merous complaints on file about the food, he said.

merous complaints on file about the food, he said.

Lavinia Johnson, one of the Department of Corrections officials referred to by Sheriff Woodward in his comments to the board, testified that she ate at the Hampton Inn when she inspected the jail facilities. She did, she told the jury, start feeling bad on the trip back to Richmond.

And, Ms. Johnson added, she was aware of problems with the jail’s food through conversations she had with Sheriff Woodward.

The sheriff told the jury that he had made his presentation to the Board of Supervisors “to let them know about the problem. They have the contract, and I wanted to let them know so they could decide what should be done."

But, Sheriff Woodward added, "I did not intend to cause Mrs. Cebula's business harm or to put her out of business.”

The county’s supervisors, he emphasized, “needed to know about problems with the contract” before it came up for its annual renewal in April, 1988. The contract was continued at that time with no objections from either party.

In arguments to the jury, Mr. O’Neill concentrated on the issue of malice, which is necessary to win damages in a slander suit against a public official. "The sheriff wants a kitchen . . . the sheriff knew what he was doing — he had to put Millie out of business if he was to get a kitchen.

“And he did,” Mr. O’Neill said.