The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1913-11-04
Sui for Libel.


AS result of the publications in TIL
t Palmyra Nesos against the official con
duct of Assemblyman Peacock whil'
County Auditor, suit for libel has beer
begun against c. F. Sleeper, editor Of the
paper mentioned. 1t may not be known
to many people of the county what the
offense of Sleeper consisted of, for his
paper is not widely circulated, yet extra
copies containing the articles to which
exception has been taken were distributed
throughout the county. The NelOs con-
tended that Mr.. Peacock had been negli-
gent in his duties as Auditor and had
ordered thousands of dollars paid out
Illegally" This is only one of the
charges and Sleeper, the editor, did not
stop there but cast insinuations upon
/ Prosecutor Atkinson, and of that official
he published the following: The County
Prosecutor is the official of the county,
paid to bring information before the
grand juries and the fact that he has not
in Peacock case, done so, has led hun
dreds of people throughout the county to
ask the question, Why was Peacock
favored?' Then possibly with the idea
that he had gone just little too far, he
tempers this statement with the remark
that he is more charitable than to believe
the Prosecutor would favor anybody, and
thinks that perhaps the latter was too
busy to discover law which the editor
thinks covers the case.
In response to the newspaper attack
Prosecutor Atkinson summoned editor
Sleeper to appear before the grand jury
and present such evidence as he possessed.
OF that body Sleeper said: From the
personnel of this grand jury we believe
the interests of the county will be proper
ly looked AFTER Sleeper was on hand
and after he had got through with his
talk the grand jury, which he himself said
would properly look after the interests of
the county, declined to indict.
Then Mr.. Peacock took turn and
brought suit against Sleeper for libel,
fixing the damages at $4,000. The last
issue of the Palmyra NeeOs bears scare
headlines such as ''An attempt to in
editor" pure bluff done for |
political effect" Never has there been |
a more certain mistake than the ideas |
presented in those headlines, There was
no intention of 'intimidating" or bluff
ing" Mr.. Peacock means business re-
CARELESS of whether he is or is not re-
elected member of the Assembly. He |
feels that he has been unjustly attacked
and he proposes to see what the courts
will have to say in the matter.
The law on libel is intended to prevent
assaults upon personal character While
it is permissible to publish the truth, it
matters not how correct the facts that
are presented may be if it can be shown
hat there was personal or malicious
feeling behind the publication. To the
most casual observer it must be appar-
mt what the object in the case under
discussion was. 1t was to effect the de-
eat of Peacock as candidate for MEM
Der of the Assembly. This is not the
irst time the Palmyra Nea0s has been
n the limelight with articles which, if
lot untrue, approached the brink SO
,losely that there was danger of falling
If. The columns of that paper have
llways been open to the public to air
my idea that might suggest itself ''for
he benefit of the community" an OPP
that was seized by many and
apparently welcomed by the editor.
While there may have been chances to
lave instituted libel suits prior to this
nobody ever availed themselves of that
because they thought
he game was not worth the candle.
But Mr.. Peacock feels differently on
he subject. He did not take the step
lurriedly or unadvisedly. He has not {
ntered into this case without due delib- |
ration, and if editor Sleeper thinks it is
mere bluff he will have his mind dis
bused. This paper does not believe in
rying cases before they come to court,
nut in this instance we feel perfectly ,
Justified in making the remarks printed
bove, and we are glad to see that some {
ne has had the spirit to call down the q
nan who is now in a position to go be- ,
ore jury and have determined the I
uestion whether he has broken law
nd whether the personnel of the grand
lries'' is what he stated. The slur cast
pom the Prosecutor of the Pleas by the Q
uestion why was Peacock favored p c
n intimation that Prosecutor Atkinson
isregarded law and good government
0 show favoritism, also deserves notice.
However, that question has been answer {
d by two grand juries, the members of
ne of which, at least, also come under
he head of showing favoritism and dis !
egarding their official oaths, as they |
lad the subject before them and could
lot find way to pursue the course !
which Sleeper has been so insistent
lpon. OF the last jury of whose per S
onnel' the editor was so compliment
Try, he has not yet expressed himself. ,
Does he think that body favored Pea !
ock?'' While he may feel that Peacock l
S ''bluffing," it may be stated that his
emarks about the Prosecutor, the grand
uries and 'favoritism" were consider
lble toned down in his last perorations.
Quality goods at Boyce's. adv
Il