The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1885-01-24 00:00:00

THE STOURBRIDGE OBSERVER.

SINGULAR ACTION FOR LIBEL.

At the Cambridgeshire Assizes on Friday, before
Lord Chief Justice Coleridge and a special jury, Mr.
Robert Brooks, a retired tradesman, of King's Lynn,
brought an action against the • proprietor of the
Norwich Argus for an alleged libel, for which he
claimed .E 2.00 damages. The case excited great inte-
rest throughout the Eastern Counties. Mr. Horace
Browne, instructed by Mr. Wilkin, appeared for
the plaintiff. Mr. J. R. Bulwer, Q.C., M.P., and
Mr. Simms Reeve appeared for the defendant. His
lordship made a suggestion to withdraw the action,
and the counsel for the parties met in the private
room of the judge, after which the case proceeded.
Mr. Robert Brooks deposed: I have lived in King's
Lynn all my life, and was in business for upwards
of thirty years, till seven years since. A year or
two ago I was mentally afflicted, and was under re-
straint in a private asylum till June. I accompanied
my wife to London, where I was living till October. I
did not go to any place for an improper purpose. I
was drugged and became insensible and was robbed,
t he persons being convicted and sentenced to eighteen
months' and six months' imprisonment. I had the
honour of being a candidate for the Lynn Town
Council last November, in the Liberal interest. This
is not the first time that I have been attacked by the
Norwich Argus. I had nothing to do with an
article or explanation in the Daily Chronicle.
Cross-examined by Mr. Bulwer My object is to
vindicate my character. I wrote the letter pro-
duced. (The letter read was of an extraordinary
character, as also were others produced, and post-
cards.) Upon this, both the barrister and the attor-
ney withdrew from the case with the entire approval
of his lordship. The plaintiff expressed his desire
to carry it on himself, but he appealed to members
of the Bar to take it up and he would pay any ex-
penses up to a thousand pounds, but this did not gain
any response. He admitted that he made certain
allusions to the private conduct of a gentleman whom
he opposed for the Town Council, who was the pro-
prietor of the Lynn Aclueriiser. The letter and post-
cards produced, which had been sent to certain
respectable tradesmen in the town of King's Lynn,
were full of charges and language of a highly
immoral and indecent character, which led the 1./,-rd
Chief Justice to ask the plaintiff if he still wished
the jury to believe that be came there to vindicate
. his character. The plaintiff replied in the affirma-
• tive, and claimed that he had been almost compelled
to write these letters and post-cards owing to the
persecutions which he had received from those men
who had fed at his table, drank his wine, and eaten
his salt. He most persistently denied that he had
written the letter or authorised its being written
in which he was alleged to have stated that
he had emulated the "Man of sorrows." He
denied that he went home with the two women
in London for immoral purposes. He went on a
mission of charity to supply food to a starving
baby. Ile did not offer the women money to undress
before him nor did he strip himself naked. He
however found himself undressed when he awoke the
next morning. He might have said spicy things when
addressing the electors at Lynn, but a public speaker
must interest his hearers. This elicited from his
lordship the remark that disgust was one of the forms
of interest. He denied that he had rung in front of the
polling booth at Lynn in allusion to his London
escapade, "Where are my watch arid chain? Far,
far away. Where are my sunday clothes? Far, far
away." The cross-examination being completvd, the
plaintiff addressed the jury with considerable fluency,
and used the most pathetic expressions; and he
alleged that this was not the first time be had been
, libelled in the Norwich Argus. He described, the
object of the libel to be to prevent him being elected a
councillor for the borough of King's Lynn, and that it
succeeded, as he was beaten by only 30 votes. Ho
called as his witnesses several persons who had been
subpcenaed for the defence, and was very indignant
that the names of others were not supplied to him.
He then made another appeal to the jury, and re-
minded them that if they did not do justice to him,
; here was a Judge before whom they must all appear
who would put all matters right. His lordship, in
mmming up, said that the most favourable con-
truction they could put up upon the plaintiff's con-
duct was that he had not recovered from the condition
wl)ich led to his confinement in a private asylum some
months ago. He asked the jury to decide whether the
alleged libels were true, and whether it was not justi-
fiable that the people of Lynn should be informed of
the kind of man who was seeking their suffrages.
'l7he jury, after a brief consultation, returned a ver-
• diet for the defendant with costs, and his lordship
gave judgment accordingly, and certified for a special
-Jury.