The Jewish outlook., January 27, 1905, Image 1

About The Jewish outlook. (Denver, Colo.) 1903-1913

Image provided by: History Colorado

                
The JEWISH OUTLOOK
A WceKly Journal Devoted to the Jewish Communities of the Rochy Mountain Region
PUBLISHED EVERY FRIDAY
Volume II
During the controversy waged by Mr. Samuel Priess against the proprietors of the Jewish Outlook, nothing
has been said in these columns, and nothing will be said now. We merely reprint the judgment of the court, Hon.
S. L. Carpenter, who presided at the trial of the cause. The learned judge’s opinion is of necessity curtailed be
cause of want of space, but his exact language is retained.
It is true that there is a conflict in
the testimony, but the testimony, to my
mind, is so overwhelmingly against the
contention of the plaintiff—the circum
stances attending this transaction are so
against him—that a verdict finding the
issue which has been tried here in his
favor could not meet the approval of the
court. As far as the evidence goes here
this paper was originated, or the idea
was conceived, in the mind of the plain
tiff. lie had no knowledge, evidently,
of the hazards and the difficulties which
surround an enterprise of this kind, but
he did learn, it appears from his own
testimony, the necessity, of securing
either influence or money or both for
the support of his enterprise, and he
was brought to realize the great import
ance to his enterprise of having the suit
port and influence of the minister of
Temple Emanuel, Dr. Friedman, lie
was earnest, he was persistent in his ef
forts to secure Dr. Friedman’s aid. That
appears from the testimony of all the
parties, the plaintiff as well as the de
fendants. It seems, without reciting tint
testimony as a .whole, that plaintiff' fi
nally succeeded in procuring from Dr.
Friedman the privilege of naming him
in his publication as a contributor.
After the second publication, and after
the idea was conceived of changing this
paper into a weekly, he desired to have
Dr. Friedman write for the weekly edi
tion, and that, it seems, the doctor re
fused to do. The doctor’s testimony, as
I recall it, and it is not refuted, is that
he refused to write at all for either
monthly or weekly: that, he had become
Denver, Colorado, Friday, January 27, 1905
THE COURT'S OPINION
somewhat doubtful of the propriety of
permitting the use of liis name in con
nection with this publication, and with
respect to the moral responsibility which
might attach to him.
1 am very well satisfied from the evi
dence, and I think 111'. Priess was well
satisfied at the time, that his enterprise
was a hopeless one unless he secured the
aid of l)r. Friedman or someone equally
influential among his people. It seems
that under those circumstances Mr.
Priess approached Dr. Collins in re
gard to the matter, and l)r. Collins, be
ing superintendent of the hospital, saw
the advantages which might accrue to
tin hospital if it had a weekly organ—
that is. a newspaper which would con
vey to the Jewish people throughout the
country the methods in vogue at tin* hos
pital. how it was being conducted, the
success it was having, would he advan
tageous to the hospital. l)r. Collins
saw that and undertook to see Dr. Fried
man. and the result of the conversation
was that he succeeded in getting Dr.
Friedman to fall in to some extent with
his views.
Thereupon an agreement was made
on the Ist day of November, 1903. Mr.
Priess says that the arrangement there
made was that he was to have a one
third interest in the paper itself, or in
the business, and that he was to bear
none of the losses. They, Dr. Collins
and Rabbi Friedman, were to furnish
whatever might he needed outside of the
income from the paper to keep it upon
its feet. The testimony of the defend
ants with regard to what took pi Ace
among the three contradicts what is said
by the plaintiff. If I could see in this
case any circumstances which could be
thrown into the balance in favor of the
plaintiff 1 should certainly give him the
benefit of it and send the case to the
jury. But I think the circumstances
surrounding the transaction, applying
those general principles by which the
motives of men in what they do and
what they say are generally tested, give
weight to the defendants’ side of the
controversy rather than to the plain
tiff's. It is true that there was no prom
ise or no expectation on the part of Dr.
Friedman that there would be any pro
fits during this six months, or whatever
period it might have been. Priess
thought otherwise. He was undertak
ing to better his condition. He was get
ting but a very small salary where he
was employed, and any addition to that,
1 have no doubt, would have been grate
ful to him, and he was taking the opti
mistic view concerning this paper, that
it would pay. He felt certain that it
would pay if Dr. Friedman would give
it the weight of his name and influence,
lie was enthusiastic. The other gentle
men, older and wiser, and knowing from
experience and observation how hard it
is to make a newspaper pay, did not ex
pect anything. So they would not give
him anything, but they would give him
a share in whatever profits might accrue.
A very reasonable proposition, it seems
to me, on their part. And it seems to
me very unreasonable that Mr. Priess:
should expect more under the circum
stances, or that the defendants should
Number 13