"The plaintiff, Wm. E. Fish, for his cause of action in the above-entitled cause, states: That the defendant, the St. Louis County Printing & Publishing Company, is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the state of Missouri, and is engaged in the publishing of a newspaper called the St. Louis County Advocate. That said defendant on the 31st of January, 1902, published in said St. Louis County Advocate certain false, defamatory, malicious, and libelous language of and concerning the plaintiff, as follows, to wit:
"`William E. Fish as a Reformer
"`Let the Calcium Light Flash, and the
Truth Be Told
"`Shady Transaction of a Clayton Attorney Alleged by His Clients and Supported by Their Affidavits — Moneys Paid Him Retained, and Moneys Collected Never Paid Over — His Future Status as an Attorney and Officer of the Court to be Determined.
"`When a man like William E. Fish, who lives in a glass house, undertakes to pose before the people of this county as a political reformer, and recommends the formation of
new party, it is well and opportune to inquire, "Who is William E. Fish?" When a man of the species of William E. Fish, who has skeletons in his own closet, undertakes by innuendo to malign and cast odium upon the fair name and character of public officials, and intimates that the "administration of the affairs of this county is rotten to the core," it is high time to strip the mask of hypocrisy from the face of this man, and turn on the calcium light, that the people may judge. When a man of this stripe and caliber of William E. Fish, who should first wash his own dirty linen, undertakes to criticise honest and respectable citizens, and defames his colleagues at the bar, behind their back, the time has come to clean the job up forever and amen, politically and otherwise.
"`For some time the singular and queer transactions of this man Fish have been an open secret in this community, and reports have reached us which must, if true, put the stamp of condemnation and public disgrace upon the fellow; but we forborne comment, and were reluctant to publish the damaging reports which were being circulated concerning him by respectable and reputable persons who had been his clients. We were averse to giving them publicity, solely out of respect and pity for his wife and children; but since he has had the presumption and temerity to render suspected honorable and upright officials and men, who are our intimate friends, we propose to let his clients speak, who claim to have been duped and defrauded by this great critic, this bogus reformer and foul innuendoes, while acting as their attorney, and to that end we publish below their sworn affidavits, the originals of which we are requested to hand to Judge McElhinney, in order that proper steps may be taken in determining his future status as an attorney and officer of the court.
"`The Affidavits.
"`State of Missouri, City of St. Louis — ss.: Carter S. Lyons, of lawful age, being duly sworn upon his oath, makes affidavit and says that he engaged one William E. Fish, an attorney at law, of Clayton, Mo., to bring a divorce suit, and paid said Fish the sum of ten dollars as a retaining fee, of which the following is a receipt for said payment: "Received of Carter S. Lyons ten dollars for legal services for obtaining divorce in suit of Lyon v. Lyon. [Signed] William E. Fish." That said Fish took no steps towards instituting said suit, but soon thereafter demanded of affiant the further sum of ten dollars, which said sum affiant paid to said Fish, but that the said William E. Fish, notwithstanding said last payment of ten dollars, making twenty dollars in all, was paid during the month of July, 1898, did not at that time and never has taken any steps or rendered any services in the prosecution of the suit which he was retained to bring; that subsequently, to wit, in the month of November, 1898, affiant demanded of said Fish the return to him of the money above referred to, but that the said Fish failed and refused to return the same, or any part thereof. Carter S. Lyons, 3211 La Salle Street.
"`Subscribed and sworn to before me this 21st day of January, A. D. 1902. My term expires October 2, 1903. Hy. G. Oheim, Notary Public, City of St. Louis, Mo. [Seal.]
"`State of Missouri, County of St. Louis — ss.: Be it known that on the 28th day of January, 1902, personally appeared before me Solomon Marks, of lawful age, who, being duly sworn, deposeth and saith, and on or about the twenty-fourth day of April, 1901, he presented a petition to the county court of St. Louis county, Mo., for a license to keep a saloon in St. Louis county, Mo., and in the forenoon of that day Lawyer W. E. Fish appeared before the court and asked that the court lay the petition over for one week, as he had a remonstrance to said petition, and that there were two men at his house the night before (Sunday night), Henninger and Lee, as remonstrators. During the noon hour I was advised to see Fish. And on seeing said Fish, he demanded of me $25, and he would withdraw the remonstrance; and that he (Marks) then and there paid said Fish $25. And about 1 o'clock in the afternoon of said day Fish went into court and told the court there was a remonstrance against Mr. Marks' petition for a saloon, but that this was not the Marks — that it was some other Marks — and that this Marks had a good character, and asked the court to grant this Marks a saloon license, and that everything was all right, and that the court did grant said license, and that he (Marks) made an investigation after the license was granted, and found that there had not been any remonstrance at all against his petition for a saloon license by any one. And after I saw Henninger and Lee, they told me that they had never known Fish, and they never were in his house at any time, and that what Fish told me about a remonstrance against me was not true. Solomon Marks.
"`Subscribed and sworn to before me this 28th day of January, 1902. My term of office expires December 12, 1904. Robert Shackleford, Notary Public, St. Louis County, Mo. [Seal.]
"`State of Missouri, County of St. Louis — ss: On this 29th day of January, 1902, before me, a notary public, in and for the county aforesaid, came A. J. Signor, who, being duly sworn, on his oath says: I am a resident and citizen of St. Louis county. About October —, 1900, I desired to dispossess one Chicktanuz, a tenant, and for that purpose went to Clayton to engage an attorney to prosecute the matter. While in Autenrieth's saloon I was referred to William E. Fish as a lawyer who would act for me in the matter. After a little while I found Fish, and went to his office with him. After stating the case to him, Fish said he would undertake
the matter for a fee of twenty-five ($25) dollars. I thereupon paid him ten ($10) dollars on account of his fee and went home. Soon thereafter I received a letter from Fish stating that my tenant would remove from the premises for the sum of fifty ($50) dollars. I thereupon went to Clayton and paid Fish fifteen dollars balance on his fee, and also the sum of fifty ($50) dollars to be paid by him to said tenant. Some time thereafter my said tenant informed me that he had not received the fifty ($50) dollars from Fish, so the next morning I went to Clayton to see him. I found that Fish was laid up at home by reason of an accident. So I and my brother went to Fish's house to see him. I asked Fish about this fifty dollars. Mr. Fish told me that the money was in the Boatmen's Bank. My brother suggested that he give me a check for the money, but Mr. Fish told me that the bank would not pay the money on a check. It was then suggested to him that he could let his wife draw the money, but Fish said that they would not...
