The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1871-05-13 00:00:00

GOLDSCHMIDT v. SPOTTISWOODE.

In the Court of Queen's Bench, In London, last week,
the above care caa.e on for judgment on an applies-
to on the part of Mr. Spottisweode to set anile the
proceedings as contrary to good faith in con.equence
of an agreement to discontinue the action if the name
of the "proprietor and editor" was given up. The
paper stated that it was published by a Mr. Cremer
" on the part of the proprietor," and the name of Mr.
Cremer was given up as proprietor and editor. The
plaintiff's attorney, however, having abstained from
proceeding against him (an tie was not resident in this
country) did not consider this In effect, a compliance
with their proposal, and treated it an one made under
a mistake, and intimated that they should proceed to
trial, and a learned Judge at Chambers (Mr. Jnstice
Lush) took the same view, and &called to re.
strain them from so doing. But before trial
and on the eve of trial they offered to be con-
tent with a verdict for such an amount as would
indemnify Mr. Goldschmidt against the expenses in-
correct. This offer was, however, declined, and a
counter offer to consent to a verdict for merely
nominal damages, such as would c wry costs, was also
declined, as it woold not have been a real indemnity,
the taxed costs being always considerably less than the
costs actually incurred. The cause wan tried, and the
verdict was for L 750, but it was reduced by consent to
£ilo. and now the defendant applied to set aside all
the proceedings an contrary to good faith. The appli.
cation was hesrd at great length on Friday before the
Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Blackburn, Mr.
Justice Lusit and Mr. Justice Mullen, and at the
close of the argument the Lord Chief Justice suggested
that the offer made at the trial should be accepted ;
and advised (not "ordered," as it Wan erreneonsly
printed) that the offer should be acc-pted. The Flair..
tiff's counsel (the Nonctior-geterar tieing ohseht) asked
for time to consider the offer, and now the man came
on tube finally disposed of.
The Sdicitor. Genrral (with him Mr. C. Pollock,
Q C., and Mr. Thessiger), for the plaintiff, said that
the offer he made at the trial was a verdict for such a
sum an should be an indemnity to Mr. Goldschniidt,
and to that offer he adhered, but he protested that
Mr. Goldechmidt ought not to pay for the vindication
of his character.

Mr. Watkin Williams (with him Mr. Cohen), for the
defendant, declined to accept that offer.
The Court then at once gave judgment, dismiseing
the applic.tion with costs, and npaohlinfr the verdict,
which will therefore stand.

The Lord Chief Justice, in pronouncing judgment,
said the Court had been anxious that the con', if
possible, ehould be amicably arranged, and with that
view had given time for consideration of the plaintiff's
offer; but, as it lad not been seceded to, thty could
only now give judgment, and after full consideration it
appeared to them that there hail been no breach of faith
to c all for the interposition of the Court in the exorcise
of its eqnitahle jurisdiction. It was true that in terms
the rtquireruente of the plaintiff's attorneys had been
complied with; but, looking at the surrounding cir-
cumstances, it could not be cuasidered as against good
faith to go on with the action. For as the paper dis-
closed that Mr. Cremer was publisher, and published
"for the proprietor," it was plainly implied that some
other person was proprietor and editor, and it was
obtione that in asking for the disclosure of the pro-
prietor and editor, the plaintiff's attorneys desired and
supposed that they should obtain the name of some
other person than Mr. Cremer, whose name and address
they already had. Ile could quite mad, nstand that they
were desirous not to proceed against the printer or
publisher (who, generally speaking, were perfecly in.
nocent), but to go against the parties who were really
and morally, and not merely legally, responsible. That
being so it was reasonable to conclude that the plain.
tiffs attorne3s supposed that they would obtain the
name of some person different from the publisher, and
never imagined that the proprietor, editor, and pub-
lisher would turn out to be the same perste]. There
was nothing, therefore, which appeared to call for the
equitable interposition of the Court on the ground of
breach of faith. Nor woo there anything in what had
occurred subsequently to the original arrangement
which made the proceeding to trial a breach of faith;
en the contrary, there was more ground for complaint
of the tonduct of the defendant's attorneys in never
making any intimation to the plaintiffs that they
intended to apply to set all the proceedings aside.
On the whole, therefore, there wad no ground for the
application.
Mr. Justice Blackburn and Mr. Justice Hannen
concurrel, and the Lord Chief Justice intimated that
Mr. Justice Lush also concurred, and the judgment of
the Court was that the application should be dismissed
with costs.