Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1904-09-03
GIBSON
SUIT
NO. TWO
lawyers Undertake to
Make a Serious
Reply
Ehe Famous Salem Dog Kill
lag Case viii Be Ready
for the Fall Term
of Court

HA1 through their attorneys, CarsC
Adams & Cannon and Richardson
Richardson, fled their answer in Z
section for $4,000 damages commenc,
against them by Chief Of Police Gibs,
Ter She publication Of an article allie
ing that the chief abused a dog n
answer is as follows:
Now come the defendants and +,
'tbeir answer to the first cause Of a
ftsoa set forth in the complaint hcrei
sHdnit that they, the defendants, wer
and are partners, and are the owner
sns@agers, printers and publishers O
iabs Daily Capital journal, and sal
p~Heztpaper is Of general circulation
h~sroughout the state or Oregon, inelud
ing che city Of Salem and Marion coun
ny, and was and Is circulated among
Sarge number Of subscribers.
The defendants further admit tina
Nhs plaintiff was and is now the duly
elected, qualified and acting city mar
ahA Of the city Of Salem, aforesaid.
The defendants further admit thaI
ahey published in the said newspaper
son or about the 18th day Of August
a. D., 1904, the news item set forth ia
aSe complaint entitled abusive ca
vine Catcher"
Defendants deny each and every AL
ApgatiOn in the said first cause Of ae.
zion pleaded in said complaint.
The defendants for their answer "a
che plaintiff second and further cause
Of action admit.
That they, the defendants, were and
are partners, and are the owners. man.
ayers, printers aud publishers Of the
Daily Capital Journal, and said new
paper is Of general circulation through.
out the state Of Oregon, Including the
city Of Salem and Marion county. and
was and Il circulated among a large
uumbeF Of subscribers.
The defendants further admit that
the plaintiff was aud is now the duly
elected. qualified and acting city mar.
shal Of the city Of Salem, aforesaid,
The defendants further admit that
they Published in the said newspaper
on or about the 18th day Of August, A.
d., 1904, the matter set forth IN the
complaint entitled abusive Canine
Catcher"
And they also admit that they pub.
'ished IN said newspaper another article
ar itam Of news entitled "'Claims Dog
is Alive"
The defendants deny each aud every
other allegation in the said second
eause Of action pleaded in the com
plant.
The defendants for their FIRST, further
aud separate answer 10 both OF the
PLAINTIFF causes OF action allege;
The charges and Supposed defamatory
words IN the complaint set forth are
each and al Of them true, IN substance
anu 81 iAtts
The defendant Tor thcir second. furth
er ana separate answer 20 PLAINTIFF
seetond aus Of action alleges.
That the article or item " news en-
titled Claims Dog Is Alive, " set forth
in the plainuGs second oausc Of action.
was published at the request OF plain
tiG.
The d%efeudants for their third. furih.
ar aud separate answer 60 both the
plaintiffs causes ~ action allcge as
mitigating circumstance:
First, That GA or about the 18th
day Of August, 1904, plaintiff did at
tempt 70 impound tire odogs. as a.
legged Ia the first article or news item
complained 81, aud the said dogs in
going % che said pound, we're some
what unwilling 60 proceed 10 the eos
tody o. the plaintiff, and tbereupou the
plaintiff, who n passessel ~ a 6ery,
hot teupeE dew into "A parosysm "
rage aud, iher,uppn, dii beat ana abuse
ans ~ ths said three dogs from the
effects % wtith aia dog asa die. and
she Foregoing oeeurreaee uns reported
20 one " d~efeatanis employnh vho.
tarreupau iefesti gated the SCATTER in.
az tadrsse 10 asetgtsia ths ifuth 81.
the affair and. tpgu issss F%sfiqa. tts.
a~eientants smpefe aas saiisftl that.
t4c mAiirF ~ reported b klm toasefa
ang shs Plsiuiid raaaaft aforesaid
~aa tree and thefegppa said enrieye,
~ geod faith, ani Fsnly haiirsiag the.
FratA u tbs sama. saussd a. nAa ar
ticle entitled "Abpsits canias caich
or a. BE- ~published Ia its affsaaanis