Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/664

 he can raise no more than one crop at a time, but he will drive seven miles from his residence in a cold snowstorm and dig in a gravel pit and throw gravel on a hill where not needed, just to accommodate taxpayers. People are not so foolish as D. W. Leonard thinks, so we will let him howl until John Clark comes to see it.

The complaint further alleges that the words so published were false and defamatory, and were maliciously published of and concerning the plaintiff for the purpose of injuring his good name and reputation, and that by said publication the plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of 35,000.

The defendant in his answer admitted the publications, but denied the other averments of the complaint. The defendant further alleged that the second statement, namely, the statement published in the February 25, 1921, issue of the Rolette Record was written and caused to be published by the defendant in answer to the following article, which the plaintiff had caused to be published of and concerning the defendant in the February 11, 1921, issue of said newspaper, to wit:

“In an article which appeared in the Rolette Record some time ago, Mr. Louis P. Roberge charges unfairness in payment for hauling gravel. D. W. Leonard and Jake Romanauk hauled gravel with Mr. Roberge. The same amount of gravel Mr. Roberge is charging the county a yard and a half, we are putting on the road for one yard. Why don’t Mr. Roberge tell the truth? Should he get paid at all? Mr. Roberge came to us and wanted us to cut down the amount of gravel we were putting on our loads saying Mr. Seltum would never know. How does that sound to the taxpayers? Just because your commissioner could not be in the gravel pit all the time we measured Mr. Roberge’s gravel box when he started and told him we were supposed to keep track of the loads and report the amount of gravel hauled which we did with all fairness. Give the devil his dues, and no more. We too pay taxes.

“(Signed) “Jake Romanauk.”

Upon the trial the defendant objected to the introduction of any evidence under the complaint on the ground that it failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. In a memorandum decision made part of the record on this appeal the trial court says: