Eagle River Democrat. [volume] (Eagle River, Vilas County, Wis.) 1893-1896, 1896-03-16
v
DECISION AFFIRMED,


The Supreme Court affirmed the decis-
ion of the lower court in the libel case
against NJ H. Barnum, of Wausau.
Mr.. Barnum, by the decision, will have
to pay fine of $2OO.0 90 and costs, or go
iail for six months. He will serve his
six months in jail at Richland Center
having refused offers of aid from his
many Wausau friends, claiming by so
doing it would be a practical acknowl-
edgement OF guilt on his part, while he
claims to be innocent. He left Friday
evening for ltichand Center, to serve his
sentence and while there lie will conduct
a newspaper About Is of Wausau's
citizens accompanied him to the train.
Gov Upham will be asked topardon him.
Mr.. Barnum is known by q number Of
our citizens, being the speaker at one Of
The republican rallies III the fall of '94.
The following brief history of the case
is taken from the Wasau Daily Record:
During the trial Of Rose Zoldoski for
the murder of Ella Maley at Richland
Center, Mr. Darnum read the account OF
the trial and the evidence i'll the daily
papers, and arrived at the conclusion
that the girl was Innocent of the crime
with which she was charged and CON
vcted and being an outspoken man, he
printed his opinion III his paper, The
Torch OF Liberty. He was not acquaint-
ed with, and had never met any OF the
parties concerned in the trial, or i'll any
way personally interested in the case.
Two years ago Mr.. Barnum received
from RhneIanSler a letter, signed by
Minnie Braddock," making statements
the truth Of which the writer of the let
ter claimed to know. This letter asserted
that Rose. Zoldoskn was Innocent of the
crime charged against her, and that Ella
Maley died by her own hand. The letter
gave alleged reasons for this desperate
act on the part Of the unfortunate girl.
This letter was printed by Mr.. Barnum
as a matter OF news, he having salts
fled himself that the story, SO far as it
related to the writer's sojourn at Rhine
lander and her own misfortune, was
true Upon the statements made in the
letter the libel suit was founded, and Mr.
Barnum was tried and convicted of
criminal libel OF Ella Maley, dead per-
son whom he had never seen. against
whom he never could have had a grudge
and about whom he had spoken and
printed many words OF kindness and
sympathy.
Under the libel laws OF Wisconsin it is
not necessary to prove malice, the pre-
sumption being that the publication OF
any news item or comment that may re-
feet upon the character Of a person is
inspired by malice Thepublisher charg-
ed with libel must prove the truth to the
satisfaction OF a jury, the members OF
which may be prejudiced, OF the state
melts made in the paper and, ii he fails
to make that proof definite and clear, it
is presumed by the law that he was in
spired by malice in publishing the state
mentS.
In Mr.. Barnum's case the presumption
of malice was without warrant or ex-
cuse. Personally he had never seen any
OF the parties affected by the article or
concerned in the Richand Center tragedy
He was tried by a jury in the county
where the people concerned lived, and in
the city where a public meeting had been
held to create sentiment against him and
raise funds to pay for the prosecution,
the iurymen who sat in Judgement on
the case being taken from among the
citizens of that county. An attempt to
prove that Barnum was a vindictive
man and a man of violent and malicious
character was met by the testimony of
the foreman OF his office, who had work
ed for Mr.. Barnum eight years, and that
in all that time he had never heard a
cross or unkind word from his employer.
This witness was called by the prosecu-
ton His name is John Dern, and he is
now the foreman of the Daily Record
office, and is a thoroughly reliable man.
At the time he gave his testimony he
was no longer in the employ OF Mr.. Bar
mum, but was working for the present
proprietor OF this paper, consequently he
could not have been influenced by 8 de-
sire to hold his job.
Taking all things into consideration
one is forced to the conclusion that the
conviction in this case is an outrage on
Justice, however much it may be in har-
mony with the law as it's stands. Should
the supreme court affirm the decision OF