Worcester morning daily spy. (Worcester, Mass.) 1888-1898, 1898-03-20
HURT HIS FEELINGS
An Oxford Man Wants Money
for Newspaper Error.
THE SPY SUED AT WEBSTER
Two Worcester Newspapers Paid
$21.5o Each in Damages.
But the Spy, Having Corrected its Mis-
take, Decides to Stand suit--Judge
Bartholomew's Decision
Reserved.
THE SPY SUED AT WEBSTER

The civil suit Of Russell Arnold of Ok
ford against the Spy Publishing Com
pany, an action Of tort to recover for
damages sustained by an alleged libel
Gus article published in the Spy Of Jan
uary 20, was tried before Judge A. ].
Bartholomew in the first district court
of southern Worcester at Webster, Sat
urday forenoon, the court room being
filled to the doors by an interested
crowd. The ad damnum of the suit was
$1,000, and Arnold was represented by
j. R. Kane of Spencer, while the Spys
! case was conducted by Frank Dresser
| Of Southbridge, WHO is associated with
| Hopkins, Smith & Hopkins of Worces-
| ter.
The case was called shortly after 10 &c.
Mr.. Kane opening by calling the atten-
ton of the court to the alleged libellous
article published in the Spy, which, in
| it's report of the doings of the superior
| criminal court published Jan. 20, stated
that the jury had returned a verdict Of
guilty against Russell Arnold Of Oxford,
| who had been on trial, charged with IL
legal liquor keeping. He claimed that
this was a malicious libel, as the jury
| had returned a verdict of not guilty,
and his client had been greatly damaged
| by the publication. He then called his
witnesses, who were Mr.. and Mrs. Rus
sell Arnold of Oxford
| Mr.. Arnold testified that he has re-
sided for the past 40 years in Oxford.
Lawyer Kane then produced a letter
written to Arnold by Deputy Collector
| of Internal Revenue John f. Riley Of
Worcester, informing Arnold that the
writer saw from the papers that he mad
been found guilty of Illegal liquor keep
| ing, and calling on him to come to the
collectors office to pay the special tax
and also the penalty for violating the
revenue laws. Mr.. Arnold said he had
| received the letter and also acknowl-
| edged the receipt OF another letter from
| the deputy collector, informing him that
he saw that a mistake had been made
and that the case against him would
not be pushed.
Asked by Lawyer Kane what he did
when he received the first letter from
| Deputy Collector Riley, he said he con-
suited counseI-"Jerry Kane" He paid
Lawyer Kane $25 for looking after his
case before the deputy collector
Questioned by Lawyer Kane, he said
| since the publication of the article me
! had suffered great worry and mental
anxiety, so much so that he was unable
to sleep, and had lost his appetite.
| Cross-examined by Lawyer Dresser,
Arnold said ne was "a farmer and owned
about 16 acres of land in Oxford. Law
yer Dresser then produced a check from
| the Telegram Newspaper Company for
| $21 So and asked Lawyer Kane if he
had received that in settlement of his
claim against the Telegram for the
publication Of the same libel. Lawyer
Kane replied that he had received the
| check for the purpose named. Lawyer
Dresser then produced a release, written
by Lawyer Kane, acknowledging the re-
| ceipt Of S21 so from the Gazette COM
pany, and releasing any claim which he
might have against the Gazette on &C
count of the Arnold case. Mr.. Kane
acknowledged signing the release.
Lawyer Dresser then questioned
Arnold regarding the publication Of a
similar libel in the other papers men
toned, and the plaintiff said ne had read
the articles in all three but the only re-
traction he saw was that published by
the Gazette. In reply to further ques-
lions, he said that he had never re-
ceived any money from the Gazette but
he did receive SIS of the money paid Mr..
Kane by the Telegram company.
Mrs. Arnold was called to the stand
and said that since the publication of the
articles her husband had not been able
.
no appetite. In fact, he was sick.
i She was not cross-examined, and Law
yer Kane rested his case here.
For the defense, William j. Larkin,
| the reporter Of the Spy who wrote the
alleged libel, was put on the stand and
testified that the publication was the
/ result of mistake made in his hurry
to get his report Of the courts written
in time to attend a meeting of the city
/ oil ot In, ff,0 10
fed that he did not know Arnold and
had never seen him until he saw him
in court at this sitting.
In explaining how the mistake was
made, he said he knew that Arnold had
been found not guilty, and had 50 en-
tered the verdict in his court docket, but
in writing up the report on the type
writer he neglected to- put in the word
mot" He explained that it some times
happened that when a typewriter is in
haste his thoughts flow more rapidly
than his fingers can work the keys and
so he lost the word. He did not read
over his report before putting it on the
] copy readers desk, as he thought it was
all right. He did not know that a mis-
take had been made until his attention
was called to the error in the report by
/ the city editor. He then wrote the re-
traction, which was published in the Spy
Feb. 1.
Lawyer Kane's cross-eXamination was
directed chiefly to show that the Spy
had a large circulation and that it had a
reputation for accuracy and reliability.
For the defendant, it was argued that
the injury suffered from the libel was a
special damage which must be alleged
in the complaint, and that as evidence
of it could not, on account of the omis-
sion, be offered, there was no injury to
which mental suffering could apply;
that the newspaper libel act of 1897 re-
I quired the plaintiff to prove either ma
licious purpose or failure to retract be-
fore damages for mental suffering, a
speculative injury, could be recovered ;
that injury received from the letter of
/ the deputy collector was not an actual
I injury" and that as the plaintiff had
/ received compensation from the other
two papers for his injury, he could not
/ recover against this defendant.
In closing, Lawyer Dresser argued
| that the burden was on the plaintiff to
show that the letter of the deputy col
| lector, which is the alleged injury, was
sent upon information derived from the
defendant paper, while the fact is that
the information was derived from all
three papers which it was stated he had
read.
For the plaintiff is was argued that
the mental suffering in the form offered
in this case was admissible in evidence
without en- allegation, and that a re-
lease of one wrongdoer did not bar an
-