Lovelock tribune. (Lovelock, Nev.) 1898-1912, 1909-07-16
DEMANDS $4,000
FOR PHYSICAL
INJURIES INJURIES and
SHATTERED
~
DIGNITY
hOVELoCK REVIEW EDITOR
SUES MINING OPERATOR
Action Outcome of all Assault on Edit
or Cherry in His Uttice Few
Weeks Ago.

whether man may, without COM
mitting a wrongful act, enter the
sanctum sanctorum of an editor, and
proceed to call the latter down, and
then follow it up with left and right
swings ON the newspaper man, chas-
ing him from his Office, and knocking
him down in the street, where only the
arrival of help put an end to the beat
ing, is question to be thrashed out in
the district court, at some future date,
when the case of Cherry VS.. Loudon
comes to trial. On the settling OF this
question depends the payment to IL.
w. Cherry editor of the Lovelock Re-
view, by james +. Loudon, prominent
mining operator and leaser ON the Fair.
view claims in the Seven Troughs dis,
trict, the sum of $4,000 or a portion
thereof.
Several weeks ago there appeared
in the Review news item relative to
the operations of Mr.. Loudon in the
Seven Troughs district, in connection
with the sale of some stock of tho
Florence lease. The claim was made
that Mr.. Loudon was party to
scheme to profit privateiy, in an unfair
manner, from the sale of the stock.
The article has been vigorously denied,
and when published aroused Mr..
Loudon 8 keen resentment to such an
extent that he came to Lovelock, called
at the Review office, and assaulted
Editor Cherry. The latter's dignits
suffered in tho encounter, for the rea-
son that his antagonist is n power
tully built man, and with nothing to
procct himself, Cherrty ran to escape.
He was not physically injured to any
great extent, although the arrival of
the peace officers no doubt prevented
his receiving greater injuries.
In regard to he suit Mr.. Cherry said
to Tribune reporter; 1T is true J.
have brought action through my attor-
ney, j. A. Callahan, against Mr..
Loudon for $4,000 damages. The arti,
Gle which provoked the assault was
published by me as n matter of news.
From all the information l could get
was substantially correct. When L
heard the first protest against the ar
ticle l Immediately began to invest
gate, with n view OF correcting an
error if one had been made. Ny inten-
tions in publishing the article were
impersonal, and | would gladly and
freely have published retraction il
a mistake had been hade. | was just
in the act of signing reply telegram
confirming the story when Mr..
Loudon entered the office. In view OH
Mr.. Loudon's assault on me, unprovok-
ed in so far as any malice existed on
my part, his absolute indisposition to
reason with me, and the outcome of the
/ consider myself to have been
injured, fully to the extent of the
amount l have sued for.'
Attorney Callahan states that this
contentious in bringing the suit are
based on the statutes of the state, gov
erning acts such as occurred between
Mr.. Cherry and Mr.. Loudon. The COM
plant has already been filed in the
district court, and the defendant to
the action served.
The developments in the case will be
watched with interest, not only by the
people of this end of the county. but
by the newspaper fraternity generally
throughout the state.