Little Falls transcript. [volume] (Little Falls, Morrison County, Minn.) 1876-1894, 1894-03-09
DISTRICT COURT
Vel dict for Defendeut in the Tran.
script Libel Case. -Rassier vs..
Schieusener Case on Trial
Today.

Yesterday until o'clock in the af-
ternoOn the district court considered
the case OF Jos. Hennen VS.. The
Transcript Publishing Co., and at
that hour the jury RETIRED and at
once agreed on a verdict in favor of
the defendant, and returned such a
verdict to the court within fifteen
minutes after receiving the judges
charge. The case, as will probably
be remembered by our readers, was
one brought by Mr.. Hennen against
the Transcript for $4,000 for libel,
basing his claim ON the article that
gave an account of the fire in his
saloon. He also included other ar
ticles, and alleged that they referred
to him, and damaged him. There
was no effort to dispute the facts as
stated in the article, but it was
claimed that the conclusions which
closed ithe account of the fire
amounted to a libel. 1t was con-
coded that there was no malice in
the transcripts course, and it was
claimed by the defendants that there
had been no libel. It is certainly
quite pleasing to the Transcript to
receive the vindication it did. It is
never the policy or intention OF this
paper to be libelous, and it tries to
give fair and impartial accounts OF
events. 1t must stand by it's state
ments, and people who expect it to
''take back" what it says will he
disappointed. If the paper made
general attacks and insinuatiOns
against people, retractions would of
course, be necessary, but when fair
report of an occurrence is given it
cannot afford to express regret and
apologies, and thus give cause for
doubt al to the reliability of reports
appearing in it's columns. We en-
deavor to publish a paper that
people will believe. and when state
ment is made it will not be retracted
unless additional information show,
that an injustice was done, and then
the correction will be made regard
less of any claims of any one inter-
ested.
The case naturally attracted con-
siderable attention, as it was the
first newspaper libel suit ever tried
in Morrison county. It is seldom
that libel suit is successful, be-
cause papers will do all possible
to prevent the trial of case, but
they certainly canno afford to sacri
flee their indepen dence and retrac
fair statements. A newspaper is
always willing to correct errors,
but it cannot be expected to correct
facts that are facts.
The Transcript certainly has rea-
son to be gratified over the manage
ment of it's important case by the
firm OF Lindbergh, Blanchard &
Lindbergh, who won a creditable
and complete victory. Their con-
duct OF the case was mastery, and
the presentation of the matter to
the jury resulted in prompt success.
A. p. Blanchard made the opening
remarks to the jury, and the plea
for the defendant was made by C.
A. Lindbergh. Taylor, Calhoun &
Rhodes were attorneys for Hennen,
and the weakness of their case was
the fault of the facts and conditions.
No better prosecution could be made,
and legal talent could not help the
plaintiffs cause.
After the jury went out in the
Hennen VS.. Transcript case the one
of John Kassier VS.. H. F. Schleus-
ener was called on. This is a case
where John Rassier sues H. F.
Schleusener for $4,000 damages for
malicious prosecution because Mr..
Schleusener had him arrested last
year for stealing iron and failed to
make out a case against him. AS
we go to press the attorneys are pre-
senting their arguments.
Yesterday the grand jury charged
Harry Gravel with manning one Peter
Van Herke. An account of this case
appeared in the Transcript some
time ago. 1t is claimed that Gravel
who is only seven years of age in
tentional]y shot Peter Van Herke,
aged fifteen, in the eye with a bow
and arrow. The defense will be that
it was all accident.