The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1871-12-23 00:00:00

ACTION FOR LIBEL AGAINST THE
"PALL MALL GAZETTE."

Ito cause of •' Dixon V. Eno,h " has been heard it the
Vice-Chancellor's Court, and was a bill tiled on the 17th .4
November by the plaintiff, William Hepworth Dixon, against
the defendant, Frederick Enoch, the printer and publisher .4
certain newspapers called the POI Mall Gazette and the
Pall Mall Brolget
- - - - - • -•

I -
The plaintiff complained that in the news-
papers published and issued on the ISth of May,
k7O, the 7th of August, 1871, the 9th of August,
I 1871, and the 12th of August, respectively, contained
certain articles orparagraphs end other matter libelling
him. The plaintiff instructed his solicitor to bring an
:intim for damages against the proprietoror proprietors
of the newspapers. and he wrote to Mr. George Smith,
who, the plaintiff bad been informed, WEDS the pro-
prietor of the newspapers at the dates above men-
tioned, asking for the name of hie solicitor. A cor-
respondence ensued between the solicitors, the result
of which was a refusal to give the name or names if
the proprietors or proprietor ,if the newspapers. The
tenth paragraph of the bill alleged that the plaintiff
has sustained great loss and damage by reason of the
libellous matter contained in the said newspapers, of
which the defendant is the printer and publisher, and
the plaintiff charges that he is entitled, under the cir-
cumstances, to a full discovery from the defendant of the
names or name of the proprietors or proprietor of the
newspapers, in order the snore effectually to enable
the plaintiff to bring and carry on an action in a court
of common law fi.r damages sustained by the plaintiff
by reason of the libellone matters respecting him eon-
tatted in the sail newspapers respectively. The plain.
tiff prayed that the defendant might make a full ills.
nicely of the name or mulles and addresses of the
pereon or persons who, at the dates above mentioned,
was or were the proprietor or proprietors of the news-
Parere above stat.si respectively.
The cause now came on to be heard upon a demurrer
for want of equity.
Mr. Davey, for the demurrer, contended that such
a bill could not be entertained by the court. There
was no allegation that the plaiutdf intended to bring
an action against the printer and publisher, who would
be a perfect stranger to the action, and merely a wit-
fleas. As it was not intended to make the defendant
a party to the action, no aid would lie granted by this
court on this document, which was caned a bill of di.
covery. He cited numerous cases in support of his
argument.
Mr. Green, Q.C., and Mr. Jolliffe, for the bill, said
the question turned upon the construction of clauses in
the lith and 7th William IV., c. 7n, and the 32nd and
33rd Victoria c. 24, and looking at the language used,
they contended that the legislature had provided the
means for obtaining the discovery desired by the plain-
tiff, and that the demurrer ought to be overruled.
Fox's act, 32nd George HI., c. fel, was also cited.
Mr. Davey replied.,
The Vice Chancellor, at the conclusion of the argu-
ments, said the case NVIW clearly one in which he must
reserve his judgment, as the clauses of the statutes re-
ferred to appeared to be very puzzling.
Judgment ,was accordingly reserved,