Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1909-04-03
KELLY GETS VERDICT
FOR $50 DAMAGES
IN LIBEL SUIT
TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS
CLAIM Is BADLY CUT
Lively Passages Between
Counsel in Trial of Case of
Former EmpIoye Against Mrs
H, NJ, Bennett,

After being out about forty min
utcs, the jury in the case of NJ p
Kelly versus Mrs H.. NJ. Bennett. for
mcr owner of the dcfunct Sun pub
lsHlng concern, brought In a verdict
IN laVof OF the plaintiff and assessed
the amount of damages ut fifty dol
lars.
Kelly sued for ten thousand dollars.
the suit resulting from a letter
written by Mrs. Bennett to Postmas-
Ter K. W Hopkins, which instructed
MN not 70 deliver any personal or
sun man to Kelly and intimatine
to her.
According to the evidence intro
duecd by the defense during the trial
the letter which Mrs. Bennett claim
ca Kelly opened was received in Al
puquerque on saturday, June G. and
u'iNered to her the next day sun
day, June Z. by her son. Willis Nc
council. julius Staab. counse for the
plaintiff, however, forged = STRONG
claim of evidence tending to prove
that Kelly had not been in the sun
once on sunday, June Z. and there
lore could not have opened the let
YER IN question Francis Strother.
FORMER messenger boy for the SIM
80 81 NANtifn7 toi the nldIf-
llf n stated that it was his Gus
tom to place all personal letters for
NelIN on Kelly's desk and an letters
For Airs Bennett and the sun conn
pany on Hendricks desk. Young
Stfother stated that on June +. he
Went to the poStOfficc. returned 10
the sun with the mail and placed It
ON Hendricks desk, as usual.
Paul Hedrick. former city editor of
tIr sun, was called, and stated that
ne went to the postoffice later in the
cav received some letters for Mrs.
Bennett and the sun ana placed these.
also ON Hendricks desk.
John Maher, former solicitor for
lhe sun. Was called and testified that
ne was with Mr.. Kelly from $3.50 a. m.
untl 1870 y m. OF June :. being az
the Kelly home during that time.
Mrs. Bennett was called by the de-
Tense and testified regarding the re-
erlpt Of the letters ON the date in
question. She stated during the course ,
of her examination that one letter.
addressed to her personally was re-
coiNcd with the envelope cut open.
Upon cross examination Mrs. Ben
nett admitted that.-on numerous oc-l
easions She had received both person
n business letters i'm Il similarI
conditions, but had not complained
to tn" postmaster about it.
The cas-" was given to the jury
shortly before 4 o'clock. after the
argument had been completed.
\ number Of lively Tits occurred be-
tween counsel
Hendricks counsel for the defense
compared KollX, the plaintiff. and his
Mr.. Staa1 to river craft.
that X ny minded him
a tramp lmc, and MI Staab.
q tug hoat
Hendricks declared that the libel
Part OF the suit was a very small ar
laif. ridiculing il and saving that
kcllys character had not been dam
lE'd by the writing OF the letter. At
lofnry Staab in his final argument.
declared that in his opinion the char
iot"r Of neither Hendricks nor Mrs
.cnnctt could be damaged. Hendricks
lrlt the court room shortly after Mr..
9taab began to speak. This caused
latter to rcnarK to-+rr~+.Nv that
H"ndrlcks has not the sand to stay in
court room INC face the music"
Ihe instructions given 30 the jury
ny inc court We're quite lengthy con
'umlns nearly am hour. The court
fuI'd the fact must be taken into
'pnsideration in arriving at a verdict
nat Mis-. Bennett had q personal
'IEnt TO make a complaint to the post
regarding her mail. The in
'truotions also were to the effect that
~ articles appearing in the sun re-
iafdIhg Kelly and his character mlist
Do secluded from consideration. as
.hCy We're not a part OF the suit {
me articles were introduced by the {