Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1922-10-11
] UDGE DIRECTS
VERDICT AGAINST
CARL c. MACE {
Jury Instructed That Only
Question for Them to
Settle Was Amount OF
Damages to Be Awarded


Acting upon instructions of
District Court Trial Judge M. r.
Hickey, who defined the duty of
the jury in this case to be only
that Of determining the amount
of damages to be awarded the
plaintiff, pointing out that as the
pleadings in the case stood, the
defendant was making no denial
of the plaintiffs charge that the
alleged libelous editorials were
untrue, the jury awarded A. b.
McMillen 81 damages after hear
ing the trial of his libel suit
against Carl c. Magee, former
editor of The Morning Journal,
and The Journal Publishing COM
pany.
In the suit, Mr.. McMillen had
asked for $4,000 to which extent
he claimed he had been damaged
in reputation and good name. The
award of 81 in damages, while it
is not the amount asked for in
the suit, is the usual award term
ed nominal damages" by the
courts, and which in legal phrase
ology indicates q complete vindi-
cation to the plaintiff, meaning
that he was right in his position
both from a moral and legal
standpoint No claim was made
by the plaintiff that he had been
damaged in a strictly financial
manner by the publication of the
alleged libelous editorials pub
lished by the defendant, Carl c.
Magee. He made no claim for
this type of damages.
The case went to the jury at
Sis o'clock yesterday afternoon
after the entire day had been
consumed in argument Of attor-
neys and in Judge M. f. Hickey's
instructions to the jury. The
jurymen were excused at o'clock
for supper and met again at 1880
o'clock to continue their delibera-
lions. The verdict was returned
at 10:40, the case having been
under consideration practically
four hours.
| Argument to the jury was open
ed for the plaintiff by Francis Il.
Wood, who pointed out to the
jurymen that in a libel suit, the
burden of proof rests upon the
defendant, the law being that in
this type of suit, the alleged IL
belous articles are presumed to
be false until proven true. Mr..
Wood claimed that the reason
the truth was not pleaded by the
defendant, Carl c. Magee, was
because he could not prove his
charges in the editorials on the
witness stand and that such an
attempt would constitute another
publication of libel and in such
an event the plaintiff could ask
for double damages.
Answering this particular phase
of the argument, II. Il. Jamison,
one of the attorneys for Magee,
denied that his client had ever in
any way personally admitted the
! falsity Of the publications COM
planned of, even though he had
been unable, under the law as
held by the court, to attempt to
prove their truth in the trial.
Judge r. II. Hanna, also an at
torney for Mr.. Magee, devoted
the greater part of his argument
to the jury upon the size of the
damage which had been suffered
by the plaintiff and claimed that
no real damage had been suf-
| fered.
Arguments of all attorneys
touched upon the question of
malice in the publication of the
complained of editorials and of
the question of the amount of
damage sustained by the plaintiff.
Following the rendering of the
verdict of ST damages, the plain
tiff. through his attorneys, gave
notice to the court of the inten-
ton to file a motion asking for
a retrial.