The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1907-09-17
Publishers Demand $4,000
Damages from the Food
Manufacturer.
LATTER SAYS HE'LL FIGHT.
DECLARES HE SPENT $4,000 TO
GET THE OBJECTIONABLE AD-
VERTISEMENT PRINTED AND
WILL SPEND MORE
(New York Times)

Papers were served yesterday on c.
w. Post of Battle Creek, Mich, Pres
ident of the Postum Cereal Company,
Ltd, manufacturers of Postum" and
Grape Nuts and Bradley Garretson,
the New York manager Of the COM
pany in suit for S750,000 damages
brought against the company by the
proprietors and the editor of Golfers
Weekly.
The compliments allege that an ad-
vertisement signed by the company
and printed widely in newspapers
throughout this country and Europe
on September 4 was libelous. There
are three complainants, Peter F. Col
lier, Robert Collier, the owners of the
magazine and Norman F. Hapgood,
the editor, each asking for s250,000
damages.
Charles f. Kelley, associate OF
James w. Osborne, counsel for Col
lier's. announced also that he had
every reason to believe that Mr.. Post
wrote the advertisement himself, and
that criminal proceedings would be
brought against MIN personally at
once. Mr. Post admitted yesterday to
a Times reporter that he wrote the
advertisement complained of.
The trouble started over an editor
ial which appeared in the issue of
Golfers for July 81. 1t read in Part:
"One widely circulated paragraph
labors TO include the impression that
Grape-Nuts will obviate the necessity
of an operation for appendicitis. This
is lying and, potentially, deadly lying.
Similarly, Postum continually
makes reference to the Endorsement
of "a distinguished physician or "a
prominent health official, persons as
mythical, doubtless, as they are mys-
terious."
$4,000 to Have it Printed.
Mr.. Post replied in half-coiumn adj
vertisement which he admits cost him
$4,000 to have printed. The particu-
lar paragraph to which the Golfers
and Mr.. Hapgood object read:
When a journal wiilfully prostitu-
al
reputable manufacturer in an effort to
force him to advertise, it is time the
public knew the facts. The owner or
editor of Golfers Weekly cannot
force money from us by such meth
DDS"
The entire article was couched in
such strong terms that several New
York papers communicated with Col
lier's before they published it. In all
cases, however, the magazine gave
permission for the printing of the adj
vertisement.
Taking up the statements made in
Golfers editorial with reference to
the legitimacy of the medical indorse-
ments of Grape-Nuts and Postum, Mr..
Posts advertisement said: 1--WE are
here to wager Golfers Weekly or any
other skeptic or liar, any amount of
money they care to name and which
they care to cover that we will pro-
duce proof to any board of investiga-
tors that we have never yet published
an advertisement announcing the OPP
inion of a prominent physician or a
health official on Postum or Grape
Nuts when we did not have the actual
letter in our possession"
The compliments also take excep-
ton to another paragraph, which
reads: Some time ago the manager
of Golfers Weekly got very cross
with us because we would not contin-
We to advertise in his paper
The compliments declare that the
contract with the Postum company
was broken off by themselves after a
long correspondence with the COM
pany, in which it practically pleaded
TO have the advertising continued.