The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-11-29 00:00:00

OVERCROWDING IN NEW YORK.

London is not alone in suffering from overcrowding
and its attendant evils. According to a report recently
presented to the Tenement-house Commission of New
York City, the conditions under which thousands of
the population of New York are compelled to live are
somewhat startling. The report states that 562 tene-
ment houses visited by the inspector contained 5050
families and 20,117 persons—an average of nine
families and over 35 persons to each house. In many
of the houses the occupants reached four times this
?lumber. In 90 per cent. of them the closets were in
foul condition, 10 per cent. being most dangerous to-
the health of the inmates. It is suggested, in view of
these revelations, that the Commissioners should be
able to recommend to the Legislature some practical
measure of relief, and to reinforce their recommenda-
tions by an amount of testimony as to the need of
immediate action which will make the defeat of those
measures impossible, no matter how vehement may be
the opposition of interested and inhuman landlords.

FALLEN GREATNESS.—A wholesale demolition of
old buildings is taking place between Moor-lane and
Milton-street, London (close to the underground rail-
way), and those who appreciate strange contrasts of
former mean residences of civic celebrities with the
palatial style of architecture now, the fashion cannot
do better than pay a visit to a small square close by
where the afore-named work of destruction is going
on, and, much to their surprise, they will see on the
wall of one of the houses this inscription: "Gresham
Rouse, once the residence of Sir Richard Whitting-
tem, Lord Mayor, 1314. Rebuilt 1805." Who would
hptve thought of discovering in such a place a house
with so distinguished a history ? Doubtless the poor
inhabitants feel a pardonable pride in the fact, and
here is a chance for an enterprising photographer to
make himself famous, as appearances look threaten-
ing for the continuance of this secluded square.

,

ACTION FOR LIBEL AGAINST A
SOCIETY PAPER.
En the Queen's Bench Division of the Iligh Court
of Justice on Saturday, the case of Blood v. Lau-
rence came on for trial before Mr. Justice Denman
and a special Jury. It was an action brought by
Mrs. Mary Amy Blood and her husband, Mr. Edmund
itiaghlin Blood, against Mr. Joseph Laurence, to re-
cover damages for a libel published in Modem Society,
of which defendant is the proprietor, editor, and
printer, on the 19th January in the present year. It
ran as follows:
"It is pretty generally known that Mrs. Blood was
divorced by a former husband for her elopement with
Mr. Blood."
The defendant pleaded that the matter complained
of was inserted without gross negligence and without
malice, and that defendant had offered to insert an
apology, and he paid ..E5 into court in satisfaction of
the claim.
Mr. Charles Russell, Q.C., and Mr. Crump was
counsel for the plaintiffs; Mr. Bulien was for the de-
fendant.
Mr. Russell, in opening the case, said that the
plaintiffs resided in Thurloe-square, Kensington, and
the lady against whom this atrocious libel had been
directed was seventy years of age, whose first husband,
Mr. O'Brien, died in 1835, and who, after remaining
a widow for fifteen years, married her present hus-
band in 1851. They were tho parents of Lady Cohn
Campbell, in reference to whose divorce suit a
paragraph had appeared in the defendant's paper on
the 12th of the same month, in which it was asked
why it was that Lady Colin Campbell had waited
two and a half years before asking the protection of
the law against her husband, the writer at the same
time expressing his reluctance to refer to Lady
Colin Campbell's suit, which was then pending.
As soon as Mrs. Blood's attention was drawn to the
libel in question, she asked for the name and address
of the writer, but was met by an offer from the de-
fendant to insert any proper paragraph she might
send to the office, or that the editor would insert an
explanation as to how the matter complained of came
to be published. The defendant's solicitors also
offered to allow her solicitors, Messrs. Lewis and
Lewis, to inspect the original document, on the
understanding that their client should be acquitted
of all blame in the matter. Beyond this no repara-
tion whatever had been made for this odious libel,
imputing adultery to this elderly lady, and the
plaintiff was, therefore, compelled to bring this
action. _ _

Mrs. Blood, the female plaintiff, was then called,
and stated that she married her husband in 1851,
and there were four children of that marriage, three
of whom are now living. She married her first hus-
band in April, 1835, and ho died within a year.
There was not one word of truth in the libel. The
witness was not cross-examined.
The defendant stated that his paper, which was
published weekly, had a circulation of about 50,000,
but was not a very paying concern. His defence was
that the matter charged as libellous was inserted
without his knAtledge, and during his absence from
the office, by the instructions of a Mr. Jeffreys, who
was then acting as editor, and who had died in March
last. He admitted, after some hesitation, that he had
himself written the paragraph relating to Lady Cohn
Campbell.
Mr. Justice Denman, in summing up, made some
strong remarks on the practice which now prevailed
in a portion of the public press, for the purpose of
pandering to a depraved taste, of dragging private
affairs before the public, and left it to the jury to say
whether the defendant was guilty of gross negligence
or had been actuated by malice.
The jury then retired, and after a brief absence re-
turned into court.
The Foreman said: We find a verdict for the
plaintiff. We think the libel is wicked and false,
and to show our sense of it we give £lOOO as
damages.
For this amount his lordship signed judgment with
costs.