Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1905-1919, 1917-12-20
LIBEL SUIT PETITION
WAS SOMEWHAT FAULTY
Seventy-five Thousand Dollars
Sought From World; Thirty
Days to Amend.

Thomns l.. Slo0u's $4,000 libel suit
against Tho Tulsa World blow up yes
tcrday IN the United States district
court when Judge j W. WoGdrough.
after examining the petition. held that
/ It was Improperly drawn and did not
set out the particular paragraphs or
the article complained OF as being
| libelous
Mr. sloan, who is an attorney CT
Pender. Neb.. drew his own petition
lie Incorporated the etire article which
aggrievcd him IN his petition and
charged that II was libelous.
Judge WoodrouAn stated that this
was not sufficient; that the particular
paragraphs or statements that gave
offense must be set forth and shown
whether true or false, and If 50 IN
what particular and II libelous, In
, whnt way they were libelous
lie gave MIR. Sloan thirty days in
which to amend or file a new peti
ton
The same ruling was made in
Sloan's $4,000 libel suit against the
Tulsa OH & Gas Journal.
Court AdiouIns.
Court adjourned Yesterday and the
Wrymcr who have been in attendance
for the past ten days were Discharged
and given their warrants judge
Woodroush viii sign the minutes OF
the term today and return to his
home in Omaha. Ncb., for the holt
days.
This was his firs, visit to Tulsa and
ne made many friends with the mem
borS uf the bar hV his courteous and
impartial rulings They viii be glad
To welcome him back If he should be
assirued here aguid
Tho following cases were disposed
of during the torn.
Grover Conrad. Judgment against
H. v Foster and others for 81, "a:
Charles H. Randall against Fred L.
Kelley company, iuugmcut for $500;
George II. War!ng against Joe Abra-
ham, judgment for $3.445.46; Oscar
ShrVer against the American ely
ccrin company. Judgment for $4,000.
Commercial National banl, against the
town of Morris, judgment for $1,05O.
The jury disagreed in tho case or
T.. G.. Goblc against the Midland We.
ley railroad.
Cases Dismissed
The following cases were dismissed:
O!lmulgec Window Glass company W.
Iurney Il. Ladou; the Falk company
VS.. American Refining company: J.
NJ Pennington. administrator. W.
Dunlap Brothers. and others: Della
Woodbridge Va Midland Valley rail-
road; f.. l.. McMnhan VS. Midland
Valley railroad; Mrs. Della kiddy vs.
Midland Valley railroad; Sarah NJ.
Albright vs.. receivers NJ, O. & ~.
railroad; Samuel A. Mckee VS. receiver
NJ X. & T. railroad; James r Haney
rs. receiver NJ. X * r. railroad: Cen
eral Refining company Us. oil Mar
koting company; Oscar Druit vs.. Vic
tprla Coal company: Uncle Sam Oh
company VS.. Eastern Torpedo COM
p1ny; in ro interpleas in Smith
Barnes ~ Strohber Co vs. Tulsa Nh
Sic CO.. in re interpleas in c. \. Smith
vs.. Tulsa Music Co.
Cases Continued.
The following cases were continued:
The cases of VIM. b. Mars. Mary T..
Willis, Mary Willis and Alfred Lee VS..
Frisco railroad; Frisco railroad VI
j. T.. Bruin. treasurer of Creek coun-
tV and others. ~ G. Dudley vs.. Santa
F"; Elsie Fcrlius vs. Miami Zinc 4
Lead Coz Mary NJ Black. admins
tatriN. W. the Independent TorpoHu
company; Annie Miller vs.. Whitehead
Conl Mining company; l.. Sachs and
others vs.. Anna Knight; Anna Xu-
kowsld Vs. the CreeE Coal ard MIN
ing CO.; Thomas ]. Roney. admins
traitor, vs.. sam Allen. trustcee; United
states vs. Charles Smith. United States
vs. VIM. r. Bridges; United States vs.
Tulsa Oil x Development Co: ,un-
ninSham Tank PROTECTIVE company vs..
carter oil company, Cunningham
Tank Protector company vs.. the Tank
Protector company; the Alliance Trus,
company limited. vs. Marion Dawson.
Automobile Sales company. vs.. the
Stude baker corporation.
The case Of the White Star Rein
ing company vs.. j. F. Compton was