A Drunk Man Mistakes a Stranger for a Burglar—and Lands in a Slander Suit
After his house was broken into, Capt. Peter Jensen drowned his sorrows, spotted Henry Wolfe on Front Street and accused him of the burglary. Wolfe knocked him down; now a jury weighs the wreckage.
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.
The suit brought by Henry E. Wolfe against Capt. Peter A. Jensen, by his attorney J. E. Boyden, to recover damages for slander, was tried in the superior court yesterday afternoon, and the jury was instructed to return a sealed verdict this morning.
The slander was uttered on December 15, when Jensen accused Wolfe on Front Street, in the presence of a number of witnesses, of being a burglar and thief, and accused him of burglarizing his house.
The facts developed at the trial were that Jensen's house had been broken into that time, and that he had started upon the day in question to drown his sorrow and indignation in the flowing bowl. While in this condition he passed Wolfe on Front Street and thought that he bore some resemblance to the man who had broken into his house. An animated interview ensued between Wolfe and Jensen, of which the slanderous words were a part, and the upshot of the whole matter was that Wolfe knocked Jensen down, but Jensen had him arrested on the charge of assault and battery.
Here there is a slight difference in the stories, for Jensen maintains that he was induced to compromise by Wolfe upon Jensen's promise not to appear against him on the charge of assault and battery, while Wolfe undertook not to maintain any action against him. The latter part of his story is stoutly denied by Wolfe, who maintains that he only agreed to refrain from suing him for false imprisonment.
Police Officer J. R. McDonald and Officer L. J. Bird were witnesses and testified that Jensen was drunk when the dispute occurred, but differed somewhat as to the extent of his intoxication. The defense urged among other things that Jensen was too drunk to entertain malice, or indeed an intention at all, upon the day in question.
“He had started upon the day in question to drown his sorrow and indignation in the flowing bowl.”
A break-in, a night of drinking and a public accusation spiraled into assault and slander suits—a reminder that reputation and intent were litigated in 1890s Seattle much as they are now. The case also shows how heavily the era's courts weighed drunkenness when judging malice.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.