which the
plaintiff had not been credited with on the
books of the Dispatch company. The
transactions alluded to above, partly from
which the commissions enuret to the plain
tiff, were sworn to by Henry O'Gorman and
Capt. J. Ii. Reaney, the former testifying
that the plaintiff had sol cited and procured
from him legal notices for publication in the
Daily Dispatch upon the repi esentation
that he, the plaintiff, would be benz flied to
the extent of Is per cent, on the gross
amount of the price Of the publication,
otherwise such publications would not have
been given to the Dispatch company at all.
These commissions amounted to S45: and
notwithstanding there was a special under
standing between Castle, on the part of the
Dispatch company, and the plaintiff to the
effect that all patronage he, plaintiff, could
procure for the Dispatch from Democrats or
Democratic Office holders WAS clear gain to
him, his book-keeper testified that xcredit
of their commissions due on the same were
never given on the books to him. And yet
this intelligent jury couldn't see verdict in
favor of the plaintiff.
Capt. Reany testified that through the
solicitation of the plaintiff and no other. be
had given advertisements, for the season OF
navigation) for the Keokuk Northern Line
packet and st. Croix packet companies bust
ness, amounting to over S100-the commits
sions on which amounted to over $50. And
that otherwise these advertisements would
not have been published in the Dispatch.
And still this intelligent jury did not fld
sufficient evidence to find verdict for the
plaintif-becouse it did not appear on the
books of the company, credited to the plain
tiff.
And even though Judge Brill, in his
charge to this intelligent jury, stated that if
it was found that the plaintiff had performed
such services and the DiSpatct company
had accepted them and received payment
therefor, and the plaintiff had not been rec
ompensed, he, the plaintiff, should be SO rec
ompenSed.
The verdict of this intelligent jury, Mr..
Editor, may be accounted for, probably,
from the fact that it was not permitted to
see but one side of the transactions in black
and white between the plaintiff and defend
ant-the account of the plaintiff being re-
jected as evidence because it was but dnpli-
cate Of the original account, the original
account having been rendered to the de-
PENDENT in May last. j. Q. A. WARD.