The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-05-09
SIX CENTS FOR PROF. TRIGGS.
.THE SrN" AsSENTS TO CHANGE
or VERDICT TO CARRY COSTS.


Trlal-P1alntin CrOss-ENamlned About
shakespeare. LOnsTellow and whittier.
4, action for libel, Of extraordinary
Interest. was concluded in Trial Term,
part X, Of the Supreme Court yesterday
rornng. when the jury brought In a sealed
verdict for six cents damages for the
,LlDtiG. Prof. Oscar Lowell Triggs, for
rrcrly Of the University Of Chicago, who
was suing The Sun Printing and Publishing
Association.
Prof Triggs had been associated with
the University Of Chicago since It's founda-
tion in 1892 He became a privat decent
in the department Of English In the univer-
,ty in 1892 and occupied that post fer three
years, when he was regularly appointed
an instructor in the department Of Eng
Ish. which port he filled until 1908,
THE Sun in March and April, 1908 pub
h,hed three editorial articles concerning
Prof. Trggs, one Of which was entitled
.Tnggs in Altrurla,' another 'Triggs and
Romeo" and the third was a paragraph
without a title In the following June,
through Osborne q Hess, his attorneys,
Prof Triggs brought an action for libel
AGAINST The sun claiming $50, 600 damages.
alleged 10 nave DtEu buhAdlllNh " lNe51h
If the publication OF the three articles.
The attorney for The SUN Col. Franklin
Partett, demurred to the complaint on the
ground that il did not state facts sufficient
10 institute a cause Of action and setting
un in effect that the words published in the
alleged Hbes we're written in jest and were
merely criticisms Of the ideas and opinions
q Prof. Triggs.
At Special Term Mr.. Justice Vernon NJ.
Davis overruled THE SUNS demurrer.
An appeal was then taken to the Appellate
Division, which court decided in favor OF
THE Sun, holding in substance that the
words published we're merely criticism Of
the ideas or opinions or views Of the plaintiff.
All the other Judges concurred with n T. jus
tice Ingraham, except Mr.. Justice Laughlin,
who wrote a dissenting opinion.
COURT OF APPEALS SAID LIBEL.
The Court Of Appeals reversed the judg-
nent and order Of the Appellate Division,
overrued THE SUNS demurrer and held
that the words published we're hbelous
rer Sc and transcribed the limits Of fair
criticism. Judge Celora Z. Martin Of the
Court Of Appeals wrote an opinion in favor
e reversal, and it may fairly be said that
this opinion revolutionized the Law Of libel
and imposed a new and more severe re-
sponsibility upon the newspapers OF this
country. Judge Martin said:
when the articles published by the de-
PENDANT Of and concerning the plaintiff
are read in the light Of the foregoing prin-
ciples of law IL becomes obvious, we think,
that they were libelous per Sc.
When a publisher goes beyond the limits
Of fair criticism his language passes into the
region Of libel, and the question whether
those limits have been transcribed may
become a question Of law, but ordinarily
presents a question for the jury. II is true
that an author when he places his work
before the public invites criticism, and
however hostile il may be the critic is not
liable for libel, provided he makes no mis-
statements OF material facts contained in
the writing and does not go out Of his way
20 attack the author. The critic must,
however. confine himself TO criticism and
not make il the veil for perso nal censure,
nor allow himself 10 run into reckless and
unfair attacks merely for the purpose Of
exercising his power cf denunciatiCn. II
under the pretext Of critic!z.ng a literary
production or the acts Of one occupying a
public position, the critic takes an oppor-
tunity to attack the author or occupant
he will be liatla in an action for libel Cooper
vs.. Stone, "a Wend., 434; Mattics VS.. Wilcox,
Il Hun as, 49, affirmed 147, n Y. 624
Hamilton VS.. Emo. 81 y. Y, l1eD
Moreover. It ia difficult 10 perceive how
thrs privilege can be tried on demurrer,
~ the question whether the criticism was
fair and Just or wilfully assailed the reputa-
ton Of the plaintiff would he for the jury.
In this case it is obvious that the articles
complained Of 60 far beyond the field Of
fair and honest criticism, and are attempts
10 portray the plaintiff in a ridiculous
light. Il is likewise claimed by
the respondent that these articles we're
written in jest. and. hence, that it is not
liable to the plaintiff for the injury he has
sustained Il is perhaps possible that the
defendant published the articles IN question
as a Jest, vet they do not disclose that,
hut are a scathing denunciation. ridiculing
the plaintiff. H. however, they can he
Iest then It should be said that however
desirable It may be for the readers Of, and
he writers for the public prints 10 be
amused, il is manifest that neither such
leaders nor writers should be furnished
such amusement at the expense Of the repu-
iation or business Of another.
VERDICT FoR SIX CENTS AMENDED nv
The case came UP for trial on Monday
morning last and the trial continued until
Friday at about O'Clock, when the jury
retired, having been directed by Mr.. JUS
lice Howard to bring in a sealed verdict.
The jury brought in their verdict at $40
o'clock on Friday afternoon and the verdict
was opened yesterday morning as soon
As Justice Howard took the bench. Upon
he jury being polled the foreman and
several other jurors stated that they had
understood that a verdict Of six cents
carried costs to the plaintiff and that II
such was the case the verdict was their
verdict Col Bartlett then offered TO pay
The plaintiffs costs and subsequently offered
N lot the jury retire and bring in new
eriict for $50 for plaintiff, which would
carry costs.
To this arrangement Mr., James W. o.
home, the counsel for the plaintiff, con-
-ented and the jury then retired and brought
n a new verdict OF $50 for plaintiff
THINGS PROP. TBIGos CONTAINED OF,
Tie trial was one Of unusual interest
teCause Of the orinion Of the Court Of APP
q. "A