Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 14 · column 4 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
tent to hurt Mrs. Cebula.
"At her best, there is some dispute. The evidence, I think, shows it is true that the inmates complained."
To the question of damages being awarded for Mrs. Cebula's loss, Mr. Wiley told the jury, “There is no solid proof in the record of damages. All we have is her say-so that she was forced out of business by these charges.
“By her own admission,” he reminded the jury, “she had the business up for sale for months before the sheriff made those statements . . . there is no evidence that it was really sold for a loss. It was on the market for $150,tXX), and sold for $110,000. In fact there is nothing in the record to show (the property) was worth $150,000 other than that was what she was asking. Many people sell property and ask as their initial price far more than they expect to get.”
Addressing Mr. O’Neill’s contention that Sheriff Woodward’s comments were made with malice toward Mrs. Cebula by his comments to the board. “They asked him questions, and he gave frank and. honest answers — that the food service contract was part of the problem. That is no reason that he should be held liable.”
A finding of malice, Mr. Wiley told the jury, would require the jurors to conclude that the sheriff acted with “hatred, ill will or a desire to hurt” Mrs. Cebula. “There is not a shred of evidence to indicate Sheriff Woodward had any of those
76.2%