The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-07-03
II FAVOR OF WHITESIOE
Verdict Of the Jury in the Cole
Libel Suit.
IT STOOD ELEVEN TO ONE
Or. Cole win Seek for vindication In a
New Trial-He Says There Was Not
Presented a scintfla of Proof
OF His Guilt.
specia, Dispatch TO the Standard.

Special Dispatch TO the Standard.
Helena, July 2-The verdict In the
Cole whiteside $4,000 damage suit.
which has been on trial the first of
the present week in the district court,
was announced in our this morning.
the jury having returned a sealed YER
dict last night. As predicted last night.
the verdict was for the defense. A poll
Of the jury showed that IL were for
the defendant and 1 for the plaintiff. II
appears that the Jury took but two
ballots. an informal and a formal. The
informal showed that the II men stood
10 to 2 for the defendant. On the first
formal ballot one of the Jurors who
was standing out said he did not want
to prevent the verdict being unanimous.
and accordingly changed after certain
portions OF the judges Instructions had
been explained TO him. The remaining
Juror, a man by the name of John It.
Lorenz. maintained TO the end that the
plaintiff should be entitled to damages.
After the jury had been polled, N. NJ.
Mcconnell, for the plaintiff, asked for
time IN addition to that allowed by
law In which to prepare, file n serve
a bill OF exceptions and statement on
motion for a new trial. This was
granted, and from all that can be
learned the plaintiff is determined to
seek further for v~indication.
DIR. Cole. when asked what he thought
OF the verdict. said: 1T was a sur
prise, and the action of the court in
permitting the defendant to Introduce
as Q part of his evidence. under the
plea Of mitigating damages. the hear
say statements of John C.. Paulson.
- - T.
in Alaska, was also a surprise. The
defense was set up to the second cause
of action by the defendant in his origi-
nal nswer. and was suppressed upon
demurrer. 1t was also set up in the
amended answer and was stricken out
upon motion of my counsel, and was so
understood by counsel for each party
when the trial commenced. 1t was not
read as a part of defendants answer.
Practically the only defense which the
defendant had left was the plea of the
truth OF the charges. This was what l
desired. I brought this action for vim
dication by putting the defendant upon
proof Of his charges. In his first an
swer he did not pretend to say they
were true. but In his amended answer
he puts In that plea. The defendant
offered himself as a witness TO prove
what Paulson and Bogart told him. OBJ
lection was mad by my counsel to this
testimony upon the ground that there
was no plea of this kind in the answer.
The court held that the striking out of
this part of the answer was a mistake.
and allowed the evidence to be intro
duced. 1t was these false and defama-
tory statements that the jury mistooh
for proof of the truth and allowed
to control their verdict. The court told
them they should only consider this
testimony in mitigation of damages and
not as proving the proof of the charges,
There was not a scintilla of proof
establishing the ruth or the charges.
I do not wish to be understood as cen
suring either the court or the jury but
I challenge any impartial critic to IND
one particle OF proof in the entire testi-
mony that I was guilty OF any corrup-
ton in the office while I was capitol
commissioner"
George r. Mann of st. Louis, the
architect who won the first prize in tho
contest and who has been rather un'
willingly dragged into the case, wher
seer to-day and asked what he thought
OF the verdict, said ne hardly presumed
ne had a right TO express an opinion
since he was not one of the principals
In the action.
II can hardly see just how the jury
was justified in the verdict" said he
when pressed for an opinion. While
of course. ! was not directly a defend
AMI. Il was deeply inltftSNtu ~
No man whose reputation has been at
lacked as mine has been can quietly &C
quiesce IN such a verdict. From the In
ception to the conclusion or this anal
I have been dragged in and held up Z
public notice as a briber. j resent tn
imputation and defy any man TO show
under the evidence adduced in this cas-
or outside of such evidence. where i de
serve even a fraction Of the contumely
the insult and general defamation o
character that has been heaped upol
me. There is not a scintilla OF evidenc
TO show that I ever gave j cent TO
single member OF this commission. TIL
merit of my plans won me the first priz
regardless of what any man can say
I came to this state as a competitor !
a contest that was to be a contest o
skin, and i won fairly and squarely
Jealous rivals may circulate stories @
my brfbing the commission, but the
cannot substantiate them. l have bee
actively engaged In the pursuit OF m
profession for 20 years and have entere
and won the foremost competitions c
this country. i might enumerate III
contests. but the public would say wa
egotistical. Just as soon as ! receive
the first prize in this contest / set aboJ
honestly and conscientiously to carr
out the pledges I had made 70 the con
mission. I engaged the most sknle
draughtsmen 10 be had. Experts o
heating and electrical appliances wei
retained at fancy salaries 20 place o
paper what they believed 20 be the be-
features Of a building OF the kin ! pr
posed 10 uild
II might say that I intended to max
this structure the browning achiev'
ment Of my life. and to that end
spared no expense. ] paid out at leaf
$40. 900 in wages TO my ~draughtsmen an
experts. and my books viii show IL. NJ
bond alone cost me $500. While
received So. 500 from the commission
never realized anything like thi
amount upon the warrants paid me. q
SHE SLEEPS SOUNDlY