OCR Text |
Show COT 'E.M ON THE RUN. Marshal Parson Gets After "The Tribune With Another Suit. Marshal Parsons brought another libel suit against the Tribune this afternoon. He asks for damages in the sum of $35,000, and the total of his claims against the Trib is thus brought up to $75,000. The publication complained of is one which on December 4, 1891, headed, "The Marshal's Movements He Spent an Unquiet Un-quiet Day, Testifying Before the Grand Jury." The article intimated that the marshal mar-shal was in the habit of retaining government govern-ment money for speculative purposes, etc. QBy this, the complaint alleges, the defendant defend-ant falsely and maliciously charged him with the crime of embezzlement, and with the crime of wilful omission of official duty, and intended to and did falsely and maliciously charge him with dishonesty in office; that the publication publica-tion was made for the purpose of impeaching the honesty, integrity and reputation repu-tation of the plrintiff, and of thereby exposing expos-ing him to public hatred, contempt and ridicule; ridi-cule; that each charge in the writ is false, malicious, defamatory; that by reason of tho publication, the plaintiff has been injured in-jured in mind and body, and in bis standing in this city and other places where he is known; that bis feelings have been outraged out-raged and his character maligned and injured, in-jured, to his damage in tbe sum of $25,000. Rawlins fc Critchlow and Brown & Henderson Hender-son are the marshal's attorneys. A Mountain Out or a Mole H11L The Tribune this morning published an in- correct report concerning the fees charged in the case of Wolf vs. Roquetta, the idea being, be-ing, of course, to make a point against the marshal. An effort was made to show that the charge of $50 made by the keeper who has charge of the place from the time it was attached was exorbitant. Attorney McKay, it seems, argued that the 6tock of clears and tobacco should have be'in removed re-moved at once, which would have done away with the necessity for having a keeper. The fact is that when the keeper took charge he found that the stock was not stamped and under the law he could not remove them in that condition. He notified the parties, however, and as soon as the revenue 6tamps were provided the goods were removed. Reference is also made to the reduction of the fees, without stating the items cut out. This omission, of course, was intentional, because if the facta had been 6tated it would have given the matter a wholly different appearance. The principal item cut out was the charge for these revenue stamps, which the marshal naturally supposed the plaintiff wished him to tax up. Wolf's attorney, however, had taxed the item up in his own bill, which was the only reason why it was cut out from the marshal's. It was not disputed at all at this time. The only reduction which affected the marshal's office at all was in cutting down the keeper's claim from $5 to $2.50 per day. Suit Against Architect Monheim. Daniel Alexander, the Main street merchant, mer-chant, today brought suit against Architect Henry Monheim. The plaintiff allege that in September, 1S90, he contracted with the I defendant, to- snperintendthe ,onstruciion of the Alexander block; that be relied pon the skill, capacity and diligence of Monheim to make sure that the building would be erected in accordance with the plans and specifications; that the defendant did not 60 have the structure built, with the result that when it was finished it wa unsafe and insecure, inse-cure, and wa condemned by the city, necessitating nec-essitating the tearing town and rebuilding of a considerable portion of it. Besides this loss, the plaintiff lost heavily in rent, and he demands judgment in the sum of $6000. Powers & Hiies are the plaintiffs attorneys. |