The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1904-07-01

The. woman's name was Lille Cody.
and she had been connected with the
ley. and as the relative of W. T. Cody,
the evidence is conclusive she was a
Oakley is an estimable woman, who at
| the time was living at home at Atlantic
Mrs. Annie Butter Miss oake as IS fa rs
indeed from the position in which she
poster. Since leaving Buffalo Bills or
ganization she has achieved success on
There was not a word or line in
the instructions of the court to the
jury to the effect that the paper had
published the above correction. The
| little original article was based on a
police court proceeding in Chicago and
the judge who passed the sentence on
the defendant thought she was Annie
Oakley, instead of an imposter. The
alleged Annie Oakley deceived repor-
tiers on the best papers in Chicago. The
Estate Journal had evidence to show the
care which the Chicago papers used,
but was not permitted to introduce the
evidence. Our particular news item
was taken from the Globe-Democrat
which secured it from careful Chicago
sources, but we were not permitted TO
show the care used in the
chain of publication, the court
ruling that it made no difference
whether our source of information In
this particular instance was good or
bad. The fact that this paper did not
give credit to the GIobe-Democrat was
of no particular significance. 1t was
| indeed stated by the court that it was
not any defense that the source is
named. Newspapers procure every day
scores of items from individuals and
from other papers and never think of
naming the person or paper from whom
the news is secured. but always con-
slider the general reputation of the In
formant or the paper.
The fact that Judge Pollock refused
to permit the reading of the retraction
to tho jury, the admission of evil
dence that retraction had been made,
| is certainly discoura ging to newspapers
| that try to do the right thing in case
| of an error. 1t says to the paper that
there is no legal use in your publishing
a correction; that the jury will not be
permitted to know that you have tried
to make amends in this manner.
The State Journal was not permitted
to show to the jury that scores of pa
pers had published this item before we
did. In other words. the jury was given |
to understand that this paper was who'll |
the country which should be picked for
unichment On of the queer things |
permitted in the name of the law.
1t may be said, why did not the Jour
nal appeal it's case? To this the reply is
made that an appeal to the United |
States court of appeals is very ex- |
pensive proceeding. and in the event of |
a successful appeal, the case is simply |
brought back before Judge Pollock for |
another trial; more expense, more |
lawyer fees. A verdict of some amount |
against the paper was absolutely as |
sured and conceded. A verdict of 500 |
would certainly nave been sufficient, !
and would not have encouraged litiga- |
ton of this questionable kind. The |
State Journal believes that had it been
permitted to tell the whole truth that |
the jury would have brought in a NOM
inal verdict, much less than $1,000
The court of appeals to which this
paper could have taken it's case has
stated in emphatic language in review !
ing a libel suit against three daily pa
pers in Kansas City that the jury |
should take into account a publishers |
correction. and sustained the verdict in
the case of two papers which refused I
to publish a correction, and a merely !
IlOIltIldl NeIdlCt III TIE Ease VI lIc pa
per which did publish a correction. The
opinion in this connection of Judges
Caldwell, Thayer and Sanborn, says: /
when a publisher ascertains tEe |
fact that he has done an injustice. he /
makes the amende honorable, and says
he has done a wrong, he has then acted |
the manly part; and that the jury |
ought to consider this later publication
by the World company in mitigation /
of damages. One of the crucial qucs-
tic hot hoy he HI
lfca lions were made with wanton in
difference to. and reckless disregard of,
the rights and feelings of the defend
ant in error. Silence after he vim
dicated, and silence when he sued for
the publication of the libels, presents
this question in far different light |
from that in which a prompt publica-
ton of the vindication places it."
Rossington & Smith were permitted
to utter in the petition they signed
gross untruths and ISLANDERS against
this paper and in their statements be-
fore the jury, nameless charges that
the State Journal made against no one,
not even the alleged Annie Oakley. but
lawyers are permitted to do these
things and that is one of the queer
things of the law
This paper claims, and it believes the
readers will coincide in the belief, that
no damage resulted to Annie Oakley;
that in the publication of the correc-
ton in a larger number of papers than
the original and in a more prominent
place than the error. was more than
offset any damage that would have
ensued from the uncorrected publica-
ton of the original statement.
The following from the Wichita Eagle
is certainly a fair statement:
ANY newspaper. however honest and
careful is liable to be imposed upon ana |