The Idaho Republican. [volume] (Blackfoot, Idaho) 1904-1932, 1922-06-22
ments which he still believed were

OPcucu al OluCc LOT Ju0 pTdCJlCo VI
/ drugless treatment, and that he had
all the business he and his wife could
handle until his competitor, DR..
Flodquist, secured a copy of The
Idaho Republican containing the al
legged libelous article and tackled it
on the door of his, Flodquist's office,
and that from that time on
Whisler's business decreased until
| he had none. He charged that
| Trego had furnished Flodquist the
copy of the paper.
Trego testified that he had no
knowledge of such transaction, but
said that when people called at the
office and asked to buy back num-
bers of the paper, the bookkeeper
always sold them If she had the
papers that were wanted.
Whistler admitted that when he
opened his office, he first went to
Trego and consulted with him about
his announcements and advertising,
and that he received good returns
from It, and that 1t was when he
heard about the paper tackled on
Flodquist's office door that he quit
consulting Trego and quit acting on
his advice, and his business began to
shrink. Trego testified that at
about that time Whistler told him he
did not want his service any longer
and that If he placed his advertising
in The Republican people would not
patronize him. Whistler then placed
all his advertising in other papers,
and according to his testimony, his
business kept on declining until he
had none. He blamed it to the
presence of one copy of The Idaho
Republican tackled on the office door
of his competitor.
Whistler testified that he was a
graduate of the Pacific Chiropractic
College of Portland, Ore. of which
DR.. Elliott was president, and that
DR.. Elliott was the one who signed
the diplomas when issued. At this
point, there was offered in evidence,
an affidavit by DR.. Elliott, president
Of the Pacific College of Chiroprac-
tic, stating that Percy Whistler had
never received diploma from that
school. Mr.. Whistler read the afr
davit and replied that 1t was not
true. He was then asked to present |
his diploma and he said he could not |
do it as it was in Boise. He was
then asked If 1t were not true that |
the document he had been given was
a certificate showing that he had at
tended that school for q part of a |
course, and he replied that he had !
not taken the complete course at
Portland, but that he had attended
another school at Battle Greek,
Mich, and said the Portland school
gave him some credits on that &C.
count, and that he believed the docu-
ment he had been given may have
been certificate rather than a d.
ploma, but that they were all the
same thing.
Whisler's attorney cross-examined |
Trego and demanded to know II all
this testimony about getting the
original information for the libelous
article from Whistler was not an in
vention of Trego's imagination,
cooked up after the suit was started
for purposes of defense in the suit.
Trego denied the charge, and
Whistler admitted having had the in
terviews with Trego.
Wesley Lantis. foreman in The
Republican office testified to Whisl-
ers' talking to him soon after he
opened his office in Blackfoot and
while Trego was helping him with
his advertising plans, and saying
that he was anxious to retain
Trego's help and advice; that Trego
had more influence over the state
than Blackfoot people supposed,
that Trego had secured his release
from prison by merely writing
letter and that Trego was a good
man to tie to.
The instructions of the court were
long and complete, requiring nearly |
half an hour to read to the jury.
They stated that a publisher is held
responsible under the law for what
ever he publishes, just the same as
an individual is held responsible for
oral or written utterances. The fact
that it is uttered in a newspaper
makes no difference excepting
the injury and the responsibility are
greater according to
the circulation of the paper; that
If retracted, do not re-
lease the publisher excepting insofar
as its publication may reduce the
actual damage or injury. A mere
offer to retract and then not doing
so, does not in any measure release
the offender. He publishes injurious
matter or mistakes at his peril, and
neglects or refuses to make amends
at his peril.
II the main points in the article
are true, it Is not necessary that it
must be correct in every detail. If
the thing told Of in the publication
actually happened, it is not essential
hat the statement ofstime and place
shall be correct, but that the circum-
stances published should be no more
of an offense or crime than the thing
hat actually happened, or II the cor
rect time and place had been in
serted in place of the mistaken or
erroneous statement. The sting of
he article is in the statement that
he person named did something
hat was wrong-the question of
where it happened is not essential
md difference of time or place is
lot vital. If the jury finds that the
sting Of the article is true, it is a
privileged publication and the fact
hat it happened at different place