Roseanne, Husband Drop Enquirer Suit : Celebrities: Pair say writer misled them about his connection to the tabloid. Other litigation continues over damage to house they rented.

Comic Roseanne Arnold and her husband, Tom Arnold, on Friday dropped their lawsuit alleging that National Enquirer reporters trashed a $3.5-million home in Benedict Canyon in order to fabricate a story ridiculing the comedienne for living in a pigsty.

The couple said in a statement that their complaint, filed in Santa Monica Superior Court, was based on questionable information from a free-lance writer, James Cruse, whom they accused of misrepresenting his relationship with the Florida-based tabloid.

“Once it became apparent to our counsel that Cruse was unreliable, we felt morally obligated to immediately dismiss our claim against the Enquirer,” the Arnolds said.

They noted that Cruse failed to keep three appointments to enable Enquirer attorneys to cross-examine him, causing a judge at one point to suggest issuing a bench warrant for his arrest.

Friday’s developments, however, do not put an end to the litigation surrounding the Arnolds’ rental house.

Cruse, who is now living in New York, said by telephone that he stands by his account and is contemplating filing a defamation suit against the Arnolds. “Roseanne has a history of trying to do this sort of thing to people who are trying to help her,” he added.

Still pending is a lawsuit against the Arnolds by Spencer and Suzanne Proffer, who have accused the couple of causing $205,000 worth of damage to their antique-filled, four-bedroom house. The Arnolds paid $16,000 a month to rent the house on Benedict Canyon Drive from mid-July, 1989, to mid-May, 1990.

The Proffers say the Arnolds left the house in such disrepair that floors were warped and buckled and wallpaper was peeling. An antique Chinese table had gouges in a leg and cigarette burns were left in a desk, they say. In all, 207 instances of damage were alleged.

Also pending is the Arnolds’ countersuit against the Proffers in which they seek to recover the $32,000 security deposit they forfeited. The comic and her husband claim that they caused only minimal damage and accuse the owners of cooking up a scheme to have their house redecorated at the expense of the Arnolds and the Proffers’ insurance company.

Nathan B. Hoffman, the Proffers’ attorney, expressed confidence that the Arnolds would eventually dismiss their complaint against his clients. “(The Arnolds) have now abandoned one lie, and I’m sure the second one will follow,” he said.

In a 750-page statement, sealed at the Enquirer’s request, Cruse said he had been ordered to write “a pigsty story on Roseanne and Tom.” When he visited the house just after the Arnolds moved out, he said he found only minimal damage but later claimed he had learned that other Enquirer reporters had dumped garbage throughout the house and in the pool area to back up the editor’s angle.

The Arnolds’ attorney could not be reached for comment. But Richard S. Hoffman, the Enquirer’s Washington-based attorney, said Cruse was discredited by conflicting statements from six other people. “It became pretty clear that the guy was lying,” Hoffman said.

In addition, Cruse claims to have been a permanent Enquirer reporter, with salary and medical benefits, before being fired last May. But Michael Flynn, vice chairman of the Enquirer, said the writer was a “low-rung” free-lancer who was paid on a per diem basis.

Enquirer attorney Hoffman said he plans to pursue contempt proceedings against Cruse for failing to keep his appointments to be cross-examined. “He cost my client a lot of . . . money,” the attorney said.

Cruse said the dates were either inconvenient or came up when he was ill with the flu.

Cruse is repeatedly cited as a source in an investigative story about the Enquirer’s newsgathering tactics in the February edition of Los Angeles magazine, which will hit the stands Monday. “I have no reason to believe that he’s not credible,” said the article’s author, Rod Lurie.