The Topeka state journal., 1908-11-07
COLEMAN LOSES.
Supreme Court Decides state
Journal Libel Suit.
Decision of Shawnee County
Court Is Affirmed.
BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.
Long and Able Opinion Dy
Justice.
Disbarment Case of Trickett VS..
COOksey to Be PrObed.
BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.

The supreme court IOudy ny
unanimous voice. in an opinion writ
ten by Justice Burch in the case of c.
c. Coleman against F. P. MacLennan,
editor and proprietor of the State
Journal, affirmed the action in the
district court of Shawnee county
wherein a jury acquitted the State
Journal of libel and refused to assess
any damages.
The case was a most important one,
involving the right of newspaper to
expose, without malice, the acts of
public Official such acts being re-
garded by the newspaper as important
for the public to know
The original cases were begun in
August, 1904.
There were three of them, each for
$4,000. aggregating $45,00O dam
ages asked for against this paper.
The cases were brought by e. c.
Coleman. attorney general, I. L. Day.
hoff, superintendent of public instruc-
tion and ]. r. Burrow, secretary OF
state. These three, acting as state
school fund commissioners pur-
chased certain Comanche county
bonds under various irregular and
suspicious circumstances and con-
ditions.
The state Journal severely criticized
these officials, who were candidates for
reelection. for their action in buying
for the school fund what it regarded
as tainted securities. The original
bonds upon which the ones concerned
were based were fraudulent, issued un-
der iniquitous circumstances. In con-
sidering the purchase of the bonds by
the state, it was necessary to secure
q change in the law, the bonds were
purchased and handled with more or
less secrecy and in the final transac-
tion State Treasurer Kelly advanced
the money from the treasury to the
seller pending two weeks formalities
leading up to the actual delivery of
the bonds and the payment of the
money by the state.
The case was carefully tried before a
Jury in the Shawnee county district
court and resulted in the acquittal of
the State Journal The supreme court
today clinches and sustains the verdict
of the district court. The attorneys for
Mr. MacLennan were B. P. Waggener
of Atchison. J. G. Waters of Topeka
and w. P. Hackney of Winfield.
The attorneys for Mr.. Coleman were
his own firm, Coleman & Williams of
Clay Center Rossington and Smith of
Topeka and John f. Hessin of Manhat-
tan.
The opinion in full is exhaustive and
shows great research, goes into de-
tails and quotes and comments freely
on many court opinions including one
by Judge w. H. Taft in 1898.
The opinion will be printed in full
in Mondays issue of this paper. The
following is the syllabus, or abstract
by the court, which was unanimous in
its opinion:
81 II the publisher of a newspaper
circulated throughout the state publish
an article reciting facts and making
comment relating to the official con-
duct and character of a state officer,
who is a candidate for reelection, for
the sole purpose of giving to the peo-
pie of the state what he honestly be-
lieves to be true information, and for
the sole purpose of enabling the voters
to cast their ballots more intelligently,
and the whole thing is done in good
faith, the publication is privileged al
though the matters contained in the
article may be untrue in fact and de-
rogatory to the character of the can
didate.
"2. Generally, publication should
be no wider than the moral or social
duty to publish. If it be designedly or
unnecessarily or negligently excessive.
privilege is lost. But if a state news
paper published primarily for state
constituency have a small circulation
| elsewhere, it is not deprived of it's
privilege in the discussion of subjects
Of statewide concern because of that
fact.
"3. If on the trial of suit for libel
the jury should find specially from the
evidence that the plaintiff suffered no
damages from the publication COM
planned of, it will not be presumed
that the finding was induced by in
structions regarding particular ques-
tons in the case not related to that
of damages; and the question whether
such instructions mistake the law be-
comes immaterial because they could
not affect the plaintiffs substantial
rights"