The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1927-03-15
PLEA
IS UPHELD
~ international News e.rys,.

ny AHGSEAAUAQDA1 ADW8 S1PWAo0
FEDERAL BUILDING. DE :
TROIT, March 15.-With JUS
tice smiling upon him for the
second time in as many days,
Henry Ford won another round
today in the 81, 100000 libel
suit brought against him by
Aaron Sapiro, Chicago at
torney.
Federal Judge Fred s. Ray
mond oxerruled d motion BY.
attorneys for Sapiro to elimi-
nate Ford's "plea Of iustifica-
ton" on the ground it violated
an earlier court order.
Gives Ford Wide Latitude
The decision gave Ford wide
latitude in presenting his defense
to the libel suit, which was
based upon q series Of articles.
published in the Dearborn Inde-
pendent, attacking Sapiro's ac-
tivities in organizing farmers CO.
operative associations.
The court postponed decision
on . motion by Sapiro's counsel
to eliminate the whole Ford plea.
He held that the plea was defec-
tive in many instances but that
the trial could proceed without
q final ruling on the plea.
Plea Is Important
Ford's ''plea OF justification"
was important to the auto kings
case because his defense to the
libel suit viii be limited to that
set forth in the plea.
The case went to trial at once,
with the selection of a Jury.
Aaron Sapiro, the plaintiff was in
court ana was given the oath per-
uniting him to practice in the Fed
eral court here. This course was
taken by Sapiro so he could partici.
pate in the prosecution Of the case.
Ford was conspicuous by his
absence. Sapiro's attorneys threat
ened to initiate contempt action
against Ford, claiming he had been
subpoenaed as witness against
himself. They took no action. how.
ever as the trial began.
On the question Of eliminating the
plea because It violated an earlier
court order Judge Raymond said
the order mentioned had never been
signed. He also mentioned an.
other order issued by Judge Arthur
]. futile, who presided in the case
a year ago, which gave Ford's
counsel authority to amend his plea
without any limitations.
Laws Permit Amendments
SIT was claimed under certain
prior orders OF this court, that the
plea could not contain any amend.
ments, notice of which was not
given to the plaintiff" the court
ruled.
''The laws OF the state and fed
eral government permit the amend
ment of plea at any time and II
this court should ignore the law
his order would be of doubtful
validity
The court also explained his posi-.
ton on the second motion.
1T Is quite obvious that the
plea Is defective in some and per-
haps many Of the paragraphs"
Judge Raymond said. sit Is also
true that some of the paragraphs
of the plea contain no statements
Of fact and offer no evidence. They
cannot be considered to be suffi.
cient to show justification. Some
paragraphs merely declared the
inuendoes were incorrect but offered
no proof to the contrary. Obviously,
such paragraphs are defective in q
plea Of justification.
VIII Make Rulings
The court said it would stake a
day" to point out the specific de-
fects in Ford's plea. He added
that he would render rulings dur
ing the trial whenever not covered
In the "plea Of justification"
OF the first twelve persons called
TO fill the jury box. five were
women. There were 80 veniremen
present and q third were Of the
fair sex.