Menu JTA Search

“jewish Conspiracy” Charge Will Not Be Probed in Ford Trial, Court Rules, Denying Sapiro Request

SIGN UP FOR THE JTA DAILY BRIEFING

(Jewish Daily Bulletin)

The charge of a “Jewish conspiracy” will not figure in the Sapiro-Ford trial which opens here, This became definite when a request by counsel for Aaron Sapiro to be permitted to inject a new paragraph in Sapiro’s declaration in his $1,000,000 libel suit against Henry Ford was denied by Judge Fred M. Raymond in United States District Court here today. The Judge explained that this should not jeopardize Sapiro’s right so far as the scope of proof was concerned.

William Henry Gallagher, counsel for Sapiro, said the new paragraph set forth that because of previous publications of the “Dearborn Independent” the term “Jew” as used in twenty articles alleged to contain libel, was a term of scorn. Judge Raymond held the paragraph brought no new charge of libel, but was intended to widen the scope of evidence which would be admitted.

Senator James A. Reed, chief counsel for Mr. Ford, objected strenuously to the inclusion of the paragraph, saying it would change the whole issue of the case. Steward Hanley, another member of the Ford counsel, argued there was no question in the case of a Jewish conspiracy, but that the issue was Mr. Sapiro and his activities.

“If Mr. Gallagher’s motion is granted we would have to ask for a long continuance to study the matter,” said Senator Reed. “We admit we said Mr. Sapiro was a Jew, but we contend it was no reflection on him to call him a Jew. We are not attacking the Jewish race.”

Mr. Gallagher replied that in the articles in the “Dearborn Independent,” Mr. Sapiro was referred to as a member of “organized Jewry” and “organized International Jewry.”

Judge Raymond in his ruling said: “The libels charged do refer to a Jewish conspiracy–I’ll take that back–they do not refer to a Jewish conspiracy in so many words, but as explained in the innuendoes they do refer to a Jewish conspiracy. I don’t think the plaintiff’s right will be jeopardized so far as the scope of proof is concerned by not allowing them to amend.”

NEXT STORY