The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1880-05-15 00:00:00

THE CHARGE OF MBE:. AGAINST- A MEM-
BER OF TIIE STOURBRIDGE BOARD OF

GUARDIANS.
At the Brierley Hill Police Court, on Thursday,
before Mr., Had in Coiser, Deputy-Stipendiary, Mr,
E. It. Hale, of Pensuett, a member ofi the Stour-
bridge Board of Guardians, appeared n answer to a
summons taken out againv, him by
.11Ir: Reuben
Plant, of Wordsley, charging him with baying ua.
lawfully, wickedly, and maliciously published a
false, scandalous, and defamatory libel concerni ig
the sAid Bfruben Plant, knowing it to be false.
Mr. G. S. Plant (B:rtninelani) appeared to prose-
cute, and Mr. T. Homer defended,
a,nry Billingham, vice-chairman of the
Stourbridge Board of Guardians, and Ur. Georve
Holloway, the late clerk of the same body, were
both present in Court.
ML.. Plant, in opening he case for the prosecution,
said tli;atit•ged libel was contained in he publica-
tion of a handbill which had been read by the Clerk.
(It w.;s as follows:—' Wordsley ward. Plump fur
E. R. Hale, working man's friend, and the true
friend of economy. '
D-n't vote for Plant, who
wanted to. stop the poor in the Union having the
usual Chnstmas diauer, but who would Tote £lOO to

heat the Boardroom once a week for his own com-
fort. Sign your initials opposite Hale only, and
and sign your name below.") Mr. Plant, continu-
ing his opening statement, said the 10th of April
last was appointed as the day for the election of
Guardians to serve the Stourbridge Union. In
Wordsley ward there was a contest, Mr. Plant, Mr.
Hale, the defendant, and others, being candidates.
On the day prior to the election the voting papers
were delivered to voters that they might make their
mark opposite thel names of the candidates for whom
they intended to vote. The papers having been duly
delivered on the evening of that day, defendant was
seen at Wordsley with a quantity of bills such as
those read, and he engaged persons to distribute
similar bills amongst the voters. He (Mr. Plant)
should be able to prove most conclusively that the
matter was published by defendant, and the only
question to be decided was whether the handbill
was or was not libellous. Prosecutor had been a
member of the Board of Guardians for many years,
and had previously been elected for Wordsley ward
by a majority, therefore it was a question whether
the publication of the handbill was not calculated to
expose him to hotred, ridicule, and contempt. After
it had been issued he was for the first time rejected
by the ward referred,to since he had offered himself
for election, and he did not think the Deputy-Sti-
pendiary would have any hesitation in coming to
the conclusien that it was in consequence of the
pablication of the bill that prosecutor was refuQed by
tee voters as their representative. On the one hand
he wee represented as being so niggardly a man as
to wish to deprive the poor of the Union of their
Christmas dinner, and on the other hand lie was
suppo.ed to be so prodigal when his own comfort
was brought into consideration that he was desirous
of voting .£lOO of the ratepayers' money for the sake
of heating the Boardroom. He (the speaker) could
not conceive anything more calculated to expose
his client to the contempt and ridicule of poor per-
sons.

Thomas Edwards, a youth, living in Barnett
Street, Wordsley, was then called, and stated that
on the -9th of April he saw !he def.nda.nt standing
the top of Chapel S.reet, Wordsley, with a number
of bills, Witness asked defendant for a bill, to
which he replied that witnAs might distribute some
bilis.for Ern. Witness said he would do so, and
.detendant said he would find him a coplyr or two, at
the same time giving hiql 3d and about four dozen
bids siinilar to the one produced, and which witness
a„:co:dingly distributid.
A. Rowbottom, a boy residing in "Rr'ef ory Street,
Wordsley, said on the evening of the Parliamentary
election at Wordsley, he was standing by the Cat
public-house, and saw defendant with a number of
papers. Defendant asked a boy named Edwards to
go around Buckpool and distribute some of the
papers he had, but as he refused, witness said he
would go. Afterwards, defendant gave witness a
qumtity of bills the same as the one produced of
which he distributed about eight dozen, and was
afterwards paid for doing so by defendant.
'Reuben Plant, the piosecutor, :was next called,
and stated that he was a mining engineer by pro-
fession, and at the last election of Guardians for
Stourbridge Union he was the only candidate of the
name of Flint.

Mr. Homer here submitted that there was no case
to answer, and.that there was no evidence that pro-
secutor was the person intended to be ridiculed 14
the publishing of the bills.
Mr. Corser : He is not charged with that.
Mr. Homer: My point is that inasmuch as Mr.
Plant has not called evidence to prove that prose-
cutor was the person referred to in the bill, there is
no case. _

The Deputy-Stipendiary having ruled against
Mr. Homer on this point, prosecutor was cross-
examined by Mr. Homer. He denied that he was
an advocate for stopping the poor people in the
Workhouse having their Christmas dinner. The
tirst time it was proposed to give it to them he
thoroughly agreed with the proposition. He was
rattler in favour of those outside the Union having
the dinner extended to them.

Mr. homer: Did you, Sift meeting of the Board
subsequent to the dinner, say that you hoped it would
be discontinued unless extended to the poor outside
the Workhouse?
Witness: That is putting it in a very naked form.
The witness then had a nawspaper report hunded to
him, from which he read remarks attributed to him
to the effect "That he hoped on future Christmas
Days .he feast would be discontinued unless ex-
tended to those outside the Workhouse, as many
outside were not so well fed as the inmates."
Witness, after reading the report said he could not
swear ihat those were his exaA words, He used
words to that effect, and they u ere according to his
feeling. On the Ith of October tenders were
received by the Board tor laying down pipes to heat
with hot water a blo k of buildings, of which the
Boardroom formed a part. Witness moved that the
tender of Mr. Patchett be accepted. Mr. Hale
mo-:ed an amendment, which was carlied. The
tender of Mr. Patchett a.nounted :o £3B.
Mr. Homer objected to tne amount of tender be-
ing received, unless the original tender was put in.
He (Mr. Homer) submitted that there had been no
evidence to connect prosecutor with the bill pro-
duced.
Mr. Corser said he di.l not think there was bound
to be evidence of malice, and he thought, as far as
the bill produced went, it was evidence. He
thou.o4 it shoud first be proved whether it was
libelous in point of law, and, secondly whether the
publicition could be traced to the defendant.
Mr. Homer: Can that bid, issued at the time of
an election, be taken to be libellous?
Mr. Corser : I think it is calculated to hold a than
up to contempt. I consider there is sufficient
evidence on the face of the document before me to
to put def-ndant upon his trial. I consider also that
the puLlication of the document, which is sufficient
to put him upon his trial, is also traced to defendant.
.Defendant, on being formally charged, offered to
make a statement, and was proeeeding to refer to a
Mr Sheward, when Mr. H .me,r said inasmuCh as
Mr. Sieward had not been called he did not think
it right that a statement should be made about him.
Defendant: Then I here nothing more to say.
The Deputy Slipendiary then, before formally
committing defendant for trial at the Assizes,
adjeurned the case for a week in order that the
depositions might be completed.
A remark was made by Mr. Homer to the effect
that it would not be necessary for defendant to be
formally committed.