The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-03-15
HER COMPLAINTPARED
JUDGE BAKERS RULING IN JULIA
MARLOWE's LIBEL SUIT.
Stricken Out and
mands Eliminated by Court.

In the suit of Julia MarIowe Taber against
the Indianapolis Journal Newspaper Com
pany, pending in the United States Court,
Judge Baker yesterday sustained the motion
Of the defendant to strike out all that part
of the complaint relating 10 the legged
demands on the part Of the plaintiff for re-
traction.
The Court says:
The plaintiff, in her complaint. alleges
that the defendant did maliciously, with
intent to injure her good name and repu-
tation and to defame and injure her In
print and publish in the regular Sunday
issue OF the Indianapolis Journal of and
concerning the plaintiff certain taise ana 1ra
complaint. The complaint then further al
leges that or the 18th day of January. 1895.
the defendants editor, letter, which
is set out. asking for a retraction of the
alleged libelous matter. 1t further alleges
that no answer having been received to
that communication, on the 21st of Jam
uary, 1885, the plaintiff caused another let
ing for a retraction of the alleged libel:
and, it alleges, that no answer was re-
alleges. that on the 9Th day of February.
1885, the plaintiff addressed to the de-
PENDANT another letter in like manner ask
ing, for retracticn of the alleged matter:
and that no response to either of
said letters has been made and the alleged
been retracted by na Said defendant The COM
plant alleges that plaintiff has been dam
aged by said libelous publication in her
person and in her profession in the sum
of $4,000, for which she demands judg-
ment.
five interroga tories and the court is asked
to require that the same be answered by
the defendant under oath, positively and
without evasion, within such time as may
fbe limited by the court therefor These in
terrogatories, if proper to be filed and
answered, cali for facts which would be
Grfi IN he ffnrc "a n
ssThe defendant has moved the court TO
relating to and containing the several let
tiers above mentioned
This motion must be sustained. While it
rs true that a refusal to retract a libel may
be given in evidence on the trial of the
cause, in support Of the charge that the al
legged libelous publication was maliciously
made, it is improper to set out such evi-
dence at large in the complaint All that
par OF the complaint when eonsains the
part of the cause of action, and which oc-
Cured after the alleged cause of action ac-
dence to reflect light on the prior intention
of the publisher of the lioel at the time
the publication was made, It Is fundamental
action, and not the evidence to support it,
shall be set out in the complaint.
1.-THE objectionable matter which will be
stricken out is inclosed within brackets by
the court. The plaintiff is given an excep-
DAVIS ss to e her an Bill az
Although no motion has been made by
the defendant to strike out the interroga-
tories filed with the complaint, the court
feels constrained sua sponte to strike them
out. 1t is settled by the rule Of practice in
this court that the plaintiff will not be per-
nitted. to file interrogatories to be an
swered by the defendant with his complaint
in common law action. This principle is
established by the decision of the Supreme
Court of the United States in sx parte Fisk,
113 U. s., 713, and later cases in the federal
courts follow the doctrine of this case.
therefore.
striking from the files all the interroga-
tories annexed to the complaint in this
cause. To which the plaintiff excerpts. and
has twenty days in which to file her bill
of EXCEPTIONS"