Grand Rapids herald. [volume] (Grand Rapids, Mich.) 1892-1959, 1893-05-25
THEY ARE STILL OUT
The Iuy in the Case Of Paige
Versus The Herald
HAS REACHED NO VERDICT
"A ~ 50 i-.ss Nixhs Judge Grove Be-
css.s Tired ~ ~ ai,sax for thu
Jury Aasi W~ss Hossss.

a. aa agreement or hAdat al II N Est
night; In. members are iock-d in the
jury ram and sill remain there until 0
e'eiosk thi- morning Ii vas ~xP~tisi
that the jury would arrive az q
verdict a. "a last night. this time 10
which the court took reces.,
bat at that tim. the foreman sent NJ a
note requesting that IN. judges charge
4. read again. judge Grove again at
nsoniShei them az ~ the duty II pay
IN ease ~ the kind aad requested a
speedy verdict At I'll Al ther. was na
signs Il sn agreement and the jury were
10, kei up Tor the night
Judge Groves Change.
The ti,-fcu=s placed Charles rhprrh
- LoNeu "a IN. stand Ia the morning
and Mr. Char,h testified that the ~
Tort q the Paige lslch mond Transaction
Ws- publc talk on tho streets ~ the
s,ilsge "a The time the story 49, printed
ia lbE HaEsLD. TIE Arguments ~ the
counsel scrc then made. and Judge
tsrovr charged the Jury.
Niier briefly rrciting the CASE the
or ssld Ia substance
n" ftstitAAN tatiNis ur nat lf-.lti
mate huslaS- transaction with Mr. kich
laorit u4i,ie m gfsd faith. lie claims
The Publication - tins article resulted
"a great INJURY L. personal character
afl nusinc-s
ae article - hbelous pr -. AMI the
lts slloas damages IN csis- ~ be proven
that iir p'aiuhs- character or business
has teen ,iamaseI The defense claim
q -
su the course - ia regular business A.
anrAsIaper IL claims that u 10 the
part % a newspaper publishers busi
{ j. eeeue,i Ia be. IL - further claimed
Sat the L prmation xas obtained f-om
u.rsuns Received Ia he thoroughly reli
>siis and Who are 80 regarded. belisv
lng u - claimed that the item vas
true and that public interest would D.
c'snsesvesi by printing II. II was pub
li-hed. IL ~ CLAIMED that they pub
l'shed a full rctraciion. printed M a
prominent place IN the paper
Another feature H. IN the nature -
Justification 81 the article. and sub
-iantla.ly IL that after the commence
menr ~ this suit the defense made q
further Investigation and Inquiry. and
original a-sextsun - IN effect true and
thar they were Justified IN the use % the
words xhlrh we're used IN the art.cle
printed " YOU lind that the article II
Essentially true and that a fraud was
p"Tpctraici. u vail b" complete Is-ri
fcation for thu defense.
~ Printed ,n Go,si Faith.
n you find the article was print~l in
g'Da''aith Ia the regular cour~e u bIsi
rr-s upnu Information believed Ia >.
true that vii t. a question winch sill
o. y0ur dI'y 20 takc into consideration
On Estimating, darases IN ease you ind
o. the plaintiff IL takes away IN"
malice The retrsction serves the safae
Iuspcse.
it You hnd tina, tho article Wa not
true. ~ entities the plaintiff 10 nomir al
damagt=. a. lea-t.
II appears that notice was served for
4 r.trs tflu ani ON 'he same day a
ulmpua aas taken out In tins cunt
aai deHserrd t. the sheriff. but the
-heriF Nas no'iTed - hold the sunni. ts
anl o. va not scrvesl until IN a.
sffrr .hs rrfraCtion wds printed ! ann
iffnls - -he opinion. anl 30 charge yOu,
t.sf fhc taking out % the summons
constituted The beginning n suit. and
that the -ait vas begun before the cor.
re.riou vas published. In acccrcLIncc
Attn this NJ exemplary or punitive
damages can BE- collected
I,n-ious Press
u you find the article published ans
untrue AMI intended o. harm the p ain
tiif y - az unlaNful publication and
the piailt'f j. entitled % damages IL
yoa hnd that the article brings con
tempt snd ~-orr upon the plaintiff. aud
81 gps true then ~ - iiteiou>
- sail publication Wa ih.lous
ft- ST. ani n not justified or shown Co
hr t.ne vii entitie the plaintiff To-
uouIsgI damages. 1V cents ~ ieast and
-urh -nrfr damages ~ would neces
a~ faN frrrn ia publication.
20 pssnrds reputation "a the stat"
~ Met AZ nay % taken into consider
st'eu ia lft-rmiping Tho amount q the
..,uiagrs he publishers cannot b.
hebl llsh.' Dor the publication - the
t,eus a. news papsrs IN Detroit. Buffalo
anil eisewh~re. even though the articles
1rr a rrret ,is'n ~ the ones p1nt~A
20 A.'trruiniuC tho Character %
fseiotif- transaction with Bichmpnd
he jury ran consider and determine
r.,.a fhr tsriencc whether the eu psoy.
re1t - l;'rhmoui hy plaintiff ia The
nf1rrr clb.uteA IS glsintIf' AMI whe her
fhf sa .es irst.o - the invention . PLAIN
tH snd intrresi a his apple aiioo FOR
EatF-t Ti4ff we're ~ we're not "a the
urgal sn,t sf liuagy csur-.. q Transaction
30 siirn ielriues- snd whether they were
rr net trns dsir IN the part - sspd
pa ut'f
70 courf cannot direct YOU ~ .Sti
msfirE 'hR ,amsges IN ease you fus Tor
fhr pitinfh THAT raisf 30 is,tls,l ~
yeur eNn Judgment aad ai-cr.tt1r.
fherr - na .eess rlsssure The ,ury
e1f hf o. understand That ~ ~ not I.
mrre srtffrarv matfer vhch ertt lrs
Ycsf o. SIS auv damages you f.-d IN
riine,i to AZ exemplary damages niust
-. lsft euf You must limit vourse -
What "a faHr lu,iguert wa deeu far
All iuef rsn~atsun
The Iurs thau rerrni - IN ihsv
r~rorfe.a that they valild 10 o. ltste-
=, fbe nidgr- charge sgsin u Nas 20
rs.,ssi - fher, snd tae 0'urt carefully ~
risinrd 'hr 1reueis gpur sbreh dau.
a.-es ~un n - slrweft
opt~Ep rUr PAVILION