The Evening statesman. [volume] (Walla Walla, Wash.) 1903-1910, 1907-10-24
REYNOLDS GETS
$3.50 DAMAGES
JurQ Returns Verdict pfter
Being0utA|| Night

After being out for more than 20
hours the jury in the libel suit of AL
ler. H. Reynolds against Percy c. Hol-
land, former manager of the Evening
Statesman, returned a verdict in favor
of the plaintiff for $3.50, at 1870 today
Al noon it was the general impress
sion that there would be no verdict re-
turned as the jury seemed as far apart
as ever Rumor from the jury room was
to the effect that they stood nine for
verdict of 81 against the defendant.
and three for a verdict of from one to
10 thousand dollars. During a heated
argument by the jurors in the jury
room parties in the court room heard
one man say: Il will never stand for
more than one dollar if l have TO stay
in this room until dooms day." but
a verdict was finally returned
According to the instructions of the
court the jury was bound to return a
verdict for the defendant but the
amour, of damages to allow for his in
jured feelings was left entirely in the
jury's hands. The instructions of the
court We're considered fair by both
sides. Just before the jury retired At
torney Gose, for the plaintiff, asked for
an instruction to the effect that the
jury might return a verdict of 100000
if they SO desired. why, certainly"
said the court. THE jury can find for
any amout from one cent to $50 900"
This caused a laugh and from all re-
ports from the jury room it seems that
about nine of the men hung out for
some time for returning a verdict il.
plaintiff
Case May be Appealed.
The verdict is one which. is perhaps
not entirely satisfactory to either party
20 the action and it is probable tnat an
appeal will be taken to the supreme
court and it may be necessary to have
the case tried in the superior court
again. However that is a matter of
speculation. as it is impossible to pre-
dict, to any degree of certainty, what
the supreme court will do in the mat
ter
In his complaint the plaintiff asked
amount asked that it is probable he
will not consider it fair compensation
for the damages he sustained by reason
OF the publications. On the other hand
were true as published and exp,e essed
nimself as believing that he should not
be called upon to pay anything for
damages for publishing what he al
legged was the truth.
The case is one which has attracted
considerable attention for many
months and was considered one of the
most impor, ant of its kid ever tried
in the superior court of Walla Walla
county.
Instructed for Verdict.
At the first trial a verdict was re-
turned in favor of the defendant, but
he supreme court reversed the Su-
perior court and sent the cause back
for rehearng, and under the rulings
of the higher court, the superior court
was obliged to exclude much of the
evidence offered by the defendant,
which made it necessary for the court
to ir,s .ruct the jury that they must
return a verdict of some kind in favor
of the plaintiff, as the supreme court
held the articles to be libelous per Sc
(Percy), and, as evidence of the truth
of some of the allegations of the pub
lished articles was ruled out, the court
was compelled to instruct against the
defendant.