The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1870-07-02 00:00:00

ACTION FOR LIBEL. ONE FARTHING
DAMAGES.

in the Court of Common Pleas, the cause of Moyell v.
Gambier and Wife" hait been tried, in which the plaintiff,
Miss Moyell, a lady adv.suced In life, sued to recover damages
fr alleged libels contained in two letters written by Lady
Gambler, her aunt Tile letters were addressed to Mrs
Search, Lady Gambler's sister. One of them contained the
passage • 0.1 grant you may succeed in every effort to make
that cheat Anne Nloyell provide for y,,u and yours. You and
ourselves have her in our power, we know all about the
will." The declaration alleged that the meaning of this woe
that the plaintiff had unlawfully destroyed or cancelled a
will of her brother Major Min ell. The semnd loiter said,
"Say at you may, hidsey, or think as you may, the world In
general, and your own family for and near, know that you
have now a great command of money, you have a nugget
entirely at your own distosal, and von have and do work it
most judiciously for your own interest and that of your
children ; but it is not working it righteously to leave un-
paid such a debt as yours to 11r. Moyell " The defendants,
in addition to " Not guilty," pleaded that the plaintiff's bro-
ther, the major, died ill France, leaving an illegitimate son,
that according to law his movables sl'ould be placed tinder
seal, and that the plaintiff wrongfully removed from the
house a quantity of valuable securities, to conceal them front
the French authorities, and that the word " cheat " in the
alleged libel referred to this.

Sr J. Karslake and Mr. Pinder appeared for the
plaintiff ; and the S 'Leiter-General and Mr. Charles
Bowen for the defendants.

It was stated that Sir Edward Gambier, the de-
fetdant, W:LA a retired Indian judge. The plaintiff
lived for some years with her brother in France. Ile
managed and invested the property which belonged to
her. He made several wills. FIGIlle of which were never
completed, and one or more had been cancelled. The
plaintiff denied that she had ever tampered with any
will, and as to the securities, she had removed them
because she objected to their being placed under seal,
and all or most ef them belonged to her. This was
done without any improper object. In the spring of
1807 the plaintiff brought an action iif slander against
Sir Edward and Lady Gambier, and that was put an
end to by the defendants making a statutory declara-
tion, negativing the imputation which it had been sup-
posed was made upon ti.e plaintiff. This WaS male
on the 27th May, 1867, and in consideration of it the
plaintiff discontinued the action and undertook not to
take any further proceedings in reference to these mat-
term. One of the letters now sued on was dated in 1800,
while the other was unda.ed, and the plaintiff stated
they had not come to her hands until alter the settle-
ment of the previous action. The present action was
brought in August, 1269 ; but it wat stated that it had
been delayed in consequence of the plaintiff's illness.
The plaintiff, in her evidence, gave a long account of
the affairs ,4 herself, her brother, and other members
of her family, in reference to the statements in the
alleged libels.
The Solicitor-General, in cross examination, p-it the
following questions to her in reference to age
How old is Lady Gambler 2—l am afraid she would not like
that question put to her.
The Lord Chief Jo • lice That is the very reason why It Is
put now. —Then I will not answer it
Is she older or younger than you 2—Much older.
The Solicitor-General How old are you 2—l do not choose
to_anew.r. .

Ism afraid I must ask. Are you seventy I—Make ma 100,
If you pleme; hut I ant not going to answer. (4 laugh)
I would make 300 twenty years younger if I could. I
will tell you my age It 300 hke.—l don't want to know.
Lsughter )
I really must ask your age.—The English law does not
force me, I believe, to answer such a questlan. (Loud
laughter.)
Is your aunt about eighty I—She may he.
In answer toe suggestion thst she should write down her
age and hand it to the jury, who alone would see It, she said
she would rather not; and at length the question was not
further pressed.
- -

force

On the part ef the defendants most voluminous de-
positions were read, on wlr ch the defendants gave their
explanation of the meaning of the alleged libels, of the
circumstances which took place on the death of the
major, and of vArious other matters.

Ills lordship left it to the jury to say what was the
meaning of the statements upon which the action was
founded, and whether they were libellous. He said
that it seamed to him that there was a good deal of
exaggeration on both side.. The learned counsel for
the defendants used strong language in reference to
the moives which had actuated the plaintiff in going
to law, and for which there did not seem to be much
foundation ; whilst, on the other bawl, the plaintiff
laid her damages at £lO,OOO though it seemed that the
alleged libels remained unseen by anybody in the
possession of 11r. Snarls for some time, awl afterwards
got into the possession of the plaintiff herself. These
being the circumatances, the jury, if they should find
for the plaintiff, moat any what was the amount of
damages she was entitled to.
The jury found for the plaintiff upon the first count,
damages one farthing, and his lordship refused ta certify
for coats.