Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-01-13
A LIBEL N0N-SUITED.

The Case of Collins vs. The Dispatch Fails
TO Reach the Jury-Judge White Holds
That the Plaintiff Did Not Make Out a
Case.
A non-suit was entered against the plant
if yesterday in the case of Stephen Collins,
ex-Superintendent of Mails at the Pittsburg
postoffice, against The Dispatch Publishing
Company for damages for alleged libel. The
plaintiff Collins, was the principal witness
placed on the stand. In response to ques-
tions from Msior A. NJ. Brown, counsel for
the defense, he denied that his resignation
was brought about by intemperance, but in
timated that it was for political reasons He
admitted he had for years done certain
amount of drinking, but said it never caused
him to neglect his duties
Several other witnesses testified as to the
differences drawn from the article. When
the plaintiffs case rested Major Brown
moved for a non-suit.
In support of his motion Major Brown
made a short but effective argument. He
contended that the plaintiff did not exhibit
in his declaration legal, logical cause of
action and that upon the pIeadincs and
plaintiffs testimony he did not establish a
case against THE DISPATCH. He further
argued that the article published was not
per Sc libelous and that the evidence pre-
sented by the plaintiff and his witnesses did
rot establish the complaint. The article
complained of, Major Brown argued; was
proper for public information and was
matter of interest to the community and
was therefore privileged in the absence of
proof on the part of the plaintiff that the
charges against plaintiff were untrue, ma
icious or without probable cause.
Attorney Young, for the plaintiff, made
lengthy argument in opposition to granting
the compulsory non-suit. He held that his
clients private character was involved. lie
believed that any reference to the plain
tiff's official life was privileged and proper.
Judge White, in ruling on the motion,
reviewed the testimony and discussed in
general way the law on libel. He then
said: ''Mr. Young, in my Judgment you
have failed to make out a case. /, there
fore, grant the motion for a non-suit.'' The
Judge then made an entry on ehis docket
and court was adjourned for dinner At
torneys for the prosecution intimated that
they would apply to have the non-suit taken
off later on.
Two evening cotemporaries misreported
the testimony which was given during the
hearing by Mr. Won Sender, acting busi-
ness manager, and Mr.. Madden, managing
editor Of THE DISPATCH, as 10 their i'm
preston Of the circulation of the paper at
the time of the libel in 1890 Mr. Won
Sender stated that he did not know what
the circulation was in 1890, as he
did not then have charge, of the
circulation books, but he presumed
ii might be from $4,000 to $4,000.
Mr. Madden was not in a position to re-
member circulation for given day, but
testified his belief that it was from 2S, 900 to
50, 600 daily in 1890. Two evening papers
misreport Mr.. Won Senden and MI. Madden
by representing them as testifying to the
lower figures only without giving the
higher. Reference since to The DISPATCE
books for November u, 1S9O-the day of the
publication-shows tie circulation to have
been precisely 1856, and the average daily
circulation for the six months ending Novem-
Der 80 1890, was 29, sos. Thus the highest
figures given as hasty impression upon
the stand were within the mark-a fact
which can be verified by reference to the
tabulated daily statements on file at the
Controllers office.