The Price of a Reputation
A local merchant sues for $7,500 after neighbors imply he was involved in a shoplifting scandal.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
A third suit growing out of the disappearance of some mortgaged cloth from 1115 Front street on October 22, 1890, has been begun in the superior court by Hugh Hume against K. J. Graham, the owner of the goods, to recover $7,500 for defamation of character. The complaint alleges that the goods were stolen from the store on February 18, 1891, and that shortly after, the plaintiff notified the defendant, but that on March 11 the latter said in the presence of witnesses, 'I didn't say he stole the goods. I can think so, but I can't say so.' It is further alleged that Graham later suggested the goods were taken away in a wagon and that 'Hume was to blame for the whole thing.' On account of these statements, Hume claims his character has been damaged to the extent of $7,500.
“I didn't say he stole the goods. I can think so, but I can't say so.”
This 1893 defamation case highlights the era's focus on personal reputation in a tight-knit merchant class. While digital defamation and online review battles are the modern equivalent, the central issue of 'who said what' to destroy a livelihood remains a volatile civic constant in Seattle.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.