New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1897-02-24

speech IN Minneapolis. His congrega-
ti1n knew Lind was not an infdel and
Mr.. Mullen was the only man he had
ever heard refer to him as such.
G. A. Ottomeyer stated frankly that
he had known Mr.. Lind's reputation and
could say that he was not regarded as
an agnostic He had contributed to
churches and during the school fight
had never heard his religious reputation
discussed. Aske d if the masquerade re-
terred to SO frequently was considered
as given by the atheists, he said it was
not. .
Rev. Meske of Prescott, Wisconsin,
said he knew Mr.. Lind very we'll, and
his reputation was good: sThere was a
general belief that he was Turnel," he
said, "but it did not represent his
views. His life and habits were not in
consistent with his Minneapolis speech"
The inference that he was an atheist was
only because he had supported Nix. a
| Richard, Pfefferle testified that he had
never considered MIR. Lind an atheist,
and thought he was acquainted with
Lind's general reputation. He had been
a candidate during the school contest,
but never heard Mr. Linds religious
views discussed further than that he was
a member of the Turner Society. He
had never heard any one say that he was
not religious man, and he was. not
aware that because he was Turner he
was therefore considered an atheist.
Jacob Klossner Jr- swore that he had
known Lind for twenty five years and
never knew him to be an atheist. He said
Lind's religious reputation was not dis
cussed in New Ulm and he had never
heard it discussed by anybody a. any
time.
George Graft said he had never heard
; whether Lind was or was not an atheist.
He knew that he had contributed to the
Catholic church, but could not state
!; definitely what his religious reputation
was.
/ S. A. George had known Lind for
twenty years and knew he was not an
atheist. He had never heard anyone say
he was an infdel, although he had heard
it said often that he was Turner.
: Chas. L. Roos was the last witness.
He had never told Hays that Lind was
an agnostic. All he said was that Lind
, was Turner and he explained the plat
!. form and principles of the society. He
had never told anyone that Lind was an
unbeliever
All of Friday morning was consumed
|. by the attorneys in arguing the case to
the jury. Mr.. Mum summed up fol
the Dispatch and Mr.. Thos. D. O'Brlen
for Mr.. Lind.
Judge Bum then charged the jury and
it is generally admitted that he favored
the plaintiff: The defendants attorney
excepted to nearly every section of the
charge, whereas the plaintiff took nc
! exceptions whatever.
Libel, said the judge, was anything
that was. published that was untrue and
that brought man into disgrace. The
malice in ibelous article was to be
presumed. He said that The question
with the jury was to decide whether the
article was untrue or ibelous. 1T the
Jury considered that it was, then YER
dict must be found for the paintiff.
The plaintiff was candidate for gov
ernor and the press had right to criti-
else his character and his behavior SC
, Hong as it remained within the bounds
of truth. The fact that he was a candl.
:, date for a public Office was no excuse
for paper ibeling him, although il
!, might, under certain circumstances, ac1
il mitigation of damages.
The judge stated that if the jury foune
that tile article was untrue and libelous
. within the meaning of the law, then i
: must find for the plaintiff and give hin
4 q verdict for the damage that his repu
q tation had sustained by the publication
!. Of the libel. No special damages coult
/ be awarded for the reason that none hat
d been pleaded or proved. All this was il
t case nothing more than implied mallc
was found. 81. ;@s$ q
il In case the jury decided that ther
e had been actual malice in the publica
: ton, then it might give exemplary Q
n punitive damages. The question OF NAL
!, ice was altogether with the jury. Dam
ages must not be allowed for subsequen
e publications, although such publication
q m1pilt. be considered IN deciding whethe