The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1875-04-10 00:00:00

A BRIERItY HILL LIBEL CASE.

The case of Clulow v. Pritchard was heard at the
Gloucester Assizes on Monday last.

Mr. Powell, Q.C., and Mr. Young were for
plaintiff in the action, and Mr. Staveley Hill and
Mr. Jelf for the defendant.

The action was brought by the plaintiff, a soli-
citor, of Brierley Hill, against the publisher of the
Brierley Hill County Express for a series of alleged
libels published ill the defendant's paper in 1874
and the present year—libels which the plaintiff's
counsel denounced as most malignant and un-
founded. He went into a history of the circum-
stances leading up to the libels, and which com-
menced in 1871. At that time a School Boardwas
established for Kingswinford, in which district
Brierley Hill is situated, and Mr. Clulow was a
candidate, and was elected one of the members of
the Board. This appeared to be the origin of the
alleged libels. In the year 1872 Mr. Clulow was
professionally engaged in a suit in the Divorce
Court, "Gower v. Gower," in which Mrs. Gower
was charged with having left her husband, and
gone to live at the Seven Starspublic-house (known
generally as" The Rat Hole"), near Stourbridge,
under the name of Miss Pearson, and one Williams
was alleged to have been employed by the plaintiff
to obtain informatiott about the lady, and the cir-
cumstances attending a vist of Mrs. Gower to
Worcester with the co-respondent Hill.
Mr. Powell, in opening the case, said Williams
was instructed to watch the parties, and he applied
to Mr. Clulow to supply him with funds, and re-
ceived £l. But it appears that Williams not only
went to Worcester to watch the parties, but he
actually exerted himself to produce the very acts
of adultery of which he was to give evidence, and
the consequence waslthat when the case was heard,
it appeared that Mr. Williams had, to a great ex-
tent, brought about the sets of adultery which
were relied on; and Lord Penzance, in delivering
his judgment, said the petitioner could not avail
himself of the agent's misconduct, and he dis-
missed the suit, inasmuch as the act of adultery
had been brought about by the connivance of
Williams. These circumstances were the found-
ation for certain articles in theßrierley Hill County
Express, which paper described Mr. Clulow as
having been severely reprimanded by Lord
Penzance. After this the proprietor of the paper
appeared, on remonstrance, to be disposed to apolo-
gise, but he subsequently returned to the attack.
When Mr. Clulow was re-elected on the School
Board, in 1874, these attacks were continued in
the most scandalous manner. Subsequently .the
plaintiff was professionally engaged for Mrs.
Tennant in a Chancery suit, "Tennant v. Young"
—an action by a lady against a trustee, and on the
hearing in the Rolls Court before Sir George Jessel,
the judge dismissed it, and said "it appeared as
if the lady had been persuaded to embark in a
ruinous litigation by some solicitor in the country
whose name he would not mention." But the fact
was that the suit had commenced on the advice of
counsel. and the facts having been subsequently
laid before the judge, he retracted what he had
said, and expressed hi g regret that he had made
the observation. Upon this defendani-, published in
his paper of the 19th December thelibel for which
the action was brought referring to both the cases
of "Gower and Gower "and "Tennant and Young."
Subsequently, in January, 1875, he made a sort of
apology, but that was neutralised by what followed
in the same article. In the pleas in this action
the defendant repeated the libellous statements he
had previously withdrawn.... _ _

The publiea-tion of the libel was admitted, and
Mr. Clulow was put in the box, and said that,
on the hearing of the case of "Gower and Gower,"
he attended, and was a witness. It was not true
that Lord Penzance publicly reprimanded him
(witness) for committing an act of adultery. He
did not, in fact, mention his name at all. Witness
did not, as a fact, neither directly or indirectly
concert an act of adultery between Mr. Hill and
Mrs Gower. Witness also acted as solicitor for
Mrs Tenuant in the suit of " Tennant v. Young."
His clerk, named Wilcox, was a personal friend of
Mrs.. Tennant's, and he acted in that suit under
the advice of consel. He himself did not see Mrs.
Tennant in reference to the suit until after the
bill was filed. The expression used by the Master
of the Rolls in reference to the case of "Tennant
v. Young" having come to his knowledge, he made
an application to the Cout through his counsel.
Witness produced a report of what took place from
the defendant's paper. The report read, "The
Master said the explanation was 'a protection to
the solicitor at all events."

A number of documents were put in, and copies
of the Brierley Hill County Express containing the
alleged libels of December 19, December 24, 1874,
January 9 and 23, 1875, and May 11, 1872; also
correspondence between the attorneys after the
alleged libels had been published, viz., letters from
the plaintiff's attorney to the defendant, of De-
cember 23rd, 1874, and the reply of December 26;
letters from the defendant to plaintiff's attorney,
and of the plaintiff's attorney to defendant of Janu-
ary 2,6, 8, 27, and February 2 and 3.

Mr. Powell read from the- Law Reports a portion
of Lord Penzance's judgment, in the case of
"Gower v. Gower," as to the employment of Wil-
liams. Not a word was said about Mr. Clulow.

The plaintiff was cross-examined by Mr. Staveley
Hill, Mrs. Gower was, about 1870, living at the
Rat Hole as Miss Pearson. The first suit was
against Pearson, Hill, and Budd as co-respondents
with Mrs. Gower. The first two, i.e., against
Pearson and Budd, were dismissed by the judge
as "incredible," leaving the case as in connection
with Hill. Knew the man Williams, ' who was
brought to his office in December, 1870, by Mr.
Gower. The suit was heard in May 1872. He had
not seen Williams since January, 1871. The lead-
ing counsel, Mr. Montagu Chambers, did not
think it necessary that Williams should be called
as a witness. Williams got Mrs. Gower to go with
two other women and three men to Worcester, and
having got Mrs. Gower there, introduced a wit-
ness to see her in bed with Hill. That was what
he understood. Williams told him that Mr.
Clulow and Hill were going to Worcester.
Mr. Staveley Hill cross-examined the witness
upon his evidence given in the divorce suit with
the object of showing his knowledge that Hill and

Mrs. dower were going to Worcesier for the pur-
pose of sleeping there that night, Did not send
a boy named Higgs, aged 16, to Worcester. Re-
ceived a telegram from Worcester and went to
Worcester with the petitioner's father. Met
Higgs at the station. Witness did not know any-
thing about the place where Hill and Mrs. Gower
were going to. He (witness) did not arrive at
Worcester until late at night. Did not see Wil-
liams at Worcester on the next day. Williams
had .27 from him between the day when he went
to Worcescer and the 17th of the followingmonth.
It was between the 27th December, 1870, and the
18th June, 1871. That was the last time he had
seen Williams. With regard to the case of
"Tennant and Young," the witness said he first
became acquainted with Mrs. Tennant subsequent
to the filing , of the bill in October,lB73. Believed
he had done some other business three years be-
fore for Mrs. Tennant. The opinion of counsel
was taken in July. The case was drawn up by
his pupil, aged 33 or 34, a solicitor. He was his
managing clerk, and had been managing clerk to
Mr. Burbury for ten years. Was not at any
consultation of counsel, nor at the hearing.
The judgment of Sir G. Jessel was read by Mr.
Hill. He said the action had been brought to re-
cover 265. by a suit in Chancery, by a solicitor in
the country, whose name he would not mention,
because he felt such indignation about it.
His Lordship reminded the learned Queen's
counsel that Sir G. Jessel had subsequently with-
drawn his remarks as affecting the solicitor.
Witness continued: The defendant's costs in
that suit were £ll4 17s. 9d. The plaintiff's costs
were £6O, making £174 17s. 9d. The costs were
paid.
At the close of this witness's cross-examination,
Mr. Staveleyillill withdrew all injurious allegations,
and apologised on behalf of the defendant, on
which a verdict was given for theplaintift. Dam-
ages' 40s. costs, with the usual certificate.