The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1903-01-06
SUES THE NEW YORK SUN
Attorney Osborn> Brings Action fOrI
$4,000 for UnJEst Criticism Made
ny That Paper.

SUES THE NEW YORK SUN
Assistant District Attorney Osborne,
ot New York, formerly of Charlotte,
who made a great reputation by lie
skillful manner in which he handle the
prosecution side oe the celebrated Mol
ineux case, has brought suit against the
New York Sun for $4,000 damages for
unfair and bitter criticism of his con-
duct in managing that trial.
The following from Tuesdays New
York Herald in regard to the suit will
To of interest:
Asserting that his professional repI-
tstion has been damaged to such an ex
tent that only thu payment of STJ. 0u0
will requite him, James W. Osborne.
an assistant di"trict attorney. has
brought suit for that sum against The
sun Printing and Publishing Associa-
ton, which controls The SUM-. The pa
pers in h suit. which is brought in
the supreme cOur: were served OF III"
defendants on December 18th.
AS a basis of his action Mr.. Osborne
cites the remarks which were prirtedI
by the newspaper concerning his "on-
Guct of the trial of Roland 3. MolineuxI
Gn the charge of murder. Not only We're
The articles to which he takes objection
n-ritten and published in the form ofI
editorial comment. but in letters TO the
EDITOR he was spoken of in such al
sighting manner that hc demands re-
dress through the courts.
When the case is called for trial il
Till in all probability become a ce1e-I
trated case among those which ha TeI
ba"n taken against newspapers underI
the law against libel, for that it viii!
b. contested there is no doubt, ac-I
cOrding to the statement of the COUNSEL
for the defendant. The whole recOr Of
the NolineuX trial will be gone over
and everything bearing on Mr.. Os-l
EOrneS treatment of witnesses, his in-l
terjectiOn Of side remarkS in the hear
ing OF the jury, his differences with tbel
lawyers for the defence and even lisI
arguments with the presiding judge Will
he introduced as q justification for theI
remarks to which he takes exception.
Further than this, it IS expected tFGtl
many persons viii. be called on DeharTI
Cf the defenCe-men who have b-pnl
witnesses in the many important trldlSl
Mr.. Osborne has conducted since neI
was u prosecutor for the people anil
lawyers who ave been opposed to himi
I'm these cases to testify to his methodist
and to show thee was Justification fU:l
what was printed about him at the elIdl
oil the MOlineuX case.
1t will be a remarkable trial, ira;.l
much rs Mr.. Osborne, while a~ppeartngl
as plaintiff, will b" placed in the POSI-
ton where he must defend, in reaiity.l
his curse, since he has been an aS-I
sistant in the Office of the district att
tOTney- Such Il spectacle will be ut,iqIcl
ii the legal histor! of this state.
In ms complaint Mr.. Osborne S&ysl
The sun is Il newspaper widely and
exten=ively published. sold and circII
lated in this city" in the United States,
and especially in New Jersey, Penasyl-|
Nanla, Maryland, North Carolina and
Virginia. He says he is q lawyer, and
reciteS his connection with the district
attorneys office.
He declares that he has conducted
himself with honesty and fidelity and
has never been guilty. or suspected toI
have been guilty, Of any misconduct or
malpractice in his said capacity, aid
profession" and that prior to the puD-
LEGATIONS to which he objects, he had
enjoyed Il wide reputation for hon astv.
uprightnesS and integrity; that he had
Il large circle of friends: that he had
professional relations with various Per
sons in the city" and in the country and
~ the particular states where, he sad,
the defendant paper was widely circu-
lated.
He says that on November 18th the
defendant 'maliciOuSly composed and
Iublished" about him false and &c
fdmatory NATTER in which he was ac-
oused of 'unprOfessiOnal ru~ffianisn:" in
conducting the prosecution in the NIOli-
neux case and that his performance
was a disgrace to the bar"
Further than this, he says that two
days later The defendants published d
letter to the editor. i'll which, after COM
mending the curse adopted by MeSS"S
Weeks and Battle. as counsel for NOli
neux, on the first trial, there appeared
the charge that much irrelevant testi-
CIony had been laid before the jury oy
4 reckless prosecutor"
He complains that the facts stated
ia said publications concerning tn
plaintiff were wholly false, and that By
means of said publications the plaintiff
vas injured III his reputation - his
damage $4,000" He names himself as
attorney in person
Col. Franklin bartlett, who is oun
sci for the defendants. admitted free
~ yesterday that the suit had been
brought.
we certainly will defend the s'u..
he said. My ansTer has not been hl"d
as yet and so is not part of the court
record. so ] will not tell YOU what DOR
GefenSc will be, rs you could not PRINT
It without laying yourself open to an
action for libel. o. course l can guess
what it is that Nj. Osborne objects 10
as iScllOuS in the articles. but h. docs
rot say specifically, but puts i'll ;hc
whole articles us his grounds for ac-
ton We have Up TO January 5th IN
make our auswn" and il will be reilly
nv that time. | imagine"
Mr.. osborne Was not III his office IN
the criminal courts building yesterdly
ft"T-OOI. and ~ his home it was I'D
hn w.,S out ana WIS not expected 10 -
turn until very lSIe-
LETT Him in Doubt.