Show JURY I 1 I 1 va 0 A sh ILUKA 14 4 T t jpy an bi I 1 I 1 I 1 V 4 M t I 1 n fa 1 TA A I 1 f A L I 1 11 0 I 1 r I 1 I 1 11 I 1 1 I 1 IH I 1 L A 1 I 1 L q I 1 A L ID I 1 I 1 ara I 1 I 1 I 1 r I 1 I 1 1 V I 1 A 1 I 1 4 L I AND AAL 31 WM I 1 I 1 U al I 1 LA TT I 1 S donw T MA I 1 1 4 N L I 1 I 1 I 1 A I 1 A ft 1 ir I 1 I 1 A I 1 I 1 11 I 1 I 1 I 1 L W I 1 B I 1 EU 1 L m S I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 na I 1 N IN I 1 I 1 I 1 M dring in unanimous verdict I 1 of no cause of action in is the suit brought by richards skeen and I 1 pratt in the name of mrs 0 alice lewis richards in which 1 V damages were claimed I 1 able defense by farnsworth and n horn cowardly conduct I 1 the jury in the action for libel I 1 brought by mrs alice lewis rich ards against the standard publishing company and william glasmann returned a verdict at yesterday afternoon of no 0 luse of action the jurors in this roll roil of honor were nvere I 1 adam A bingham Rl Ri verdale E chatelaine Chat laine ogden 13 chatelaine Chat laine north ogden J D cawley wilson lane oscar rice hooper I 1 i albern A allen alien huntsville parley E woods ogden sylvester grow Hunt huntsville sIle oscar rice of hooper was vas selected foreman of the jury and like all the juryman jurymen jury men he is a man of fine appeal appearance and of keen intellects intellect the trial occupied seven days during which time judge chidester who pres presided s eded allowed no unnecessary delays his own rulings being prompt ond and incisive greatly facilitating the lir progress ogress of the trial from the opening of the case to the testimony of the last witness th the 0 I 1 attorneys alt orneys for the Richard ses fought to cac exclude lude all evidence tending to disclose f the whole truth and repeatedly sought to shield their principal from the in inquiring eye of justice hoping by re resorting to technicalities to win a casa case that the eight jurors declared was based upon false grounds 1 not only the jurors rendered a verdict but the people of ogden who have fol followed the case passed judgment and their verdict was not limited to a reprimand of the instigators of the case but was equally as emphatic in condemning the attorneys who as one of counsel tor for the defense stated in court had been washing tub chasing there arenlt areS are Sheen lt ari I 1 and pratt and charles 0 C richards f x k in what light do they stand as a re sult suit of this verdict when they ther sank 10 1 down in the mire and threw filth at r 11 1 the standard andara St did dia they thay escape scap e lotfi i no 0 stains ask the first man you 1 meet on the street the first man you 4 meet tho hastead ha has gread read th estory af the t trial f the neighbors of T 6 G richards richar d were called to testify in ili the base case t i the women were ware brought into court ni most st unwillingly being forced to an 1 to subpoena subpoenaed es by the defense A they were embarrassed by the very 11 t atmosphere 0 of the case surcharged with offensiveness as it was and though unwilling witnesses they told the truth and opened the eyes of the jurors to a condition of affairs almost I 1 1 I beyond belief attorneys Farnsw farnsworth I 1 and horn for the defense drew from them statements made by mrs richards that left the prosecution without a foot to stand on and gave the lie to the pretenses of skeen pratt and richards that their client came into court with clean hands in this action athe the standard and 1 wm glasmann were ably defended by R S farnsworth and A G horn I 1 who in the legal tilt during the case proved to be the superiors of the opposition I 1 1 I 1 V I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 THE LAWYERS WHO WON THE DAM DAMAGE AGE I 1 SU SUIT IT I 1 I 1 I 1 4 f do I 1 P az I 1 V 11 4 j 1 11 1 1 af 1 t A aw 1 I 1 I 1 1711 I 1 1 i 1 1 I 1 4 I 1 I 1 1 r K 1 N 1 j 7 4 1 M jg 91 I 1 4 S IN I 1 I 1 Cs m I 1 1 N I 1 n I 1 11 Y P N p 13 I 1 I 1 1 54 AI 1 11 ab 44 i I 1 4 fp X 1 I 1 1 2 0 1 k 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 sr v f A I 1 1 w kV 9 5 A 11 vo I 1 1 1 1 I 1 ak I 1 Z ti 1 ak I 1 A il I 1 1011 al I 1 I 1 1 1 V I 1 r i kap Y I 1 I 1 6 I 1 1 A ik 11 I 1 11 r I 1 I 1 4 LX v H I 1 X M 1111 1 1 m 11 I 1 I 1 11 I 1 alk w 11 1 1 1 I 1 k I 1 ilk 1 ap N 1 1 7 ff h f I 1 1 I 1 ulak 1111 4 X q X lk lr 4 W 1 1 1 A I 1 1 4 1 MA Z fl inual IN 1 I 1 M 1 I I 1 1 r v I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 K R 3 I 1 M 13 I 1 i sp 77 T i VA N i 1 al im m q I 1 kev I 1 2 ill I 1 8 W aa t A iq z I 1 t I 1 iba av r 9 OF 94 9 g 1 ato V I 1 W XA esz W e W Skis qi marl 1 1 4 A J r T ftak 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 M e g m A t 11 I 1 1 X 1 i I 11 I 1 I 1 I 1 p gp ans X q 4 I 1 tj agon 1 I 1 1 I 1 W W P I 1 1 4 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 M 4 41 F 6 R S 4 ill wa 1 1 xa I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 J mw j r 1 IA awa 11 I 1 I 1 14 1 I 1 T I 1 ag 4 N 1 11 1 P I 1 1 A I 1 I 1 1 1 K I 1 1 e i 14 f 0 tj u I 1 pa V f 1 1 e A I 1 11 i 41 g I 1 1 V N N e go I 1 Z 40 4 r 1 j ir A P e I 1 M 1 1 ir I 1 W 9 14 1 41 W 1 I azpr eez I 1 1 1 I 1 N 4 0 P t 11 I 1 1111 q Y q I 1 I 1 11 I 1 I 1 i 4 arl I 1 e I 1 I 1 t I 1 al I 1 1 I 1 U i V 1 P rn I 1 1 hl vir 7 V YV 2 I 1 1 I 1 17 a ag J 7 1 G I 1 ma lud bvm K WINE 1 11 1111 W 1 I 1 I 1 1 Vf zi V W V I 1 IK 1 A W I 1 I 1 ie P A I I 1 R akkam I 1 1 wa I 1 I 1 14 2 V 1011 A vp ilg s Q P i apak I 1 na 0 U kev I 1 V 1 W I 1 I 1 mr 44 1 I 1 1 I 1 t 7 K I 1 lk AR N 1 1 I I 1 t vi A 4 ii I 1 I 1 ag d 1 1 i P 1 I 1 T r M W 4 Y V Z Y I 1 11 I 1 V 1 fl 1 I 1 1 41 W I 1 11 N 1 ag 14 I 1 jg n Y A 4 I 1 I 1 41 1 W I 1 alj V A N i ek e I 1 A mai 41 I 1 M Q 4 1 I 1 1 11 1 1 0 i 1 M I 1 i 1 iwo k M 1 X V 0 d egv I 1 2 1 W 11 ai 40 1 or vw ra pa 11 N I 1 V A P 1 arx 1 I 1 V p r W I 1 I 1 I 1 5 A U 1 Y IN SN 11 1 11 I 1 I 1 5 1 W P I 1 k A 1 I 1 A 11 4 HI i W N 1 11 i N W 1 I 1 r 11 W 44 1 r w g 1 k P F t q gg M alff ia 1 0 11 rm I 1 t 11 1 6 I 1 IV fg il 41 1 a my mg 1 WV M fe ale i 11 I 1 1 1 11 I 1 WK Z I 1 1 si w t 1 I 1 01 I 1 I 1 axi ra 1 I 1 N wa r a IM I 1 E t t JE 11 a 1 1 A I 1 11 M 1911 I 1 I 1 1 M ja i 1 I 1 I 1 aw I 1 A 1 ewt t 1 1 g wd 14 ali ri M I 1 al I 1 1 11 2 6 1 V 1 l I 1 R a zw NN JP V ir I 1 1 1 mixia M 1 97 3 A ME M 11 G 1 01 0 1 11 z I 1 I 1 A 1 1 V A k V I 1 I 1 a 1 11 0 0 4 f fark k 1 VP Z 00 W I 1 1 1 I 1 sor a a t 27 fp ml 1 z I 1 ill I 1 I 1 A 4 I 1 I 1 V V i 11 1 1 W 1 ATTORNEY R S farnsworth I 1 rAT ATTORNEY TORNEY A G HORN 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 the above I 1 pictures are fair likenesses of tile the able attorneys who defended the standard and wm glasmann from the efforts to collect damages from both for publishing publish that which an honest jury said the public should know I 1 never in the history of ogden court proceedings was such zin an effort made to get money for nothing as was made in tile the seven days trial of the richards case against the standard and william glasmann where a person parson claims a newspaper has injured his reputation by a pub li catlon cation and brings suit for damages he usually chaH chall engles engo the newspaper to show one sta eta n upon his character and every opportunity is given the newspaper to prove its charges true but that course was reversed b by y the attorneys for mrs richards namely charles C richards jedediah D skeen and arthur pratt also assisted by george halverson Halve raon these four attorneys after ransacking the law authorities thorit ties les during two years and six for n similar cases in n other states stater for rn bf how to step the truth from being exerted all the power they possessed to top stop the witnessed wit nesse er for far the standard frim from I 1 telling all they knew about the rich ards family the law says a newspaper ahn charged aed with libel may on en tho witness tand stand r show good faith 0 o c icum stan stances cei just fi cation privilege and the me truth when the standard tried to justify itc ditc action the skeen richards I 1 pratt bunch objected and whan the standard witness offered evidence of good faith in in publishing the story complained of those law lawyers Y ers again ob ejected I 1 when evidence of mitigating circum currit stances inces y a ojik 1 e ed d the 1 vash awash tub chasers chaser said ja wa ai incompetent 1 immaterial and rree vant nt 0 O when at torness nd ld hocin ready to chow that the atho 1 tho co com tp I 1 d cf owns p I 1 under toe law jaw the chaser af naoh tub calva maceol roared with buc when audgo horn aboss aros zand and said I 1 we owe now intond to prove ahe he story I 1 true the wash tub chasers almost I 1 I 1 I 1 had a fit skeen wj vath th foz ra on his lips lipe excitedly I 1 exclaimed athey are not per I 1 1 1 emitted to prove the truth thoy I 1 retracted the st story 0 1 ey and admitted it yas was falkell fal false sell I 1 promptly attorney farnsworth replied we tried to let you down easy but you took our generosity for weakness ness there is where you made a mistake 11 every technicality ity known to the law v gs eted to ao step the truth from coming 1 ing out pa never ver was a court called upon to ault so often on objectors object ons and interruptions by the attorneys for the 1 but attorneys R S farnsworth and ama A Q G horn were more than a match for charles C richards J D skeen arthur pratt and george georgc halverton Halver Pon combined I 1 the able abe manner in which A G 1 horn and R S farnsworth handled tho cave case them to be not only among the alfe est lawyers in osden ogden but the ablest in the state |