The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1873-03-08 00:00:00

ALL EGE D SLANDER AT BRIE RLEY
HILL.

PEARCE r. DIXON.

At the Worcester Assizes, (Nisi Prins Court), on
Tuesday, before Mr. Justice Ilona MAD, the above action
was tried. Mr. Powe.l, Q.C., and Mr. Orreeie appeared
for the plaintiff; and tfr. Hoddleaton, Q itml Mr
Jelf f o• the defendant. The p'aietiff is a sureein at
Round Oak, Brierley Bill, and too d. &admit. the Rev.
Dr. Diana. in the vicar of Quarry Bank, and chairman of
the Local Board of Health of that place. The action war
brought to recover damages for slander, emtalued in
letters, and • speech at a Board meeting wit'i reference
to the silvintifTo performance of his duties. From the
plaintiffs statement, it appeared that last year he held
the appointment of medical officer and public vaccinator
at Burley Hill, under the Sturbridge Board of
Ouardi n Daring the summer smell-pox was raging
in that •;. jet, and it was plaint ti . duty t .ttend it
Quart's. lisuk on certain days to s a palienid. Be .;••
cordt..;'y attended there on the Lti of Jaae, 1872, ;id
vcceinated all the people who came, basing more than
sufficient lymph for everybody. On the Tuesday follow-
ing. one of the defendant's servants applied to be vacci-
nated, and having seen something in a newspaper with
reference to his vaccination en the 4th, lie asked the
man whether he was the person who caused the report
Ii be put in the paper. The man appeared to know
nothing shoot the matter, and plaintiff told him to pull
off his coat to be vaccinated. He begaa to do so, and
then put it on again and went away. Plaintiff had
sufficient lymph to vaccinate thq man, and never told any
person he had not. He did not say on that occasion,
" This Dr. Dixon is ad— scamping liar, and you are
not much better, for you told • lot of lies." On the 21st
of June plaintiff wan suspended by the Board of
Oaardians. An enquiry took place before an inspector
about the 13th of July, and it ended in his reinstatement
about the same time. He had been twice summoned
before the Magistrates for assault-a-one being dismissed,
and with redard to the other the Magistrate said it was a
lie, a kick, and is farthing damages all the world over.
He had since resigned his appointment as medical officer,
and after hearing of a statement made by the defendant,
he instructed Mr. Waldron to write a letter to Dr. Dixon.
Plaintiff hail been in Australia from 1859 to 1863. In
cross-examination by Mr. Hudellesten, plaintiff stated
that he was charged with refusing a certificate of the
de ith of is child named Hughes. and also with being
abusive to the person applying for the certificate. He
disobeyed the orders of the Board to answer the charge,
and they alleged that that was a want of respect to them.
On the 12th of July he attended at the Board, and

stated thiiklue was wrong in not attending when re-
qnested, MU expressed bis willingness to attend in Ware
on any reasonable request. His suspension was removed
on making that statement. In August .a complaint was
made to the Beard by a person named Pearson, and he
answered it in writing. The Board said it was most un-
satisfactory, uncourteoas, and impertinent, and that they
bad instructed their Clerk to send a copy of the resolu-
tion and plaintiffs letter to the Local Government
Board. He had made a charge of dishonesty against the
Board, but withdrew it. Between July and November
there were other complaints about him to the Board. In
the second case in which jie was summoned lie was
ordered to pay costs. In re-examination plaintiff said
ha refaced to give a certificate of the death of the child
Hughes, because it died from the gross neglect of its
parents, and an inquest should have been held. Evidence
was then given to snow that at a meeting of the Local
Board early in June the defendant stated that he bad
, dent some one to Dr. Pearce to be vaccinated, but that
the person came back and said Dr. Pearce informed him
that he had no lymph. At a subsequent meeting Dr.
I Dixon made a speech at the close of the business, in
which the statements with reference to the want of
lymph were repeated, and comments made upon a letter
Bent to the defendant by the plaintiff. Jima memorandum
in the defeudantles handwriting, dated June, it wasstated,
" When will 11r. Chapman be authorised to vaccinate
parochial patients at ins own house, not waiting until
. Tuesday next? Mr. Pearce had not lymph foe various
patients during his attendance at Quarry Bank yester-
day." In reply to a letter written to the defendant by
plaintiffs solicitor, Dr. Dixon said, 'My respect for you
as a gentleman and an old friend induces inc to reply to
your note. Professionally you may do as you are in.
strueted. I fear your client will not be beuefitted if he
instrocts you according to yours of the 12th, namely—
' That I was aware that what I stated was totally false
and untrue, and without the slightest foundation of
truth. The Board does not meet until next Tuesday
week. I did, and do intend, then and there to refer to
the matter. 1 fancy it would have been better if your
client had ascertained whether I did say so and so before
he authorised you to address any geutleman iii such
terms. No doubt, poor fellow, be thought that suck
language was usual amongst gentlemen, and perhaps
such may be considered so at the diggings." This was
the libel and slander complained of. Mr. Hueldleston
submitted that the plaintiff must be non-suited, inasmuch
as there was no libel, and Mat there was privilege and
justification. At the close of the legal argument, his
Lordship directed the case to proceed, and Mr. Huddles.
ton thereupon addressed the Jury for the defence. Be
said that Dr. Distal, groom went to the plaintiff on the
4th of June to be 3 vaccinated, and waited outside until
vveral persons were operated upon. The plaintiff then
came out of the house, got into his gig. and drove away,
the people outside remarking that the doctor had no
more lymph, and that tney intuit coma again next week.
The groom reported this to his master, sod al Dr. Dixon
believed it to be true, there was no slander iu what he
alerwards did. The next week the groom went again
to the plaintiff, who admitted that he called the defen-
dant a " scamping liar," although he travestied the
word '• damn." Mr. Huddleston contended that Dr.
Dixon was perfectly justified in the statements he made
in his speech at the Local Board meeting, and in his
letters, and that there was no ground of action for slander
or libel. Witneesea were called to speak to the language
used by the plaintiff, aud the defendant stated that he
had no malice whatever against the defendant in the
statements he had made. The case was ant concluded
when the Court rose . . .

---
The hearing of this case was resumed at ten o'clock
on Wednesday morning.
Mr. Darby, one of tue members of the Quarry Bank
Board, was called to prove that the plaintiff had brought
an action against him, which was subsequently with-
drawn. The plaintiff then came to him and said he
wished him to give evidence against the present defect.
dant, who, he said, was a"-- old scoundrel."
Mr. Holberton, clerk to the Quarry Bank Local Board,
was Called to prove that the Board were competent to
discuss :old regulate matters affecting the public health,
including vacmaation, and that, therefore, Dr. Dixon was
justified in making use of the observations attributed to
him.

Mr. Iluddleston' in addressing the jury on the whole
case, said that the declaration alleged that plaintiff had
sustained damsge in the loss of his appointment, but the
counsel for the plaintiff had studiously avoided any re-
ference ti this in endeavouring to make out his case.
It was proved that the appointment was given up on May
lith, while the first observations complained of did not
appear until the 4th of June. The answer of the vicar
wan What 1 did say was said bona fide ;it was told me,
arid is perfectly true.- The kerne I counsel animaverted
on tile language which the plaintiff had used to his
servant respecting him.
Mr. Powell having replied, his Lordship summed up
the case at some length, submitting to their considera-
tiou—(l) did Dr. Dixon say ou the 4th of June this
person had celled upon him and stated that he had no
lymph; (2) if so, would the persons who heard him say
so reasonably understand Dr. Dixon's words as in:Tutting
to plaintiffs neglect of his professional duties ; (3) did
Dr. Dixon honestly believe what he said, or was he
actuated by malicious motives; (4) was the letter written
on the 2ud of July ; (5) did Dr. Dixoa honestly
believe what he wrote; (6) were such worda tine; (7)
were any of the word. such as would reasonably be under-
stood to impute to plaintiff that Le had been charged
with offencea punishable by law ' (8) in the letter of the
22nd of Jury was he actuated by • malicious feeling
towards the plaintiff ; (8) were the words in the sprees
of July 22u4 such as might reasonably be understood to
impute to the plaintiff ttialkhe had been guilty of neglect
in professional duty; (1O) were such words true?
The jury retired to consider at half-paat one o'clock,
but at the rising of the Court at five o'clock they were
not agreed. At sir o'clock, however, the partica agreed
to take a verdict either for or against, and the jury Lund
for the plaint,ff—dainages 4us., with uo dncisiou as of
costa.

His Lordship OD Thursday morning. goyt his decision
upon the application of the plaintiffs counsel, for costs
DI this case. The Judge suggested that the plaintiff
should waive costs in the first and third couctv, and he
could certify on the second count.
Mr. Greene, the junior counsel for the plaintiff.
attuded to this arrangetueut, on the underataiut aig that
this would pat so end to all litigation between the parties.
His Lordship then male the required order.