The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1907-05-22
Judge Ritchie Rules Against
Him in Famous Tribune
Libel Suit.
COURT SAYS HE GOT
JUSTICE FIRST TIME
Evidence Discussed i'm Detail
in Exhaustive Opinion De-
nying Motion.

! of the county Infrmary, will get no
new trial Of his famous $l25,000 libel
suit against The Tribune. Judge Ritchie
handed down an opinion in the Dis.
trict court Tuesday denying Mutton
Bill So motion for new trial. The
case was tried over o year ago, and
the motion for a new trial has been
pending ever since. The verdict of the
jury WIS for The Tribune.
Following is the full text of Judge
Ritchie IS opinion;
Two matters only were discussed upon
the oral argument on the motion for a
new trial. the perjury charge. and the
allegation OF misconduct during the trial
on the part of two of the defendants The
| court regrets that counsel did not take
| advantage OF the leave given to file
| briefs. as the oral argument was very
| short and incomplete,
|. 1t is alleged by the plaintiff that
the charge of perjury is no, sustained.
! the plaintiff committed the offeuse Of
| willful and corrupt perjury defined in sec
| ton il22 OF the Revised Statutes OF 1898.
! The detendants abandoned this on the
! trial and expressly rested upon the 9TH
er meaning OF the word defined by the
! court In paragraph Of the instructions,
|
aries Of the English language. simply as
! false swearing"
John Wesley on Perjury
Wesley, In 2 sermon at oxford. once
! said, referring 10 the violation Of certain
moral obligations;
What is perjury, II this Is not? But
! II il be, oh, what weight OF sin, yea,
sin Of no common dye, lieth upon u.s."
Little Journeys 10 Homes of Reformers,
! January, OF, r. "a.
Mi ,lc a
| heresy trial was charged with perjury
! In violating his ordination vows because
! Of certain theological opinions expressed;
! Members OF fraternal orders who are said
! 10 take certain obligations are &C
cused of perjury tt they violate them.
There is no standard. save the average
| moral sense by which to determine
whether a given act may be called "mor-
al perjury" or not and il becomes often
question Of fact whether. under the
proof. the particular moral ohliquity
! sense now under discussion.
! In this case the facts upon which the
charge was based were quite explicitly
stated in one or more OF the articles
| published, enabling the reader TO Judge
! for himself OF It's character. The afh
! davit upon which the charge was found
! " Commissioners and the allowance Of
! s1S25, in lieu Of salary during q vacation
! (Which he did not takel was made 70 the
plaintifr by the Commissioners with the
| knowledge NJ all the facts. There was
proof tending To show that this psrticu-
| lar method OF allowing such claims had
heen prescribed by the Board Of Com
mIssioners as the one TO be adopted. Two
of these Commissioners were witnesses
against the plaintiff.
II the plaintiff was guilty OF moral
perjury" In making this affidavit. they
could as well be charged in that sense
with subornation Of perjury,
The defendants having discleimed In
tending to accuse the plaintiff OF the
law. and the word not necessarily i'm
PORTING that meaning, the court falls TO
see that the case ought TO be submitted
10 another jury 10 determine whether or
not the charge is sustainabe In the
vague sense which has no defined limits
and concerning which there is no GER
tain guide TO a decision. except that al
ready stated.
Views on Misconduct
?. II Is charged that there was mis-
conduct OH the part OF two Of the de-
PENDANTS In making certain unfair. par
tial, unjust, and sensational comments
trial tending 70 prejudice the minds Of
the jury against the plaintiff.
Afildavits are offered in support OF
this ground: attached thereto Is an is
day. December I. 1905. during the time
OF The trial, which contains certain head
lines and comments. To the headlines
the attention Of the court was called on
the morning of December /, 1905 the
day Of publication. at the beginning of
the trial on that day. and the court
then stated that the comments therein
contained we're improper and misleading
and directed the jury to disregard them
and further instructed the jury that IL
was their duty TO refrain from reading
any newspaper accounts Of the trial dur
ing Its progress
The reports Of the trial contained In
the two exhibits attached, go far as they
undertake TO detail the proceedings. ap-
pear mainly TO he literal transcripts Of
the proceedings they purport to give.
Comments other than in The headlines in
called to the attention OF the cour, then
nor at any other time during the trial,
but on Perusa,i as they appear at
gerated and misleading In some material
particulars. When the matter was be-
fore the court on the day in question,
their contents seemed 10 be familiar TO
counsel on both sides. though they were
not read in court. and IL was apparently
conceded by counsel for the defendants
that whether overdrawn or not they were
improper comments TO bo made during
the trial, and after consultation with the
defendant Sefrlt. the manager OF the
tirst-named defendant. counsel for the de-
fendants stated that tho comments In
question had been written after the
manager had left the newspaper office
for the night by others who were not
present at the trial. and there was no
intention TO publish matter which would
interfere with the proper conduct of the
case; and that thereafter the manager
would endeavor 10 see that no occasion
for criticism occurred
Those Big Headlines.
In this Issue Of December T. In a head
appears tho following Wings H "nemarkabie itbss
Showing Made Against Jones. Fed Rot
ten Mutton and MagGoty Beef"
This is among the charges which occu-
pied much time during the trial and
testimony was offered 10 show that on a
few occasions spoiled meat was found in
the supplies being prepared for table use,
and. some witnesses say. was served UP
TO the inmates of the county inflrmary.
The question OF the knowledge and re-
sponslhiity OF the plaintiff for this state !
OF affairs was the subject of a sharp I
conflict in the evidence. II was NOT
proven nor pretended that spoiled meat
was habitually or on any great number |
OF occasions served or fed TO the In
mates. and the comments in the issue of
the paper In question were exaggerated |