New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-02-22
SIX CENTS FOR MRS. LEDERER
END OF HER LIBEL SUIT AGAINST THE
TRIBUNE.

SATIONAL INCIDENTS BROUGHT
OUT IN THE EXAMINATION.
The libel suit Of Ida F1orine Lederer against
The Tribune Association for $4,000 damages for
alleged defamation. which has been on trial be-
fore Judge Gegerich in the Court of Common
Pleas for the last week. ended yesterday
afternoon. The jury awarded the plaintiff
cents damages.
This is in line with the record Of The Tribune
in libel suits for more than twelve years Dur
Ing that time there has only verdict
awarded against this newspaper for more than
6 cents; and in that single instance the Judgment
reversed on appeal and upon the second
trial the verdict Ia that also was for
cents. In other cases where the verdcts have
no; been for the nom nal cents the trials have
resulted N absolute judgment in favor of the
defendant
Many libel suits Of unreasonable and
extraordinary character have been brought
against The Tribune but it may fairly be said
that tie action concluded yesterday was one OF
the most remarkable it has been called upon To
defend The plaintiff was the daughter of the
late Richard s Newcombc the wealthy and sue
cessful lawyer The publication complained OF
was a paragraph appended to the sketch or MS
life on the morning following his unexpected
death in July 1891. IT was as follows;
His Oldest daughter. Florence. was married TO
the theatrical manager G.. w. Lederer about
two wears ago Lederer had a wife living in
England at the time. but this was not known py
Miss Newcombes family until some time AFTER
her marriage. The marriage was mace Huch
against the will Of the girls parents The young
wife went back to her fathers home as soon as
she learned Of the existence of former WIRE ana
went West with her father. She slipped away
from the house where the family were staying,
came back 10 New-York and went back 10 Led
erer This heavy blow to her father and
he discarded her. She is now living In Harlem
with Lederer.
TWO SUITS STARTED.
George w. Lederer the theatrical manager
referred to- brought $4,000 libel suit promptly
upon this publication. but the action has not
been brought TO trial. The suit finished yes
terday was begun in the fall of 1892 by the
young woman he married. The trial attracted
70 Judge Ciegerich's courtroom large crowd Of
spectators who evidently anticipated. from
what they had known of the career OF the Led
erers, that there would be sensational devel-
opments-and they We're not disappointed.
man named Bamberger was the plaintiffs law
yer. and Messrs. Sackett and McQuaid were
the attorneys for The Tribune Other counsel
were stated to have been engaged in the case
by the plaintiff but no one appeared for her
upon the trial except Mr.. Bamberger. Francis
l.. Wellman was the trial counsel for the de-
skill. Some of the incidents developed by him
were Of dramatic interest.
The chief defenses that the publication
was true, that it privileged because made
upon the authority Of the plaintiff herself ana
that there was variety Of circumstances show
ing good faith the part OF the publishers and
no damages suffered by plaintiff. Mrs. Lederer
went first upon the stand and told a story upon
her direct examination that made her appear as
a badly abused woman. but which presented an
entirely different aspect before Mr. Wellman
had finished her cross-examnation. she was
compelled to admit that she ran away from her
home at 5 O'Clock in the morning TO avoid what
she knew was her fathers opposition 10 her mar
rage 10 Lederer; that they went together the
same morning TO Long Island and were mar
RED; that her mother learning Of her flight fol-
lowed in haste. but did not reach the couple
until the ceremony had been performed; that the
plaintiff returned with her mother 10 Mr.. New
combe's home, where she remained several
weeks then went West with her parents ana
soon afterward, suddenly leaving them, rejoined
Lederer in this city
SENSATIONAL EPISODES OF THE TRIAL
The evidence showed that many interesting
incidents had happened in the mean time.
Upon the complaint OF the woman claiming to be
1.ederers former wife. he was arrested in aban-
donment proceedings in the police court. and
was indicted for bigamy In the former pro-
ceedngs the complainant herself and many
witnesses gave evidence to show common
law marriage between her and Lederer year
or so before his marriage to Miss Newcombe.
Iederer stoutly denied the former marriage,
but admitted sending letters to her inclosed in
envelopes addressed Mrs George w. Lederer.
and also living with her In this city and else
where In fact II came out In the trial that he
lived with this woman at the Coleman House
I'D TO within three days Of the runaway mar
rage with Miss Newcombe
Now come some of the sensational episodes or
the trial. The plaintiff had declared that she
knew nothing OF the proceedings brought by
the woman claiming to be the former wife' ex-
cent what she had subsequently CLEANED from
the newspapers. and that, as a matter OF fact'
she was satisfied from the first that the other
woman had no marital claims upon Lederer
Mr.. Wellman then confronted her with her own
petition. filed in the Supreme Court within ten
DAYS after her marriage to Lederer, and sworn
TO before a notary public In winch snc ahegeu
the information she had received as 10 the eA-
istence of the former wife, and stated that she
had not lived with LedeTer as his wfe, ana
asked to have her father appointed guardian
ad Item in action Tor the ahhuiiheh' vi "V'
marriage with Lederer.
AN AMAZING STORY.
IT was plain to every one lha' il t"o p
admitted the bona fde character OF this docu-
ment. that was the end of her case. But she did
not admit it; and the story she told in explana-
ton Of it's appearance on the court records was
one Of the most amazing that has been given
In the courts in a long time. She said at FIRST
that she did not know whether the signature
was hers or not: then she said that she beheVed
TO be- but that 1t did not look like her sigma
lure Then she denied that she had ever seen the
paper before her examination in the case FINALLY
she made the astounding statement that TWO OF
three days after her marriage and her return 10
her fathers house she drugged. and, while