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

Clair that RumSey had settled MORSE
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. Clair
| that Morse was not doing satisfactory
work for the company and that he
! CRumsey) would discharge Morse, after
presenting him ticket to his home. Mr..
| 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
Gefense of the imputations 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
printing company and managing editor
If the T.-R., testified to ordering the
Boone article investigated and after
wards published with G 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
soliciting insurance in Boone and recog-
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
of~fS.
reputable citizen who had talked with
Morses employer, the man who had in
vestigated Morse'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 attof-
neys for the defense moved the court as
follows to direct the jury to return
verdict for the defendant newspaper,
which was sustained:
Comes now the defendant and
moves the court to direct the jury to
return verdict for the defendant In
this case for the following reasons:
First: Because the article published
is not a 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
LEGGED, 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 it 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-
fend by Sec. 50S6 of the code.
shown to have been published by the
defendant with an honest purpose to
set forth the facts, and it is the I'M
disputed evidence that defendant did
set forth the facts in regard to the
plaintiff.
Seventh: The occupation of the
plaintiff was that of a public char
acter engaged in soliciting life insur-
81 Ioc1 10 @l,a rgxry,<
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
court orally stated that no evidence |
had been introduced to show malice |
on the part of defendant, that the |
language of the article taken as a |
whole did not contain malice OF itself, |
but was rather palliation and defense
Of the plaintiff and that therefore 1t |
was for the court to decide whether |
this article was a libel or not He
decided that it was not and directed
the jury to return 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 chance
The courts guarder language In ex-
pressing contempt for the seemingly
wanton extravaganza of the plaintiff |
as shown by his own testimony left
the impression among the attorneys
md court room full OF visitors present
hat the newspaper men had been
1erelict of duty in their publication in
not censuring the man in much harsher
errns. Attorneys for plaintiff have
to continue to worry de-
'endant with expensive litigation by
ling 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.