St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-02-01
THE VERDICT is IN.
Jury Agree in Dispatch Libel
Suit, But Result Un-
known
THE VERDICT IS SEALED.
O'Brien Scores Thompson--
Newspaper Hen Nice
Fellows,
WITH LARGE CAPACITIES
Who VIII Let You Treat Just
as Often as You
Please.
THE VERDICT IS SEALED.
WITH LARGE CAPACITIES

against the st. Paul Dispatch, Whlch
has excited so much interest the
past few days on account of the
sharp fight that developed between
the attorneys in the case, was given
to the Jury last night, with instruc-
lions to return a sealed verdict.
When court opened yesterday
morning. Palmer resumed the stand,
and the cross-examination contin-
ued for a time with about the
same results as on the previous day.
The defense then called George A.
Doran, who has charge of the circu-
lation of the paper, to prove that MI.
Thompson, against whom the suit
was brought individually, had moth
ing to do with the sending out of the
papers.
A. E. Chantler, who was manag-
ing editor of the paper at the time
the alleged libelous article appeared,
was next called to prove that MI.
Thompson had no knowledge of the
publication of the article.
Mr.. Thompson was not present,
his physical condition being such
as to make it inConvenient for him
to put in an appearance, but he sent
a written statement inWhlch he con-
fessed that he was the executive
head of the corporation that owns
the paper. But he denied that he
is individually the owner.
Attorney Mum made a strong az
gument for the defense. He laid
much stress on certain discrepan-
cies in the testimony of the plant
if on direct examination compared
with that on crOss-eXamination, and
tried to make it appear that Palm
er's business schemes, which were
upset by the publication, were more
in imagination than in reality. In
this connection he said: when Mr.
Palmer gave up his business in Lon
don and came to this country and
formed a partnership to go into this
BUSINESS of libel financiering in
stead of libeling financiering, he
made a big mistake"
Mr.. Mum also laid stress on the
fact that no demand for PREPARATION
was made for nearly two years after
the publication Of the article, though
Palmer admitted having purchased
a copy of the paper with this end in
view shortly after it was printed.
Another point was that the letter
OF
tention to an article published on
Oct. 8, whereas no such article APP
peared in that issue, and newspaper
people could not be expected to go
through the entire files of the paper
to ascertain the issue in which an
item appeared, or to see if it ap-
peared at all. The legal demand for
retraction was made on Sept. 10 at
4 o'clock, Mr.. Mum said, after the
paper had gone to press, the next
day was Sunday and no issue was
printed, and the following day the
suit was begun, so there was no Op-
portunity for retraction, as provided
by law.
His strongest point, however, and
the one on which the verdict prob
ably hinges, in case the jury has
found for defendant, is the claim that
Mr.. Thompson is not individually the
owner of the paper, but the Dis
patch Publishing company, q cor
poration of which MI Thompson is
simply the head, and therefore Mr..
Thompson could no. b. held to be
liable The fact that the Dispatch
does not circulate outside the limits
of st. Paul was also dwelt on to show
that no material damage could re-
suit from the publication of the arti-
Gle in this particular paper.
G. d. O'Brien made the argument
for the plaintiff in his usually force
| full style, laying particular stress on
the sacredness of q mans reputa-
| ton, and the consequences that in
variably follow even a slight charge
against a man, much less one OF
| such a serious nature as the theft
| Of $40, COO No matter who Mr..
Palmer might be or how unworthy
! he might be, the article was untrue,
| and the only thing to have done was
| to retract it.
'Why did not Mr.. Thompson come
| into this court and face the jury like
MANI" asked the speaker. He
mas no regard for this mans char
acter, and he evidently has no re-
gard for the courts. l confess Mr.
| Mum is a nice fellow l would
! rather be Mum when Thompson is
| paying him than to be Thompson.
! The counsel for the defense has
warned you that you were about
| to hear an attack on the neWspa-
| pers, but you wont; that you were
about to hear an attack on the de-
| PENDANT, but you won't from me;
| that you We're about to hear an an
| peal to sympathy in behalf of this
| plaintiff, but [ tell you, gentlemen,
| he has got beyond your sympathy
Not one Of you would for any
money consideration take his place;
| have it go out to the world that you
| had stolen $4,000. 1 know a lot of
| newspaper men. They are good fell
lows. They will let you treat just
as often as you have mind to, and
they have a capacity that is de-
| lightful. Newspaper men and news
papers are useful, but they must not
be permitted to destroy mems repu-
tations."
Judge Brills charge was brief. He
said the article was certainly libel
! Gus. The only questions We're as to
whether the defendant was response
bic, and. if he was, the amount of
damage the publication in this par
ticular paper had caused. AS to the
| question Of the liability of the de-
PENDANT. he said that if it be found
| that Mr. Thompson was simply the
| executive head Of the corporation
owning the paper, and had no direct
knowledge of the publication of the
article, he could not be held indi-
| vidually responsible.
The jury retired about $50 o'clock,
and reached a verdict after being
out about three hours.