Villainess v. Villain

Wounded War veteran . . . broke . . . robs store . . . is sentenced to serve six to ten years in a Georgia chain gang . . . escapes . . . reforms . . . becomes successful Chicago magazine editor ... is forced to marry a woman 14 years his senior for fear she will betray him ... is betrayed by her because of jealousy over a younger, prettier woman. . . .

Such a story made good copy last May for William Randolph Hearst's Chicago American. War Veteran Robert Elliott Burns, editor of a magazine called Greater Chicago, was the hero of the story which he wrote himself. Many another U. S. newspaper retold the tale of woe (TIME, June 3). Convict Burns got much sympathy. Letters, telephone calls, personal visits to Illinois and Georgia authorities besought a pardon for much-pitied Convict Burns.

When Convict Burns was returned to Georgia, the wife who sent him there was implicitly condemned by the press for jealousy and revenge on the strength of Burns's story in the American. Last week Mrs. Burns, through Attorney Theodore William Miller of Chicago, filed libel suit against the American. Shrewd, she did not ask millions (as is usually the case ) for the destruction of an obscure reputation. She asked only $100,000, on the following charges: 1) aiding and abetting Convict Burns to "falsely and maliciously set himself up as a hero who was greatly wronged by his wife . . . making a hero out of a wicked and unworthy party, while well knowing the malice of said Robert E. Burns toward the plaintiff."

2) Publishing words which "in their common acceptance" charged the plaintiff with fornication and adultery.

Supporting Mrs. Burns's complaints was an affidavit given by her to her attorney setting forth a new version of the life of Convict Burns, including the following allegations:

In his youth he spent much time with gamblers. A boasted adventurer, he enlisted in the U. S. Army during the War. After his discharge he again became an adventurer. At various times he: ran a New York matrimonial bureau; collected "thousands of dollars" on a Ford car which he repeatedly raffled off but never delivered; was arrested after "illegal actions" during a political campaign; jumped bail and went to Georgia where the store robbery occurred.

Returning to Chicago, Burns met Emily del Pino (later Mrs. Burns, the plaintiff), who was then "37, of good character and morals ... in possession of a flourishing business and doing well." Burns boarded at her mother's house, during which time he illegally obtained pay-check money while timekeeper for a construction company. He borrowed $2,500 from Emily del Pino, started his magazine. He never paid back the money, she says. After the magazine was started, Convict Burns and Plaintiff del Pino were married "to the entire satisfaction and good wishes of his family" (his brother is a minister). When Greater Chicago prospered he "stayed away from home . . . found amusement and pleasure in gambling dens." treated Plaintiff Burns with "utter contempt."

One night he met Lillian Salo, 22, and went to live with her at various Chicago hotels, from several of which they were ousted for extreme disorderly conduct. Then it was that Mrs. Burns, "feeling that Mr. Burns was a menace to society," notified the Georgia authorities.

Journalists speculating on the case wondered: 1) could Mrs. Burns prove that the American, when it printed Burns's story, "well knew" of his malice towards her? 2) If she could prove that, and prove her whole story, was it worth $100,000 to the American to have printed without verifying its "human interest" story about "poor War Veteran Burns"?