The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1919-03-14
TRIAL IN FIFTH DAY
Crawford VS.. MacLennan DAM
age Suit Is On Today.
Plaintiff Rests Case After Using
Few Witnesses.
M'KEEVER ON POINTS OF LAW
Court Holds Article Was of a
Privileged Character.

Moves to Withdraw Evidence
From Jury-NO Cause Action.
When Judge Garver's division of
the district court opened this morning
the defense was ready to go to bat
with its testimony in the case in which
the nusement Syndicate Co. and
l.. NJ. and Roy Crawford are suing
Frank P. MacLennan for s25,000 al
legged damages for the publication of
official reports about the condition of
the Grand on April IL, 1916. With
the exception of two witnesses who
were to be called, the attorneys for
the plaintiffs announced they were
ready to rest their case. McKeever,
attorney for the defendant, stated that
he would want to place l.. NJ. Craw-
ford back on the stand for further
cross examination as soon as Craw-
ford could produce certain letters he
promised to bring into court.
L. M. Crawford was placed back on
the stand at 8 o'clock this morning,
and again testified as to the profits of
the Grand. He stated that the opera
house showed loss for the years of
1916 and 1917 He stated that when
he previously testified that his re-
ceipts some years ran as high as
$1,000 and $4,000, he did not make
allowances for interest and insurance.
The witness gave figures showing the
profits from 1909. In the season of
1910 and 1911 he said his profits were
$5,723.76, and for the season of 1911
and 1912 the profits dropped to
S1,939.74. He said the profits then
jumped to S4,094.47 in 1928, and
then dropped back during the sue
ceeding years.
On cross examination McKeever
clr ad h1 NIT n
Journal had published any article that
caused the profits to drop to $1,939.47
during the season of 1911-12. Craw-
ford said he could not give the reason
for this drop. The witness admitted
the falling off in profits was greater
during the season of 1914-15 before
the publication of the State Journa
article than during the season o1
1861, after the publication of ths
article.
On cross examination the witnes:
further testified that the money spen
for rewriting the stage, about $1,000
! paid out. after the publication of tn.
article, was deducted from the pro
| fits of the opera house. -----s--------s-,.
The witness said that when the cit!
authorities made requirements HI
cheerfully complied with them.
Admits He Was Arrested.
The witness then admitted that ht
| was arrested on July ., 1910, for fail
| ing to comply with the law and re
fusing to install fire extinguishers il
the Grand and that the case was dis
| missed upon payment of the costs b!
Crawford. Il suppose this is true i
the records show it is''
| The plaintiffs then offered in evi
| dence the supreme court decision il
| which it was held that the legisla
| ture could not pass a law legalizin,
| the National Electrical code.
Mckeever stated that Mr.. MacLen
nan insisted upon allowing this de
cision to be introduced over his OBJ
| jections. "Mr. MacLennan insists oil
running my lawsuit and 1 am goin.
| to allow him to do it and take tn,
consequences and get the benefits. Il
this instance Mr.. MacLennan is moral
ly right, but legally wrong
| State Labor Commissioner McBrid
was then called to the stand by at
torneys for the plaintiffs.
Mcbride was asked regarding re
city and was asked to identify copie
| of reports.
The court took a recess of ten min
utes and then the plaintiffs attorney
rested their case
McKeever, attorney for the defen
dant, then moved that all evidenc
tending to show actual damages b
taken from the jury because it, wa
remote and not specific.
The court overruled the motion.
Mckeever then asked permission t
present the points of law involved i
the case He stated this would tax
until noon and the jury was excuse
until 1870 this afternoon.
| McKeeyer on Law
| Mckeever- in his presentation of IL
law, cited number of supreme court d
show that the article was a privilege
article and that in order for the pIaiI
tiffs to collect they would have to sho
nhctuaa1Iy hcatanny tnat there was malice in its pui
He retired to the case in which NJ
MacLennan was sued by public officia
in which false statements were actual
made. but in which the plaintiffs wei
denied a Judgment because there was I
referred to the fact that the officia
were smoked out
Theatrical cases were cited in whie
their performances was much strong,
than the language used in the Topel
|. State Journal article and in which I
! damages were allowed because no mali
was shown.
The attorney for the defendant the
be inferred but two would % have Veto to be eeunq prov. n
in order for the plaintiffs to collect T
read from the dictionary the meaning
and showed that 1t was properly us,
following the reports made by the sta
. and city officiaLs He declared that
, Lehman to publish the article but that
! was bis duty to do SO. and that If he Ia.
not published it he should have be-
"hounded out of town and a receiver a
pointed for his paper.
Article Is Privileged
The court told Mckeever it was n
necessary to show that the article was of
, privileged character as the court already
held it.
In closing his argument, McEeever stat,
that the plaintiffs were attempting to inf
, malice from the fact that they had qu
! / advertising He said this could no mo
be done than If he were to go to Z
county attorneT and ask him to handle
, | case for him and the county attorn