Evening star., 1951-11-24
Court Ruling Waited
On Plea That Pearson
Face Physical Test
By W. n. Shippen

required to submit to a physical
examination was up to District
Court today, in connection with
the columnist's $5.1 million suit
against Senator Mccarthy, Re-
publican, of Wisconsin and others.
The Senator attached a request
for the examination to his answer
to Mr.. Pearson's charges that he
grabbed him forcibly by the back
of the neck, kneed and slapped
him at dinner dance in the Sui
grave Club on December IL.
The court was asked to order
Mr.. Pearson to be examined by
two physicians of Senator Nc
Carthy's selection because "the
plaintiff has alleged injuries to
his head and nervous system re-
sulting from the alleged assault
and battery"
Others File Denials.
Several other defendants filed
denials to charges in the suit, in
Guiding the Washington Times
Herald: Fulton Lewis, jr., news
commentator: Edward K. Nellor,
an assistant to Mr.. Lewis. and Don
Surine. Senator McCarthy's chief
investigator.
! Senator Mccarthy, through At
torney Edward Bennett Williams,
admitted he was present with Mr..
Pearson at the social function.
but he denied charges of assault
and conspiracy with the others to
drive Mr.. Pearson out of business.
The Senator told District Court,
in his answer yesterday, that the
complaint about the Sulgrave
Club encounter "is so ambiguous
and confused that it is impossible
| for the defendant to comprehend
whether the plaintiffs theory of
action is for assault and battery
or slander or both"
The Senator admitted that, on
December Is. three days after the
alleged assault. he made speech
on the floor Of the Senate con-
Icerning the plaintiff, which speech
was 81 pages in length and was
caused to be mimeographed by
this defendant"
He claimed immunity, however,
because his remarks were j"privi-
legged as a fair and accurate re-
port of legislative and judicial
proceedings" He also claimed
constitutional immunity under
guarantees of free speech in that
he was making fair comment and
criticism" on matters and per
sons of great public concern and
Interest"
In his speech, the Senator
quoted several Presidents and
others in public life who had chal-
lenged the veracity of Mr.. Pear
son. The columnist charged that
Senator Mccarthy made the as
sault in furtherance of a conspir-
acy to hold Mr.. Pearson up to
public ridicule and drive him out
of business.
The Times Herald pointed out
that the portion of the suit de-
voted to the alleged assault and
Senator McCarthy's speech brings
charges "solely against another
person"
Through attorneys Louis G.
Caldwell, Kelley E. Griffith and
Perry S. Patterson. the newspapers
declared any references to Mr..
Pearson were made in the normal
course of publishing "fair and ac-
curate reports, in good faith and
without malice"
Mr.. Pearson charged those
named in his suit with conspiracy
to destroy his competitive" bust
ness in violation of the antitrust
laws. The defendants replied that
any such Interpretation would be
a distortion" of the law.
Versions made In Good Faith"
Attorneys Roger Robb and Her.
bert M. Bingham, representing
Mr.. Lewis and Mr.. Nellor, ad-
mitted. in their answer. that both
the Sulgrave Club encounter and
Senator McCarthy's speech
against Mr.. Pearson were covered
in Mr.. Lewis broadcasts.
They added, however, that Mr.
Lewis versions were true and
privileged as fair comment, made
in good faith on matters and per-
sons of great public interest and
concern" The defendants denied
that they had entered into a con-
| spiracy to embarrass Mr.. Pearson,
, or that they would greatly profit
by the destruction of public con-
} fidence in this columhist.
The case probably will not GO
to trial for months. Pretrial dep
&c '"'"rs being taken from Mr.
Pearson, Senator Mccarthy and
other parties to the suit are only
about half complete.
v1H l.