St. Paul daily globe., 1885-12-20
A NEW TRIAL ORDERED.
A $4,000 Verdict Vacated by Judge
Loohren in the Thompson-P. P.
Libel Suit.
The Case Carefully Reviewed and Thomp-
son Found Guilty, Although Ao-
quilted Twelve Times.
The Charges That He is an Embezzler
and Perjurer Held to be Prob
ably True.
The Judge Intimates That the Verdict
is a aSETravesty Upon Justice's--
4 Strange Document. .

Judge LOchren yesterday. in the district
court. filed decision in the libel suit of
William f. Thompson against the Pioneer
Press, yacating q verdict of S25, 900 for the
plaintiff and granting a motion for new
trial. The newspaper based its motion for
a new trial upon the ground of excessive
damages given under the influence of pas
sion or prejudice, and that the verdict was
not justified by the evidence. The first
ground is briefly disposed of by Judge Loch-
ren i'll his decision as follows:
The alleged libelous article plainly charged
the plaintiff with committing the crimes of
larceny and perjury and other acts involving
moral turpitude, intermingled with epithets
and comments calculated to intensity against
the plaintiff the feeling which such charge
would naturally give rise to in the minds of
the readers of the paper. If the charges
were false the article is a gross libel, carry
Ing on its face sufficient evidence of
actual malice to warrant exemplary damages
and the merely compensatory damages could
not fairly be light. While the court has un-
doubtedy the power to set aside verdict as
excessive, it is very difficult to fix upon a
standard by which to measure the amount OF
damages actually sustained, and it is no less
difficult to determine the exemplary or pun-
tive damages. So difficult is this that | am
not aware of any such case where court has
felt al liberty to interfere with q verdict
but | am not able to say it has in this
instance.
THE SECOND GROUND
OF the motion is tenabe and wel-founded
In other words, the defendants justification,
alleging the truth of the charges contained in
the alleged libel, was so fully and completely
sustained by all the evidence upon the trial
OF the cause that, the verdict of the jury to
the contrary, must be regarded as unwar-
r9nted and perverse. AS this decision, if
sustained upon review, will require a new
trial. would be glad if could stop with simply
announcing 1t, but the practice of courts
requires that should set forth the reasons
that have forced me to such conclusion as
the power OF court to set aside the verdict
OF jury, should be exercised with the prest-
est caution.
The judge then proceeds to consider each
Of the charges. each of which was Hbelous
If false, but justified if proven to be true.
First-As to the charge of embezzlemept.
1t was proven that from May |, 1879. until
Aug. 22. Thompson was in the employment
OF Farnham u Lovejoy and had charge of all
money and cash items of their business. The
accounts were kept according to a double
entry system and no regular cash book was
separately kept, but the cash account went
upon the general ledger, like orher imper-
soual accounts. and that in this cash account
all moneys should have been charged to
TO leash. This impersonal account of cash
on the ledger was, therefore the account of
CASHIER and If honestly kept would. at
any time when fully posted. by the
balance show the amount of money of
the firms in the hands of the cashier
FALSE ENTRIES.
It was proved that during the time of the
plaintiffs employment the entries of trans
actions upon the day-books were either made
by the plaintiff or some assistant bookkeeper
but that the work of transferring all such
entries from the day-books to the journals
and thence posting them 10 the proper ac-
counts on the ledgers was performed by the
plaintiff exclusively. II WIS also proven and
admitted that during the same time moneys
of the firm in plaintiff hands as cashier were
distracted and taken from time to time in
amounts aggregating upwards of $4,000,
with the plaintiffs knowledge and that the
plaintiff purposely falsified the books TO cover
and conceal such abstraction. The device
resorted to by the plaintiff was this: Consid-