New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-05-12
LEDERER'S CHARGE DISMISSED.
EDWARD L. BLOOM DID NOT LIBEL HIN. SAY lie
POLICE JUSTICES.

|
| POLICE JUSTICES.
The charge Of criminal libel brought by George w.
Iederer against Edward L. Bloom was diShisse" III
the Court of special sessions yesterday Dy fo"oe
! Justices smith, Mcmahon and Ryan. Ass''o'i'
District Attorney Harry D. McDona appeared Tor inc
| prosecution, and A. ii. HIummel for BLOOM. Inc
\ testimony was interesting. Lederer was the mo-
Witness lie said he was theatncai iha""sc'' 81,
was the sole owner OF the U and II company ne
declared lie had been manager for Professor iiei'-
mann. and was In New York when the company weh'
70 pieces in California and when the ehects OF inc
company were sold. Through his attorney lie bought
I'm the companys property and Its right ana utic'
iii, attorney bid $50 for ar these, but the money
was never paid. That on January D. loo2'
The sale was ordered BY Judge Wallace, Of the supreme
Court, san Francisco
As the money not paid new sale was orlered
and advertised Then the effects were bought in by
r,uard : RIoom for $3.50 The company had con-
rocts 10 play from Nebraska to Omaha. When 1t
came Fast Lederer demanded IL royalty but this was
not paid and he secured injunction against the
production Of the play In Philadelphia. The company
was dlsb0nded then
The present charge was the outcome Of the trouble
OF the "U and |" company. An advertisement ap-
peared in a dramatic paper January 26 which called
Mr. Ledcrcr n skin" cheat and other bellous names
Bloom Lederer alleges wrote the article which In
jured him in his business. lie admitted that he
wrote an article I'm May, 1891 In which he scored
Bloom. lie supposed that Blooms advertisement was
only an answer to the witnesses article. which was
written after Professor Hermann had substituted
Bloom for him as manager Of the company.
Then copy Of "The san Francisco Post" containing
an interview with Professor Hermann submitted
In evidence The Interview told about Ledcrer's
marriage with the late Richard S. Ncwcombe's daughter,
and charged that Professor Icrrmann's business
neglected by Lederer In the article Professor Herr
mann spoke freely Of Ledercr's business actions. A
copy Of the paper mailed to Lederer by Bloom
masters influence stn goes" signed f. L. Bloom"
Iedercr admitted that the first letter he had caused
to be published in the dramatic paper about Bloom
Influenced by that interview
Edwin Il. Bethlehem testified to the receipt Of the
advertisement at the office Of the paper.
W. F. Falk OF san Francisco. who was appointed
receiver Of the money received for the effects Of the
&" L and I" company, next called. The bill OF
sale was read and he sworc to It's correctness
Lederer recalled aud read the story In the San
Francisco paper containing the Interview with Pro
fessor Hermann. lie read young lady, instead Of
" Mrs. NewcOmbc" when reading about his marriage,
and Mr.. IIummcl requested that he be made TO read
10 correctly. This ordered.
Then Mr. IIummel asked for dismissal Of the case
declaring that Lderer started the series Of articles
and that his client simply replied to SANDERS made
against him by tho complainant After a few minutes
consultation with Justices Ryan and Mcmahon Justice
smith dismissed the case.