Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1911-06-27
The Rev. H. j. Condit,
Of Nutley, Answers
SalOOn-keeperS.
TWO $4,000 SUITS
ARE STARTED TODAY
Mr.. Hatch Says Clergyman Was
Misquoted and Spoke from
Hearsay Without Malice. 7

Claiming that he had been misquoted
by the two hotel proprietors and that
remarks that he had made regarding
the arrangements of their places were
not matters of first-hand knowledge,
but were currently reported, the Rev.
Henry J. Condit, pastor of st. Paurs
Congregational Church, Nutley. who
faces two suits for damages on tho
charge of slander, today made reply
through his attorney to the hotel
keepers demand for a public retrac-
ton at public meeting. Mr.. Condit
reiterates his statement that he will
not apologize. He says that any crit
icism that he made was without malice
aforethought.
The trouble, which has set all Nutley
agog, started over an attempt by Lars
J. Petersen, owner of the Central cafe.
to get liquor license. During the fight
Mr.. Condit is alleged to have said that
Mr.. Petersen derived most of the Sat-
urday night trade by importing women
from New York to his hotel.
Mr.. Petersen said today that he had
been In the saloon business for fifteen
years in New York and that this was
the first time that his business methods
had received adverse criticism.
Summons in two separate suits for
1000 for slander were issued today
at the sheriff's office on an order Of
Michael T. and Hugh Barrett on behalf
n ...I
ney J. Harry Hull on behalf OF Edward
f. Schneider.
The REV. Mr. Condit's Reply.
Following is the letter sent today
by M. B. Hatch, the Rev. Mr.. Condit's
attorney to j. Henry Hull, of counsel
for Mr.. Petersen. and attorney for Mr..
Schneider:
Replying to your letters of June "a
and 26, respectively. addressed to the
Rev Henry ]. Condit, I beg to state,
In Mr.. Condit's behalf, that you have
not only misquoted his language with
respect both to the Central Hotel and
Franklin Hotel; but you have failed ut
terly to regard the fact that Mr.. Condt
prefaced his remarks concerning both
places with the statement that the con-
ditions about to be recited were cur
rently reported, and were not matters
of first-hand knowledge to the speaker.
Respecting your reference TO Mr..
Schneider. would state that his name
was not even mentioned by Mr.. Condit.
There will be no retraction of his re-
marks by Mr.. Condit, either publicly
or privately as demanded in your let
ters His appeal was made in
the public interest. 1t was an
appeal to body officially em-
powered to act, at a meeting the
express purpose of which was the hear
ing and consideration of objections that
any of the citizens of Nutley might
offer to granting of liquor licenses.
Moreover. his remarks were free
from malice, as you and all his hearers
must we'll know, and are therefore to
be classified under the head of privi-
legged communications, such as have
enjoyed the protection of law from
time immem orial.
"The decisions on this variety of
cases, based upon utterances in behalf
of public welfare before officials en-
powered to act on the subject matter
thereof, are so universally favorable to
the Interpretation of such utterances
as privileged that the doctrine has be-
come fundamental. Truly yours,
m. B. HATCH.H