Democratic Sentinel, Volume 7, Number 12, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 20 April 1883 — McLEAN-SCRIPPS. [ARTICLE]

McLEAN-SCRIPPS.

[Detroit Telegram.] The trial of toe celebrated libel suit of Donald Mac Lean against James £ Soripps, chief editor of the Evening Neu» % of this city, is ended It has excited wide-spread Interest, and for over two weeks it has been toe chief local topic of discussion. The case presents many points of general interest The plaintiff is Professor of Surgery in Michigan University, which responsible position he has filled ten yean. On toe Uth of September, 1882, Soripps published in toe Evening Nevm a sensational article charging “a Professor in the University” with improper intimacy with Mrs. Emily War die, of Tilsonburg, Out, while she was under his professional care. The statements contained in toe article pointed unmistakably to Prof. Mac Lean. Those statements were condensed mainly from articles previously printed to Canadian papers, and were of toe sensational variety known as “red hot” Prof. Mac Lean, in company with his friend the late Dr. D. 0. Farrand, interviewed Editor Scripps soon after toe article appeared to the Amm. In that interview it was agreed on toe part of Mr. Scripps to publish a statement which toe professor should dictate in toe way of a denial of the accusation. The Maclean statement was published, and in toe same issue appeared an editorial paragraph directing attention to it That day’s publications were regarded by the professor and his friends as an a gravation, rather than a cure, of the alleged libel, and thereupon a suit was commenced, laying damages at #SO, (XA As a matter of course the declaration alleged that Mr. Scripps acted maliciously In publishing the scandalous charge. The defendant in his bill of particulars set forth that he would prove that Mac Lean and Mrs. War die committed the crime at toe Leonard House, in Ann Arbor, on June 26 and 2d The plaintiff on trial of the case accounted for all of his doings on these special days, and thus established a complete alibi so far as the dates elected by toe defendant in his bill of particulars are concerned. The defense In brief claimedt L The alleged libelous article was true 2. It was not maliciously published, but in toe public interest 8. Whatever damages toe plaintiff might have suffered were done away by agreement between the parties—in other words there was accord and satisfaction.

A significent and governing factor in the case is what is known as the C. D. Brenton letter. It is a letter addressed to “C. D. Brenton, Til sonburg, Ont,” and signed “John E. Wellcorn.” It was written at Kingston, Ont., July 24,1882, and its language is erotlo and libidinous to the last degree It was alleged by the defense that “John E Wellcorn” was Prof. Mac Lean, and that “C. D. Brenton” was Mrs. Wardle. That erotic letter was placed In the Wardle box (Mrs. Wardle having received other letters so addressed) and her husband obtained possession of it and read it Its shocking contents, and the discovery of his wife’s supposed infidelity, so wrought upon Wardle’s mind that he became a madman, and is now in the asylum for the insane at London, Ont The Brenton-Wellcorn letter and the letters known to have been written by Prof. Mac Lean were used in court by the defense to strengthen their theory that one hand wrote both, and that theory was also supported by the te timony of chirographic experts, who swore unreservedly that such was, in their opinion, the fact The arguments by counsel consumed wo day a Judge Chipman charged the jury. fThey retired at 10:55 a. m., and at 6 p.m. tendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Mac Lean for $20,000. It has been a fiercelyjeontested case, and it sterns to have occupied almost the undivided attention of the people of Detroit