The herald-advance. (Milbank, S.D.) 1890-1922, 1912-11-22
SMULL VS.. FOSBV RGH
j. ID. Smull, former Editor of the News
and Il. VI. Fosburgh Editor Of
the News. Try Matters
ont i'm Court

State vs. Geo. NJ FOrSberg was
reached on the criminal calendar
and took all of the morning ses.
sion to secure a jury. The case,
as is known Is criminal libel
suit with John ID. Smull. who
had been editor and manager Of
the News for the past four or
five years, but now connected
with the Grant County Review
as complaining witness, and &. NJ
Fosburgh the present editor and
manager Of the paper as defend
ant. The jury as completed con
sisted of +. J Paddock, Frank
Mann, Thos Mckernan, Frank
Miller, O. + Lindahl, {. O.
Dowling, Helmuth Heuer, Helmer
Westby, Carl Rehn, l.. +. Jacobs,
Louis Schultz, Henry notson.
The libel charged was an arti.
Gle that appeared in the news
headed "The Facts in the Case, :
published in the issue of October
18th, in which the present editor
Of the News sought to show that
the paper was not in financial diff
icutieS, and that if it were these
difficulties were brought about
by the former editor 5 immorali
ties.
States Attorney Fuller con
Quoted the prosecution and I. l..
.Bouck was attorney for Mr.. Fos-
burgh.
J. D. Smull and Harry Sexton,
the latter foreman printer in the
Review office, were the only wit
nesses for the state, the former
to prove the publication of the
article in question and the re
sponsibility of Fosburgh for it's
publication, and the injury and
humiliation it had caused him,
the newspaper containing the
article being placed in evidence;
Sexton S evidence was simply to
show that the word lust" used
IN the article named was common
ly accepted term for lewdness
and sexual immOralitleS.
The complaining witness, how
ever, was subjected to grilling
cross examination by the attor-
ney for the defense, who declared
to the court that it was the inten-
ton Of the defense to prove the
truth Of the purported libel and
to show Justification in the at
tempts of Smull to ruin the busi,
ness of the paper conducted by
Mr. Fosburgh.
Witnesses for the defense were
Miss Ethel Hulwick, a former en-
ploye of the News office and also
at one time employed in the post
Office. who testified as to Smulls
conduct toward her in the print.
ing office while she was a compos
itor there, and as to a request re.
garding his personal mail when
she was employed in the post Of
flee, which request was that it
should be delivered to Arthur
North, printer in the News of
flee, during his (Smulls) absence
in the cities. Joe Hedman of
Stockholm, Fred Nelson and
Spence Baird of Milbank, testif-
ed that the complaining witness
had talked to them, discreditlng
the News and soliciting them to
turn their patronage to the Re
view, making statements as to the
shaky financial condition of the
paper, etc. However, the star
witnesses for the defence were
Arthur North and the defendant
Fosburgh himself. Mr., North
testified to conversations with
Smull in which the latter boasted
of his liaisons, and North in turn
related his experiences along
the same hnes-indicating that
the News Office mast have served I
as a sort Of clearing house for
filth of this character. Fosburoh
also testified as to the complain
ing witness telling him Of his
at various times while
absent from his duties as editor
Of the News, but as the Herald
Advanceis family paper, it will I
be impossible to print the story
rs related on the stand, and in
charity to all concerned and in
defence to the cleanly minded
people who compose the bulk of
our readers, we shall not attempt
Jhe insult of foisting upon them
l rehearsal of the foulness.
The afternoon was occupied by
in reviewing the case,
The counsel for the defense sub
Getting the complaining witness