The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1913-04-20
Nelson, Of Kansas City
Star, Not Guilty Of
Contempt.
A TT E MPT MADE
TO PUT HIM IN JAIL
Supreme Court Holds That Facts
He Published Were ,Substan-
TALLY Correct; That He Had
No Malice in Printing
Them and Comments
Were Justified.

Jefferson City. Mo-. April 1s-wli-
liam r. Nelson. editor and owner of
the Kansas City Star. was found not
guilty OF malice in tho publication OF
the article for which he was adtudgen
guilty OF contempt OF court and SEN
fenced to q day in jail last February
ny circuit Judge Joseph A Guthrie.
The article itself was substantially
true and unless in the courts opin
ION that the article in itself is con-
temptuous." the petitioner should be
discharged
the Missouri Supreme Court by its
commissioner in the case Charles Z.
Crow. OF Kansas City.
The article complained of stated
that Judge Guthrie had refused 10
dismiss tho divorce suit OF Minnie L.
against Claude F. Clevinger. until at
torneys' fees were paid. and that the
refusal came after the Clevingers had
been rcconcilcds and had asked the
disruissal OF the case.
Finds Article True.
Your commissioner finds" says the
report, from the evidence submitted
and considered that the article re-
ferrcd to was substantially true. and
nearly correct report OF court
from laynan. and the experience OIL
your commissioner has been that
many lawyers would have made as
many errors as appear In this article.
The author OF this article COM
planed OF. Mr.. Murphy. was a layman,
and. moreover even he'd he been
learned In tho law, he would have
hoen of the opinion that the decision
IN the Clevinger case was unusual In
that 1t imposed conditions upon the
rights OF the PLAINTIFF TO dismiss suit
for divorce.
Your commissioner Is of tho opin-
ion that under the evidence. petitioner
had no personal knowledge of the ar
tlcic complained of until after its pub
l'cation, and Mr.. Murphy and Kari
Walter tthe man who edited the ar
tlcle). were servants OF the petitioner
and made an honest effort to report
correctly the proceedings that had oc-
Cured In the Circuit Court OF Jackson
County, Missouri, without any inten-
tion of offending the dignity OF or I'm
Pooling the proceedings OF the CIR
cult Court, and there is no evidence
tcfsing to prove that tho servants and
agents OF tho petitioner had any in
teuiion Of obstructing the due and or
derly course OF Justice as adIni mister
ed by the court or OF criticizing the
court.
Cause for Comment.
There was cause for comment on
the order in tho Clevingcr case deny
ing the plaintim the right to dismiss
her case until the husband compiled
with the conditions imposed in the or
der and I am inclined to believe that
Mr. Murphy was correct In saying that
1t tcndcd to prevent a. reconciliation
OF husband and wife. in which So
ciety is deeply Interested
Your commissioner finds from all
the evidence In the case that the peti-
TONER was merely exercising his right
to report and discuss proceedings in a
court of justice. and the mere fact
that the statements are inaccurate and
that mistakes appear In the article
would not render him guilty of con-
tempt. II SO, every layman or person
learned In the law that misconstrues,
mislnterprets misunderstanding the
rulings, orders and judgments OF our
courts would be guilty of an offense,
end punishment might be administered,
as in this case, by depriving citizens of
liberty.
Your commissioner has heard the
court say too often that he has mis-
construed. misinterpreted and misun-
derstood tho rulings and judgments OK
our courts ever to concur in the theory
that you must be technically correct in
the Interpretation of the Judgments and
rulings of the courts
Every person has the right to pub
lish his understanding OF what a court
las decided and to differ with the court
as to what the law is and also 10
criticize the law, as long, at least, as
the criticism does not attempt to i'm
pugn the motives OF the court or to
charge corruption or infamy, and there
by attempt to bring our courts into dis
repute.
No Evidence of Contempt
ca ic
either in tho article itself or In the
oral or written evidence introduced.
that there was an intention or purpose
on tho part OF the agents or servants
of the petitioner to reflect In any way
upon the integrity of the courts, and
unless the court is of the opinion tina t
the article In itself is contemptuous
the petitioner should be discharged"
The conclusion that the article was
substantially true" as stated in Com
missioner Crows report, was reached
through reports of testimony in the
case by Mr.. Murphy, Of the Star: by
Taul Sutcmeister, reporter for the
Kansas City Journal who corroborated
MFR. Murphy's testimony, and by testi-
mony OF court officials concerned In the
original divorce case.
Referring to articles published in
the Star subsequent to the decision of
Judge Guthrie, and bearing thereon,
the report says:
our commissioner admits. over the
objection Of the petitioner, articles ap-
pearing in the Kansas City Star and
published by the petitioner, but your
commissioner is Of the opinion that all
the articles which appear in this record
should be excluded"
The ruling. the report says. applies
to ell articles. except an interview with
Judge Ralph Iatshaw. Of tho Criminal
Z Court. This interview, published in the
Star, quoted Judge Latshaw as saving
the decision Of Judge Guthrie was
Outrageous" and that he would never
Icontinued on Fourth PaEe3