Cortland Evening Standard, Monday, January 21,
1895.
A BRUTAL OPERATION.
A Horse Unmercifully Whipped Until it Died.
At about dusk Saturday evening there was a
scene upon the corner of Elm and Church-sts., which
would seem to require the attention of the Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals. Howard Meacham of 50 N. Main-st was driving a horse up
Elm-st, and was striking it unmercifully with a whip, at same time yanking it
from side to side of the street with the reins. Suddenly the horse fell down
and within a very few minutes died.
Mr. F. P. Hakes of the firm of Davis,
Jenkins & Hakes, was one of the witnesses to the disgraceful affair. He told
a STANDARD reporter that he should think the man struck the horse twenty-five
blows. He said that before Meacham finished there were eight or ten witnesses
gathered about. A woman in front of him almost went into hysterics at the
sight. An employee of The STANDARD
job room saw the last of it. The man was whipping the
horse furiously and yanking and jerking it back and forth. Suddenly the animal
fell and then Meacham jumped from the sleigh and continued whipping and kicking it until it
died. Meanwhile the air was fairly blue with profanity.
It was also reported that the horse had been
over driven during the day.
Cortland Evening Standard, Friday, September 18, 1896.
END OF A
LIBEL SUIT.
HOWARD R. MEACHAM VS. CORTLAND STANDARD PRINTING CO.
Verdict of No Cause
of Action—Every Charge Made by the Standard Fully Sustained.
The
libel suit of Howard R. Meacham vs. The Cortland Standard Printing Co., which had been on trial since early Tuesday afternoon,
was closed and the case given to the
jury shortly after 6 o'clock Wednesday. The jury were instructed by the court,
in case they agreed, to enclose their verdict in a sealed envelope and present the
same at the opening of court at 9:30 o'clock the following morning. An
agreement was reached after only a short consultation, the envelope was opened by
the county clerk yesterday morning in the presence of the jury, and the verdict
was found t o be "No cause of action." to which the jury assented, in
the presence of the court.
The
complaint in this action charged the Cortland Standard Printing Co., as its first
offense against Meacham, with falsely, maliciously and wickedly publishing of
and concerning the plaintiff an article headed, "A Brutal Operation. A Horse
Unmercifully Whipped Until it Died," and which described the beating and
kicking by the plaintiff of his horse, on Elm-st. in this village, in January, 1895,
until the animal was dead.
This
article the complaint charged was not only "false and malicious," but
"tended to blacken and injure the reputation and credit of the plaintiff,
and “to hold him up to public scorn and disgrace."
The
Standard company was also charged with further libels upon the plaintiff in the
report which it published of his trial in police court, after he had been
arrested on the charge of cruelty to animals, and on which trial he was
acquitted; in its comments on the trial, and especially in its statement that "several
of the jurymen were asked by a reporter upon what ground the man was acquitted,
and not one of them could give a reason save that he was poor;" in
publishing a letter from Mrs. M. E . Cowles of McGrawvllle characterizing in
severe terms such conduct as Meacham had been guilty of, and declaring the
failure to punish it, " a travesty of justice;" in publishing a
report of remarks of Rev. Dr. Pearce at the First M. E. church, referring to
"the scene of a poor horse beaten to death by an inhuman driver and his acquittal
by a jury;" and last of all in publishing what was alleged to be an editorial
reference to Meacham's conduct, intended to "charge Meacham with the crime
of cruelty to animals, and that he should have been convicted of said crime,
and that the failure of such conviction and his punishment therefore had ignored,
defied and outraged law."
The
damages claimed for these various alleged libels were fixed at the modest sum of
$6,000. The complaint was signed by Mr.
Nathan L. Miller as Meacham's attorney, who also defended him in police court,
and was sworn to by Meacham himself.
The
defense set up by the Standard company to the charges made in the complaint was
that the alleged libelous articles were true, and on the issue of their truth
or falsity the trial was had.
Before
this action was brought, Mr. Miller addressed the Cortland Standard Printing Co.
a letter, in closing which he made the following magnanimous offer and
accompanying threat:
If
you will publish in both the Weekly [the Daily STANDARD was probably meant.—Ed.]
and Semi-Weekly STANDARD, as conspicuously as you published the original
articles, a full retraction of the charges that have been made in your paper
against Mr. Meacham and the various comments thereon in the different issues
between and including January 21st, 1895, and February 16th, 1895, Mr. Meacham
will be satisfied; otherwise he will be compelled to resort to his legal
remedies.
This
communication— which Mr. Miller stated was not for publication—we never condescended to notice, much less reply to. We are not in the habit of retracting
the truth, even under the threat of a libel suit. And when such a suit is brought
against us for a truthful publication, we shall set up the truth as a full
defense, and shall exhaust every resource at our command in making the most
vigorous fight possible. It is always our endeavor to publish nothing but the
exact facts. If we fall or err in this, we stand ready to make every possible correction
and retraction and to do full justice to any one whom we may unintentionally have
injured. More than this, we will be grateful to any one who will call our
attention to an error in statement, in order that we may correct it. But we
propose never to be intimidated, or to pay damages where a party is not
entitled to them.
The STANDARD
has not and never has had any grudge against Mr. Meacham; none of its editors even
knew who he was at the time the first article concerning him was written; it sought
to do him no injustice, and took every possible pains to ascertain the truth
concerning his offense and his trial. We published what we did under a sense of
duty, knowing that the matter was libelous if the statements contained in it
were not true, and that a suit could be brought against us for it, but feeling
that the horse-beating and failure of justice deserved the severest criticism, and
that it would be cowardly and dishonorable for us to shrink from speaking of
them as they deserved. The duty which we owed to common decency, humanity and
the good name of this community, we proposed to discharge, and we did so.
The
Standard company having succeeded in this action is now entitled to judgment
against Meacham for its costs and disbursements, and if he has not personal property
enough to satisfy it, we will be entitled to a body execution against him; but
as we have not now, and never have had, any desire to injure or oppress him, we
shall not resort to any such measures to collect the judgment.
We
believe that this suit will be worth to us all it has cost in showing to the community
the care which is taken to insure the accuracy of all matter which is published
in The STANDARD, and in making clear to every one that after stating the truth
we stand by it—libel suits or no libel suits. Judge Parker, at the request of
the attorney for Meacham, charged the jury that our justification
must be as broad as our charges. The testimony of the witnesses and the verdict
of the jury, therefore, must show that every charge made by The STANDARD was
proven and justified. It is easy to charge a newspaper with lying—it is not so
easy to establish the charge in a court of record.
Mr.
Meacham, in his attempt to obtain damages from The STANDARD, has simply damaged
his own reputation. Had he been satisfied with his acquittal at the hands of
the police justice's jury, the verdict of that jury could always have been used
as his vindication from t he charges made against him. Now both the truth of
The STANDARD'S charges and the character and causes of the police court acquittal
are fully established, not in justice's court but in the supreme court of the state
of New York.
The
STANDARD is satisfied with the result of this suit. We hope that Mr. Meacham, his
attorney and those associated, with them in the attack on us are equally
satisfied.
In this connection the STANDARD wishes to
make its acknowledgments:
To
Judge Parker for the calm, dignified, able and impartial manner in which he presided
at the trial, and for the clear, concise and admirable presentation of the law
of libel which he made to the jury.
To
its attorney and counsel, Messrs. Mantanye and Kellogg, for the care, faithfulness,
and thorough, effective, learned and vigorous manner in which the case was
prepared, tried and placed before the jury.
To
the many witnesses, quite a number of them ladies, who, at considerable inconvenience
and sacrifice to themselves, attended during the trial and related upon the
stand the facts which constituted such a complete justification of the STANDARD'S course.
To
the jury of twelve men who gave their attention and careful consideration to
the mass of evidence introduced, sifted the truth from falsehood, refused to be
swerved from justice by any considerations of sentiment or sympathy, and did their
duty and their whole duty as they saw it.
And
last, but by no means least, to the many good men and women of this community who
have given us assurance of their sympathy and approval from the time the first
article concerning Meacham appeared, and whose cordial congratulations on the outcome
of the suit are fully appreciated.
As we
have said already, we took up this affair of the horse-beating, in the first
place, as a duty which we owed to the community. We shall endeavor to discharge
any future duties of the same kind, which may arise, with the same loyalty, with
the same courage, and with an abiding assurance of public approval.
No comments:
Post a Comment