Ladysmith news-budget. [volume] (Ladysmith, Rusk County, Wis.) 1907-1927, 1909-03-11
NEWS-BUDGET
Is INDICATED
Jury in Case OF Lepiey VS.. Andersen
Finds Verdict Tor Plaintiff
Awarded $500

By the decision of the jury in the case
of J. M. Leply VS.. A. N. Andersen, the
assault of the Journal against the News
Budget fell fiat, although that was not
an issue in the case. 1t will be remem-
bered that at the time the action was
begun the News Budget mentioned the
matter in it's news columns, stating
briefly what was alleged in the plain
tiff's complaint. The Journal accused
us of malicious persecution for political
purposes. That was one of the points
made by the defence, but was evidently
not considered by the jury.
The following article from the Jour-
nal of Jan. 80 makes good reading at
this time:
In last weeks issue of the News
Budget there was the worst case OF
MISREPRESENTATION we have seen in a
long time, and whether it was inten-
tional on the part of the editor or was
written for the occasion by some one
not connected with the paper of course
we do not know. Mr. Hadden, in big
head lines on the front page, and in
quite a lengthy article following prac-
tically intimated that Mr.. Andersen was
a criminal and had in the matter Of j.
M. Lepley against Mr.. Andersen, ap-
propriated to himself money that did
not belong to him.
There does not appear, from care
full perusal of the documents, that there
were any grounds whatever for this un-
necessary publicity, and it certainly
smacks of persecution on the part OF
the News-Budget, or the people who
furnished material for the article, as
the true facts in the case could easily
have been learned from affidavits on
file, and the papers show that Andersen
& Bogue, the latter partner of Mr..
Andersen's at the time of the transac-
tion, had accounted for every cent
handled, and written contracts and
stipulations, signed by Lepley himself,
would tend to show that he had no right
of action whatever, and that Thomas &
Carow, attorneys for Lepley, sued Mr..
Andersen without joining Mr.. Bogue
or without notifying Mr.. Andersen
prior to service of summons or in any
way attempting to get at the true
We always understand that pro-
fessional etiquet among attorneys was
very pronounced, and that barring the
actual trial of case, they treated
each other as gentleman, but the fact
of there being no merit back of this
action, unfortunate as it may seem,
it looks like persecution pure and SIM
pie, and the public cannot look upon it
otherwise.
AS we'll posted as Editor Hadden
claims to be on libel matters. he should
have posted himself more thoroughly
before attacking good citizens
honesty and intigrity, especially one
who is the peoples servant, and he is
liable to be afforded an opportunity to
be an expert on criminal libel.
The case was one of the hardest
fought of any on the calendar at this
term Of court. District Attorney
Sodenberg of Barron, David Bogue of
Portage and Andersen & Leahy of this
city were attorneys for the defense,
while Thomas & Carrow appeared for
the plaintiffs.
The contract, which Andersen &
Bogue had with the plaintiff for fifty
per cent commission for collecting
$500 on a claim, the plaintiff swore
was secured on an understanding
that it was not to be enforced Mr..
Bogue, the former partner of District
Attorney Andersen, swore that the
contract was the same as had been
previously agreed upon. His testimony
was substantiated by Mr.. Andersen,
who reluctantly admitted that he re-
tanned 1915 out of the $500, after set
tling another claim which he had for
collection against Lepley.
The jury was unanimous in voting to
set aside the contract, and after being
out only about an hour, awarded Lepley
5000.
Circuit court adjourned for the term
Monday night. Although one of the
smallest calendars of late years, the
session was the longest ever held in the
county-two full weeks. One whole
week was occupied bV the Freeman