The daily journal. (Salem, Or.) 1899-1903, 1903-02-16
FoR A NEW TRIAL.
PLAINTIFF EVIDENTLY NOT SAT-.
IsFIED WITH THE VERDICT
AGAINST THE JOURNAL.


l.. II. McMahan this evening filed
in the circuit court a motion for a new
trial In the case Of Mrs. Gibson
against Hofer Bros. the trial of which
resulted In a Verdict for the plaintiff
of one dollar. The motion Is based on
alleged error 'n tho admission OF testl.
mony on behslf OF the defendant and
alleged errors In tho court falling TO
RiVe certain Instructions asked by the
plalntn 10 the Instructions 10 the
jury
II IL gaid that on the FIRST ballot
The jury stood eight for the plaintih
and -four for the defendants. ON the
second ballot the vote stood ten for
me plaintiff and two for the defense
In The balloting as 10 the amount of
damages two voted for no damageg
ana the other ten ranged from $3.50
10 $5oOO. An attempt 10 cOmpromlge
ON the amount was mot by the state.
ment by one Of the Jurors that no
would rot In the jury room before ne
would consent 10 verdict for the
plaintin a compromise ON verdict
Tor one dollar and costs for piaintif
was then made. but Judge Burnett re-
fused TO receive Il. for the reason that
me statute, and not the Jury settled
mat mattor The Jury then returned
verdict for one dollar
The motion filed today indicates
that plnlntin ia dissatisfied with the
results of the trial and q is said that
me case VIII probably 90 to the su.
preme court
Any one who will stop to thinl, will
come 20 the conclusion that the above
statements. n true would defeat
themselves. as men who favor dam.
ages as hiRh as $500 would not com.
promise In short time on one dol
lar. The above stun was probably fur.
nihhcd 10 some reporter on the States.
man by Mr. McMLhon. or he had Il
furnished 90 tho paper Just as some
lawyers are always ready to furnish
reporters advance information from
tho pleadings Ia cases in which they
are Interested
Tho Journal publishers do not care
TO 30 into a discussion as 10 the opln.
Ion OF tho individual Jurors. or what
took place In the jury room. such a
discussion would mako Il impossible
20 ever bring litigation 20 a concm.
sion. and such statements as the
above II true. or printed as truth. are
not encouraged by mo courts OR.
dinarily, lawyers and courts are salts.
ned 10 take a verdict Of jury as the
best proof OF the opinion OF what con.
clnsion the jury has reached Ia civ.
en- ease, and DO not care TO reopen the
ease from the gossip or the streets.
Without solicitation on the part of
Tho Journal a number of jurors have
called az this ONCE and expressed
their contempt Tor the above. some
Eoing 30 far AS To say that d Is false
AZ best &c is species OF unprofes
aonal petlifogging 20 influence some
Future Jury n new TRIAL should be
eranted iu the suit against the Flofers
Right 20 Print Plsadlnos.
The Journal regards the verdict OF
the jury. not as personal matter.
but as a ylndidcation of the rlsht OF
newspaper to print extracts from
court pleadiuga aud public records. Il
The Journal was guilty OF a libel IN
what Il printed about Nv McMahon's
ehent--lf Il committed any oncnse
"hatever-eveg newspaper In ore
son Is suilty, and every newspaper Is
suiliy of committing this oncnse Sv
eri month In the year To prove this
We Win paut with headlines a news
report of a divorce case that appears
m 'he Gngeae Guard OF February
i2th
MRS HICKMAN
WANVa fRftfauer-