[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
January 13, 1917

"Another 'Contemptuous Verdict'"

JAMA. 1917;LXVIII(2):137. doi:10.1001/jama.1917.04270010137025

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


To the Editor:  —In your issue of December 16 you reter to a certain, or rather, uncertain "dealer in rugs" as having been called a swindler by the Tribune. Why this "better part of valor" in discreetly suppressing the details? The Tribune evidently had courage enough to expose a fraud and take a chance. Full publicity of such cases is for the good and protection of the community and a further deterrent to evil. In some countries the convicted party must publish the decision of the court in a number of papers. Now, if it was a libel suit The Journal feared, it could have limited itself to a citation of the case from the records, giving the name of plaintiff and defendant, as it does in its medicolegal column. No accusation could possibly lie on the publication of a finding of a court, and your readers would know, as

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview