After nearly seven years of court proceedings, it took a jury just over two hours to reject the claim by former Gov. Edward J. King that he was libeled by a 1981 political column in The Boston Globe. But the former chief executive claimed he was vindicated anyway because the verdict issued Thursday found one sentence in the column was false. ``We did the very best we could,'' King said after the verdict in Suffolk Superior Court. He said he did not consider the lawsuit a waste of time because ``now we know that something the Globe never retracted was a false statement.'' King, who said earlier that he might run for governor again if he prevailed, said he and his lawyer would decide whether to appeal the ruling within 30 days. He had no comment on his political plans, ifany. After six days of testimony, the jury returned a special verdict slip that said former Globe columnist David Farrell was wrong when he wrote in a Nov. 8, 1981, column that King called a judge to demand harsher sentences in a gang-rape case. But when asked if they believed the statement discredited King among ``any considerable and respectable class of the community,'' the jury answered no and decided the case in favor of the Globe. King needed to prevail on each question on the verdict slip to win. John Driscoll, the newspaper's editor, said the verdict upheld freedom of speech. ``After seven years of litigation, the jury has reaffirmed the right of all people _ including columnists and cartoonists _ to speak and write freely about the actions of government,'' Driscoll said. Farrell, 62, who resigned from the Globe in 1985 and now works in public relations, said he was relieved. ``I'm very pleased and I feel vindicated. I always felt I did a good job writing the column,'' Farrell said. Asked if he still believes King called the judge, Farrell said, ``Yes.'' King, who joined the Republican party after losing the September 1982 Democratic primary to Gov. Michael S. Dukakis, filed suit in January 1982 against the Globe and several editorial employees, seeking $3.6 million. King testified that the column amounted to a charge of obstruction of justice and struck him like ``an ice pick in the ribs,'' causing him to lose sleep on more than 1,000 nights. On cross-examination, King acknowledged that he never publicly denied making the call. Globe attorney Joseph Kociubes argued that King, who was thinking of suing the Globe before the column, did not show evidence of financial, social or political harm. Farrell testified that he was told about King's purported call to Judge Herbert Abrams by state Treasurer Robert Q. Crane, an old friend of Farrell whom he considered a reliable source about Massachusetts politics. Crane testified that he was the source, but could not recall who told him about the call. Both King and Abrams swore that no call took place. Under libel law, a public figure such as King has the burden of showing not only that a publication was false but that it defamed him. Further, the governor must have shown that the column was published with ``actual malice'' _ that is, with knowing falsity or with ``reckless disregard'' for the truth.
