Grand Rapids herald. [volume] (Grand Rapids, Mich.) 1892-1959, 1893-05-26

HE WINS HIS SUIT
Page Gets . Verdict for $3oo
Damages.
The HERALD WILL APPEAL
Ap~s ts~s~g Ows Al Night the Jssy
Cosapsoasls~. ard Axw~s uspoa
the lAassAAxr~.
THE HERALD WILL APPEA

At 4 o'clock yesterday morning the
iury ia the cas- a VI. J. Paige against
TsE hkxAiD agreed upon. and at ~
o'cieck returned. = verdict awarding the
plaintiff &so for alleged libel. He sued
for sioiso Prom the plaintiffs stand.
point tho verdict must bc considered q
substantial victory Tor the defense. But
Tas HEEALp Ia not satisiled that the
verdict 10 IN accordance With the Law
and facts In the case. and although II
would he cheaper Ia pay the Judgment
and costs aud thus dismiss the proceed
ing u is believed that M matter of
right and justice rehearing and new
trial should he had. For that reason
proceedings will be instituted a. have
the verdict set aside and new trial
ordered
The alleged libel upon which this yer
diet was predicated was published Jan
uary 1, lsa&
The Alleged Ltt,rl
Ii consisted 81 an article detailing a
transaction between the plaintiff and u
man named Richmond in which certain
patent right interests wer. sold Ia the
latter. The details 81 the transaction
were set forth and upon such details il
was represented that Richmond had
been deceived and "buncoed".
The story was common talk in the
village 81 lowell Ii was quite current
rumor there for several DAYS before il
appeared in TaE Hr.ALD. When the
report reached THE HtARLD il came
through the agency u gentlemen whose
veracity has never been questioned.
They are among the most reliable and
reputable citizens IN Kent county. TIM
HERALD printed the story in good faith.
believing as its informants believed. that
II was true. and being true the public
WAS entitled To- he informed
\ few days after the article appeared
Mr.. Paige returned Ia thiscity. He con
suited attorneys and upon their advice
instituted suit hy issuing summons.
On the same day demand for retrac.
ton IL the alleged libel waa made upon
the president of the Hcrald's publishing
company. Tn the same day reporter
for THr HERALD interviewed Mr.. Paige
and IN. following morning the interview
was published. From the statements
made by Mr.. Paige To the reporter il was
believed that all the parties Ia the
original story, although acting in good
faith. had been mistaken and thcreuPon
"A full and complete rctraction 81 the
article was printed. leaving Mr.. Paige So
far rs TnE HERALD could DO so, exactly
ian the same light before the public he
si"pd before the publication Of tho
alleged libel.
Was Not Sat isflrd.
The rctraction did not satisfy Mr.
Paige. and. encouraged 10 proceed 10y the
hope that jury prejudice might be- relied
on Ia give him verdict for a few hun
bred dollars. he continued his suit
Issue VAS joined and the case came
Up for trial before Judge Grove and IA
jury one week ago yesterday. Tatcm
and just appeared for the plaintiff and
Mes~rs. Taggart and Ganson for the de
PENDANT.
The plaintiff was sworn together with
other witnesses. They substantially
corroborated the story 81 the transac
ton. but denied that II was in any par
'icular in the nature 81 swindlc. Mr..
Paige. the plaintiff. testified as to the
specific value III hrs business and his
appeared that he made business IL
selling patent rights, and that when he
sold the right Ia Richmond he sold a
right to sell something upon which he
had not at the time received letters
patent The plaintiffs case rested en-
tirely on the bona fidc character IL the
transaction.
4 Thres.fold Defense.
The defense in the case was ~ three
fold nature. First. il was claimed that
the article was printed in the ordinary
and regular course IL defendants bust
ness that a. publishing newspaper
That il was published after due and
careful investigation as 10 the rcliabil
ity and credibllity ~ it's sources ~ infor
nation without malice and without
doubt IA 10 the truth II the story when
il was printed. IL was further repre-
sented that upon Mr.. Pages return O.
the city. and upon his statement ~ the
case fall and complete rctracison was
made. The second feature was what ID
IN law termed justification. The de
PENDANT represented that after the sui'
MAS commenced. and after the sretrac
ton was printed. IL made further inves
tigat.on az Ia the truth - the orig IA
charges aud pleaded that they were cub
stan;lally true. IL was shown IN cvi
dence that Richmond had parted with
has sl 60. ard hal received nothing 81
real value Tor u. Another feature was al
attempt 10 impeach the presumed l,"oc
character 10 plaintiff. For this purp"s.
witnesses gere produced from Luding
ton. Michigan. who testified that IL,
general reputation - plaintiff was bad
because ~ patent right Transaction
there Nhich were believed to be- crooked
lyon this case 'hn judge charged th'
jury a. printed in yesterdays iiERALp
The Jury evidently misinterprciei ,h'
judges fair and perspicacicus charg'
and returned tho verdict above noted
The defense VAS conducted with rsr'
skill. every point In the case being care
fully protected
Mr. Paige has recovered n verdict
which. II raid. would have him tnan
c,aily worse ~ than In the beginning
Gu a second trial q ia. case. Il the mo
i,on fof one 10 granted new evitieno
wiu 10 iafr,ducsd. the character q
which wiil ,lothtle~a determine the Issu
s.tBsreiy On It's merits
Rrat t.~sst~ Transfers
G.sprge Afnoi, aud wtf. 80 Hsnry 7
anl Sarah " pisrCs. y iofS,
~ o. smith N.n Wien add : -
A ,r.4tsr.. Il |. .f.,f tfsFf.Ff