Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1902-01-18

affairs at Boone, and that he had found
that Morse had been guilty of no great
wrong doing, but had lived beyond his
means, that Rumsey had told st. Clail
| that Morse was not doing satisfactory
! work for the company and that he
/ (Rumsey) would discharge Morse, after
1 presenting him a ticket to his home. MIR
I Wildman testified that he then returned
| to his Office and after consulting with
| Mr. Norris wrote the article in the T.-R.
which he considered an explanation and
defense of the imputauons that might be
| inferred from the Boone article.
| Mr.. C. C. st. Clair testified to the con-
| yersation with Mr.. Rumsey about
| Morse, substantiating every statement
made by Mr.. Wildman in his newspaper
article and in his testimony.
Mr.. d. w. Norris, Jr., president of the
rinting company and managing editor
If the T.-R., testified to ordering the
Boone article investigated and after
wards published with a statement of the
| facts He said that he knew both Morse
and Rumsey. had always been friendly
with the former, knew of his wreckless
habits. knew of his society prominence
in Boone. knew that he was at that time
/ SOllClliUB lilSuIaIlCc III loOOLic anu iStpS
nized him to be the subject of the Boone
article. He disclaimed any intention to
injure Morse or defame him. that he had
ordered his affairs investigated because
OF the Boone publication and because OF
| the general public interest in newspa-
per article referring to a Marshalltown
| insurance agent He stated that after
Mr. Wildman ascertained the facts from
| a reputable citizen who had talked with
| Morses employer, the man who had IN
vestigated Morsa's affairs and ought to
know, he ordered both the Boone article
and the explanation published In the pc
| lief that Morse would thereby be placed
Alright before the public.
Upon the close of the testimony attor-
neys for the defense moved the court as
follows to direct the jury to return a
verdict for the defendant newspaper,
which was sustained:
Comes now the defendant and
moves the court to direct the jury to
return a verdict for the defendant In
this case for the following reasons:
First: Because the article published
is not libel; is not actionable per sc
and there is no evidence tending to
prove that said article was published
with malice.
Second: Because said article is not
actionable per Sc, and there is no evil
dence tending to prove that any spe-
cial damages resulted to plaintiff from
the publication of said article.
Third: Because said article is priv
ileged, or conditionally privileged. and
the evidence uncontradicted proves
that the same was published without
malice, and there is no evidence tend
ing to prove that any special damages
resulted from said publication.
Fourth: Because the evidence fails
to show that the plaintiff was dis
charged by reason OF the publication
Of said article and because the evil
dence shows that the plaintiff was dis
charged for other reasons than the
publication of said article.
Fifth: The article published is not
malicious defamation of the plain
tiff, nor did 1t tend. or ought 1t to tend,
to provoke him to wrath and expose
him to public hatred, contempt and
ridicule, nor does 1t fall within the
definition of libelous matter as de-
hend by Sec. 5oS6 of the code
Sixth: The article In question Is
shown to have been published by the
defendant with an honest purpose to
set forth the facts, and 1t is the un-
disputed evidence that defendant did
set forth the facts in regard to the |
plaintiff.
Seventh: The occupation of the
plaintiff was that of public char
acter engaged in soliciting life insur- |
ance and the defendant had the right |
to republish the Boone article and to |
make statements and comments upon |
said article as were justified by the |
facts. for the information Of the public |
at large and it's readers.
Eighth: The occasion In question of |
the publication of this so called libel |
was that of conditional privilege, and |
the presumption arises that the pub
LEGATION was bona fide and without
malice. and 1t is incumbent upon the
plaintiff to overcome this presumption
and such presumption has not been
overcome by any evidence in this
case"
In sustaining the above motion the
had been introduced to show malice
language of the article taken as a
Nuole uiu iiOI CoHtdlu iIldliCe OI itSelI,
but was rather a palliation and defense
Of the plaintiff and that therefore 1t
was for the court to decide whether
this article was libel or not He
decided that 1t was not and directed
the. jury to return a verdict for the
defendant. which the jury was glad to
do, for as many of them afterwards
admitted, they We're determined to do
so of themselves if they got a chance
The courts guarder language In ex-
pressing contempt for the seemingly
wanton extravaganza of the plaintiff
rs shown by his own testimony left
he impression among the attorneys
and court room full of visitors present
hat the newspaper men had been
ierelict of duty in their publication in
not censuring the man in much harsher
.erms. Attorneys for plaintiff have
to continue to worry de-
,endant with expensive litigation by
fling notice Of an appeal.
Loss OF flesh, cough and pain on the
hest may not mean consumption, but
ire bad signs. Aliens Lung Balsam
oosens the cough and heals infiamed
,ir passages. Not grain of opium in it.
TALK SCHOOL CONSOLIDATION.
Rural Districts Near LaMoiIle Or s
L..