Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1905-02-22
... R,olv to Vicious Charges
'~ Preferred Against Plaintiff
During Campaign
SHOWS ITS LINE OF DEFENSE
..,,,,r Llppnan Claims lrrespOnsl'
,I,, aud Offending Reporter Pleads
ratification for Attacks Made

- answers OF defendants III the
80, 0oo llbel suit brought by Supt' W.
,i'T ronss. Jr, Of the county inilrmary
.,,r,t the Salt Lake Tribune Publish"
Company Joseph Lippman' It's
~ and Frank l. sefrit the re-
ll' ss vbo wrote the articles over
p srs the action arose, have been filed
WIZ ~. d,strlct court by Attys Powers
VA yoyioneaux. who represent the de-
s.sonts Manager Lippman IN his
,n,,.r claims that he is not RESPONSE
Ma tor the publication Of the articles
,,t,rred to, while Frank l. sefrit IN bis
,.norate answer admits that he wrote
,sp srtleles and pleads justification.
II ,hree answers deny that the ar"
. H complained Of were libelous or
I.,smstory and allege on the contrary
Iatthsy were true The answer or the
Tribune company follows;
In answer TO the second alleged
,alse OF action IN the plalhtiH com
nIalnt. this defendant admits that u
isnsed 10 be published ana circulated
ma article set forth In the second a!
ltysd cause OF action herein, ana ed-
,r1,s that at the time OF publication
tbsreof the said plaintiff was the cus-
,oSian OF the innrmary or poorhouse
sesbllshed by Salt Lake county and
e5mlfs mat during all Of said time he
,ooE care OF and maintained said poor
Sonss or lnhrmary and the INDECENT
roor therein, and that during said
Ina from time to time, was allowed
ana received pay for his own services
and also for the services of other en-
Moves assisting IN maintaining such
poorhouse and admits that for the
pprnose and with the view Of obtaining
hs amounts due him for such services
snd other allowances to which he was
entitled by reason Of said appointment,
tbe plaintiff, from time 20 time, filed
Nj claim against salt Lake county,
duly verified and sworn TO I'm manner
and form required by the laws of Utah,
ana admits that the perjury referred to
IN the article last.above referred 10
herein as having been committed by
me plaintiff Is the same perjury re-
ferred to IN paragraph fiye OF the first
alleged cause OF action set forth IN
plaintiffs complaint and arose out OF
he transaction there described, and
defendant admits that when said de-
itniant referred to w, r. Jones, Jr.,
ana Supt w. r, Jones, said defendant
Intended to and did refer to the plain
I'm
Q Defendant denies that I'm using
me words OF said article. HE sold hogs
and calves at divers times and made
no accounting to the county" said de-
fsniant intended to or did mean to be
understood as charging the plaintiff
w,h having stolen the money or pro-
C,eis received from the sale of said
hgs and calves; and denies that when
sid defendant used the following
words IN said article, to-wlt, HE had
private accounts for mean and green
gocerles merged with the inhrmary
accounts and the people paid for Il IN
nine months, with one firm, this
amounted 10 1921 co." the said defend
ant thereby intended to or did charge
The plaintiff with having fllched stolen
Or embez2led from the county OF Salt
Lake the amount OF Sl2i. 90, or that de-
PENDANT thereby intended or did charge
me plaintiff with the crime Of wrong
fully or unlawfully appropriating or
embezzling goods or money belonging
TO the county Of Salt Lake, TO said
amount Of Sl2l 90
B. This defendant further denies
that said publication and said words
Or figures, matters or things, set forth
In the article last-aboVe quoted, were
or are false or libelous or defamatoIy;
but on the contrary this defendant
AYERS that the statements I'm said artl-
Gle are true, and this defendant pub
sllhed the same, without malice, dur
ing the progress Of q political cam
palgn In Salt Lake county, I'm order to
deieat II possible, the election OF cer-
taln candidates for the Office OF county
commissioner who Intended, II elected,
70 felaln said plaintiff In the office Of
superintendent OF said lnhrmary,
whereas, this defendant In good faith,
believed that the public interests de-
mahded that plaintiff should not be re-
lalned In said office,
y This defendant denies that by
means OF said publication. plaintiff was
or Is Injured IN his standing or reputa-
tion to his damage In the sum alleged
~ Nld second alleged cause OF action
OF 10 any sum whatever.
d. THIS defendant denies each and
eyery allegation In said alleged second
esuse or action not herein specifically
AS JUSTIFICATION AMI, MITIGA-
TON.
l-Ahd further answering sald alleged
second cause OF action. this defendant
reaas by way Of mitigation OF dam
~ mat the said sum Of 1885. re-
,slled 70 IN said article, Is the same
,ull OF tlS.55 referred TO I'm this answer
Jug nl5t alleged cause OF action In
s"llu complaint and this defend
~. heIe adopts ana repeats its state
umInH pleaded by way Vt mitlgatlo in
snn answer to the FIRST alleged cause OF
suoli IN respect TO the claim and af-
sua,u OF plaintiff made TO secure pay
mssat OF said sum OF money from said
ana ,, i;aAe county and incorporates the
Tx s"nl nereln by reference the same as
.u'y teslated herein, and defendant
NJ repeats what II has heretofore
er s,'u W lls plea IN mitigation to the
ilon C"use OF action as a plea In mltiga-
H M" ~ respect TO the charge that plain
y" Peuued the inhrmary payrolls, and
,HIlporates here by reference all that
=. IsTe slated on siad subject. the same
u u restated here
81. pelendant further AYERS that A.
wv informed by a respectable and
vt.V'e inmate Of said innrmary prior
NV, @e publication Of said article COM
r ,,sna OF that on one occasion the
@,Hsald OF said infrmary had told one
Az Ky inmates mot 10 cat any mutton
m N'at day that Il was rotten" and nj
M "le Time exhibited 10 said inmate
bahn' showing that said mutton had
IA purchased for three cents n Mound I.
Man ky relying upon this informa.
htb XIV defendant believed I'm good
ntt e 'nat SAID plaintiff had purchased
h chs mutton and fed Il TO the inmates
V4WStBed IN said article.
beats ,,lenlant further adopts and re-
slsa "nnt has heretofore said In lta
tl,l,ns, mitigation In answer 20 the
IN rasI > irst alleged cause OF action.
,rtctsI 70 the charge that plaintiff
potato. ana permitted a wagonload OF
Inv S w.. To BE taken from the inlirm-
lbs e arm and to De delivered 10 ono M
ma. uu'y commissioners. and incorno-
hna ule same herein by reference tho
lraph. 'u''y Festated In this para
vac Dgiendant further AYERS TINT a.
lredlble iU,tl.u ny respectable ANA
% the nntiillale OF said innrmary. prior
Dlalntla jhD NV of said article that