Telegram-herald., 1888-12-18
BELKNkP VS.. BALL
0EclAaATloN u Tns useL sur
3sr. Bslks4p shows . Deter ais~tios -
frsss tAs C4ss Against ths ~Dsn4oer@g~
-Kks fsTrasi st4tsaas4t of tns
I@ss Copied Verbatim


zresaloasl esmpaiEn. As he fseIs uP0B
whieA iae s1il = based can b. oess learned
if0n .as declaration iisslf. the document -
Lsrs siIA prnLss Ia full
STATE or MICHIGAN
IHz CIECJlI Coz zI FoE InE COUNTY -.
~ hENI, COUNTY 0F kFNr.
Charles Z. bslkaap, plainun herein. oy
b2i.eflsid hssnsy sud i4sgart, WOlcOtt
6 G4DsOn. his attorneys. complains OF
Frank ". Bal, the defendant herein. who
las been duly summoned 10 answer the
said plainur OF q plea Of tresyass Oh the
case.
For that. whereas. the said plaintiff now
Is and for long space Of time, to- wi. for
ten years And upwards last pact. nas been
resident OF the city OF Grand Rapids in said
county and safe. and = no. good, true,
honest and faithful citizen OF the State Ol
Michigan, snd has always behaved and con-
Quoted himself as such, and until the COM
hitting Of The several grievances oy the said
defendant, as hereinafter mentioned, WAS al
ways reputed. esteo1ed and accepted by
and amongst all his neigh0ors and other
good and worthy citizens of the State Of
Michigan. 10 whom he was known 10 be .
man OF coon name. fame education and in
telhgence, BY means whereof The said
pialnuf before the committing OF the grlev-
anees hereinafter mentioned had dsseryeOly
attained the good opinion OF all his neigh
bOrs and other good and other worthy clu-
zens Of the State OF Michigan TO whom ne
Was IN any wise known, to-wlt. al the
County OF Kent Aforesaid:
And, whereas. before and at the time of
the committing OF the grievances by said de-
fsndant, as hereinafter mentioned, the said
plaintiff, at the special instance aEd request
OF many citizens OF the said state
OF Michigan had become and was a
candidate for election 10 the office
OF Member OF Congress Of the United States
Tor the Filth Congressional district OF the
State Of Michigan, by means whereof the
notice and attention OF the citizens of the
State u Michigan. and especially OF the
Fifth Congressional district thereof, was
then particularly directed and 6Ked 10 and
upon the said plaintiff and his personal
character, education. general intelligence
and Information, tO-wit: at tne County OF
Kent aforesaid. yet the said defendant, well
knowing tbs premises, ana COntriving anC
wickedly and maiI0l1usly intending 10 in
lure tha plaintiff in his good name fame,
credit and reputation. ana TO bring MIN
into public scandal derisiOn, contempt and
disgrace with aud among nis neignbOrs and
al other good and worthy citizens of Mich
igan, and TO cause II 10 be believed that
the said plaintiff was a stupid, illilerate
and ignorant man. and 10 vex, harass and
oppress the sa III plaintiff on. to-wit: the
lst day of NOvem Oer in the year eighteen
hundred and lightweight, at, to-wit: the
County of Kent aforesaid, falsely, wickedly
and msliciOusly did compose and publish,
and cause 10 be composed, printed anu
published in the Duty Democrat, a daily
newspaper which has large circulation in
and ABOUT the Fifth Congressional district
oi the State of Michigan and other parts of
said State, and also 10 the Weckiy Democrat,
a weekly newspaper which has a large cir
culatiOn in the Fifth Congressional dis
trct of the State of Michigan and in other
parts of said State, both of which said
newspapers are printed and published in
the city OF Grand Rapids. in the county of
Kent aforesaid. a certain false malicious
injurious and defamatory lioe of and con-
! cerning the plaintiff in the false, malicious,
| injurious and lbelOus words following:
Il don't propose 10 go into debate on the
tariff differences on wool, quinine and all
the things. because | amt built that way.
| Charles f. Belknap." Which said words
were printed and published by said
defendant as aforesaid IN d coarse and blot
ted imitation of the handwriting of the
plaintiff and with certain of said words
wrongly spelled ana with an imitation OF
the genuine signature of the SAID plaintiff
| below the remainder Of said words; there
l by then and there meaning that the said
| plaintiff mad written toe words so as afore.
said prls-ed and published OF the said de-
| fsndant. and that he bad written the said
| words 10 TIE uucouio blotred and ill-spellei
form represented Ia the aforesaid publica-
ton made aforesaid by the said defen-
dant. and that said words as printed and
published by the said defendant were fac
simile Of words actually written and signed
| oy said plaintiff.
And the said plaintiff further saith that
the said defendant further contriving and
| intending as Aforesaid heretofore, on. to
Wit. The twenty seven ID day Of October. A ~
! ID. 1885 al. 10 wit. The County OF Kent
aforesaid. falsely. wic<edly am maliciouslv
did print And publish an : cause 10 be prin-
ted 800 published IN said newspaper known
as the Dliiy Democrat. a certain other IA se
injurious, malicious and tefsmat0rv libel #
aud concerning speech made by the said
plaintiff a. a public meeting neid IN the
! City Of Grand Rapids, in said County OF
Kent on the evening Of October twenty-six.
A. p lsSS containing the false, malicious
ami defsmatOry matter Glowing. of and
concerning the said plaintiff. to vii.
Not Bp1f That HGy- Bad Bre1ts BIZ n.
Reuihhcln Ca1diaate for Coagrers- H9sc
he Aait'ei n SHlaH dtiieacc Inst NigLf
-Soa> Drifaal apf Ual,4s Iieas on ne
TyiF QissiioR.
Between three and four brn-
drsd West side Republicans assem-
bisd a. Custer Guard srrspry isst evening
20 hear q r Br.Suap sod A. Cove tell
the reasons for tue iaifh tnstis in them ami
70 bear = speech ov Sr. Earle The meet
/ i0g Tas 0psned a. Is, the speakeIs being
cneersd oo their appearance M Belsnap
/ SPOKE h-st. lie assured his n.xhbors 70 Al
b. rss not taere - caniidsfe begzinx 2
| for votes. bat Vas there - zve them som >
American IDEAS wh ch ~As what the Re-
publican party advocated, the other side
I slv1cstng EnxIish Flers lie would re-
rain from 4. scussI1z s1e ts-if on WOOL
aiInine etc becalse 20 he ssif. ha zasn Z
Z aait tnst vav Thereby then sai there
T usaoinE that fhs SD plaintiff had ssid ia
his s1esrh - vsred a. f1e pahIc raasffnz
F "a Aforesaid la he F1uI refrain from dis
/ russinx the fsr' on ~oo. 4linine. ctr
I 7ecsu-e - vss1 o1if issf Ts7 and that
2 SAL psatf ras -a1 iz1o~snf all m -eca o
F O. d tclss me - 4 .lPsrI .n or o. exor@ss n
q ieceat TaV bis intention tc nos . sc1ss Ia
By means - 80 oa.an rirz of uhlch
al sere-sI q srta-es 5F rIe ssff defend
snt es si1rsssd d f1e ssii pIsirur = 1as been
and e grear7 ir1--t n as good 1sns
snd retf snf n-srhf Iaf0 nr1l- scs19af
sri z sgrsce rfr al among rsi- ao-s
sri ct1sr good a. V8r ..tzars u f-a
-rsre - Ncr gan. se fhtt rs-s ~ .r.eo
re.sh,--s s-i rars fo ~aon she "a sI.r
F OF sac aforesaid fosi-1s All 81 f-o1s stsf4.
rr--s s1 ~ 'rssaii .oss1 and rla shef
Z 17 gre sd isten 81. -rsr1wn. hs~s 90
slccurt - Iae -1~ rttnz ef tte ssi -sr-
a-sl Es-srrts ~ the ,asi defendant "a
s1res n hsnee 1e-to srrsr.-t- 3
.