The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1919-03-21
STATE JOURNAL
NOT GUILTY THE
VERDICT OF JURY
CrawfOrds VS.. MacLennan De-
cided in Favor of Defendant
And Against the Amusement
Syndicate, Plaintiff.
Newspaper Completely Nindi-
Gated by the Court Trial.
CASE IS Of GENERAL INTEREST
Regards Rights of Newspapers
To Publish the Facts.
No Malice Whatever in Publi-
cation of the Article.
UutV OF State journal To Tell
Newspaper Completely Nindi-
Gated by the Court Trial.
CASE IS OF GENERAL INTEREST
Regards Rights of Newspapers
To Publish the Facts.
No Malice Whatever in Publi-
cation of the Article.
Duty OF State journal To Tell
the Public, Jury Says.

A Shawnee county jury of twelve
property owners has declared that
newspaper has the right to publish
news articles dealing with matters
concerning the safety of the public
regardless Of the fact that the publica-
tiun Of such an article may cause a
financial injury to persons responsible
for the menace to public safety. This
was done at 2:G5 o'clock this afternoon
when the jury in the case in which l..
NJ and Roy Crawford were suing
Frank =. MacLennan for $4,000 al
legged DANA ges for the publication of
official reports in the State Journal in
which it was stated that the Grand
opera house was unsafe turned in
verdict for the defendant. The jury
had the case two day.
Complete Vindication.
\ more complete vindication could
not have been given defendant than
the one returned by the jury in this
case. Not only did the jury find that
there was no malice in the publication
of the article. but stated in answer
to questions that the defendant, Frank
r. NacLennan. was justified in pub
fishing the reports upon which the
libel suit was based and that it was
The jury also found that the Grand
opera house was in a dangerous con-
dition as stated in the official reports
that were published. These findings
were made in the answer to the ques-
uons asked in connection with the Ver-
dict.
IN auswer to one of the questions,
the jury stated that the reports
showed that :he wiring of the theater
was in bad condition and that the
wooden stairway exits were danger
Gus. Also, the jury confirr"ad the
statement in the Topeka State Jour
nal article to the effect that insurance
men held the Grand opera house to
he hazardous risk.
Eleven Days of Trial.
After two and half weeks in listen
ing to testimony and arguments by
attorneys, the case was given to the
jury late Wednesday afternoon and
the jury began it's deliberations at 3
O'Clock Thursday morning, return ing
the verdict JUS before 3 o'clock this,
Friday. afternoon.
An early verdict was made impos-
sible by the fact that more than forty
questions had to be answered by the
members of the jury in returning the
verdict. These questions were for the
purpose of ascertaining the extent to
which the members of the Jury un-
derstood the testimony and evidence.
Case of Length.
The trial OF the case was one of
The longest that has been held in the
district court for months. Twenty
three witnesses were put on the stand
and the attorneys went into minute
details in both the direct and cross
cNamina tiuns. Several witnesses also
were put on the stand in rebuttal by
tho attorneys for the plaintiffs
SinSle-h handed and alone. E d. Nc
Heever handled the case for the de-
feudaut, Mr.. MacLennan. Opposed to
him the plaintiffs had an array Of
legal talent consisting of four law
Years a part of the time and three all
the time. Brannaman. Larimer and
Joseph and John Waters were the at
torneys for the plaintiffs.
Case of Wide Interest.
The case was considered one of the
most important libel cases that has
come up in the courts of Kansas in
years and was eagerly watched by
newspaper editors, lawyers and the
public. 1t was a case in which the
public was vitally interested because.
had the verdict been other than it
was. it would have meant that the
public press of Kansas might be muz-
zled and unable to warn the public
Of any threatening danger or menace
without running the chance of having
to pay out large sums in damages
ing the exposure of every public men
ace or danger.
Verdict of Jury.
The verdict of the jury follows:
We, the jury empaneIed and sworn
i'm the case of the Amusement Syndf-
cate company against Frank z. Mac
Lehman. do report upon our oath and
find for the defendant Frank p. Mac
Lehman
(SigneD SAM SAGE, Foreman. ."
The Jury.
The following men sat in the Jury
box and decided the case:
Perry kosier. farmer.
Samuel Sage. retired farmer
Frank Jacques. business man
!. :. Curtis. former clerk district
court
\. A. Rogers. dairyman.
Warren Rodgers. retired farmer.
J. a. Bowers. retired farmer
w G. Holloway, engineer.
G L. Cotton. retired farmer
John c. Heberer, retired engineer
Frank Hartman. workman.
John Dyal. business man.
Crowd to Hear Verdict
The jury came into the court room at
- in charge Of the court bailiff. Before
Judge Carver took his seat the interested
parties were notified. Frank F. MacLen-
nan aud his attorney. T.. II. Mckeever. ap-
reared in few minutes. Attorneys for
the plaintiffs also came in very shortly.