The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1914-11-24
TUESDAY. NOVEMBER "a, 1914
The "Bluff" That Was Called.

The bluff" That Was Called.
Some people still remember that over
year ago Assemblyman Peacock
brought suit against Charles F. Sleeper,
editor of the Palmyra News, for libel in
publishing statements rejecting on Mr..
Peacocks administration of the office of
County Auditor. Sleeper has referred to
this action recently and says he scalled
Peacock's bluff, intimating that the
Assemblyman was either afraid or did
not want to press the suit. Sleeper's
lawyer has not appeared to be very
anxious to get before jury and has put
In all sorts of answers to Peacock s
charges. On the first day of the present
term of court Assemblyman Peacock's
counsel asked to have his case put on the
list and at the same time moved to strike
out the answers that Sleeper had put in.
Judge Kalisch took the papers and last
week filed an opinion. We give it in
full:
New Jersey Supreme Court. Robert
Peacock, plaintiff VS.. Charles F. Sleeper,
defendant. Motion to strike out answer
For the motion, William Harris; Contra,
Joseph Beck Tyler.
At Chambers. Kalisch, j. The
answer wholly ignores the requirements
OF par. SO, Schedule A, of the Practice
Act Of 1912, p. 391, and Rule 81 of the N.
j. Supreme Court Rules, 1913 b. "a.
See also Form Is, p. 81. But there is a
more fundamental reason given for strik-
ing out the answer. The various allega-
tons set forth in the answer do not set
up any legal defences to the plaintiffs
complaint.
For instance the answer that the pub
LEGATION was without malice or malicious
intent Of any kind is no legal defence to
an action for libel. No law will presume
malice. Proof tending to show an entire
absence of actual malice will be received
in mitigation Of damages. So also the
answer that the plaintiff has not request
ed the defendant to retract the publica-
tion either in writing orotherwise. This
is no defence to the libel. 1t can only go
IN mitigation of damages.
The answer that the article referred to
was fair comment upon the COM
potency Of public official seeking re-
election and a matter of public concern,
is no legal defence without an averment
of the truth Of the matter published and
without it appearing that 1t was publish
ed with good motives and for justifahle
ends.
gather from the thirteen short answers
10 che complaint that the defendant
does not deny the publication of the
words alleged to have been published by
him, in the complaint.
Many Of the answers to the complaint
set up matters which tend to go in
mitigation of damages and are in the
nature Of evidence and therefore are not
properly pleadable as bar to the action.
The new practice act was not designed
70 change the law as to what pleadings
shall contain but to simplify them. A
plea to be good must set up defence
which will bar the action as heretofore.
II need not be stated in the formal way
as at common law. The new practice
act and the rules clearly point out the
form to be followed.
For the reasons given the answers will
pc stricken out with costs and with leave
20 the defendant to amend.
The reference to the answers show
plainly where the bluff" was. Instead
of coming forward and pushing Pea
cock to trial, Sleeper and his lawyer
have been interposing answers which
the court bowls out entirely. 1t will be
seen that Sleeper said he did not have
any malice in publishing the articles
in question, and the Judges answer to
that is plain. Then Sleeper claims
Peacock never asked him to retract, and
fho I,.<lro sold he iii x>r< hare - 49,
one who remembers the circumstances
will know just how far request for re-
traction would have gone. And so it,
goes on through the list and Judge
Kalisch closes by throwing out all the
the answers and putting the costs on
Sleeper.
The latter is given leave to file new
answers or to amend those in SO they
will conform to the law and practice,
and it remains to be seen what the next |
step will be. AS Judge Kalisch has said |
that nearly, if not all, of the answers, |
are such as could be used in mitigation
of damages, why does not Sleeper go
ahead in calling this ''bluff" and put
ms answers before jury to get a verdict?
To show how much he has called the
tsbluff'' it is only necessary to note one
sentence in Judge Kalisch's opinion
where he says many of the answers to
the complaint set up matters which are
in the nature of evidence and therefore
are not properly pleadable as bar to
the action. Note the latter portion: |
mot properly pleadable as a bar to
action" Why, Sleeper has claimed |
right along that he was anxious to go to |
trial, and that Peacock was afraid, yet
the Justice intimates that some of the
answers are intended to bar the faction. |
Come along, Sleeper, call the bluff" in |
earnest. Stop putting in foolish answers |
and 60 to trial like man.