The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1880-07-17 00:00:00

THE "MAGPIE" DUDLEY LIBEL CASE.

At the Worcester Assizes, on Tuesday, before
Mr. Justice Fry, Joseph Francis Robinson, clerk
(on bail), Dudley, was charged with unlawfully and
maliciously publishing a defamatory libel in the
Magpie (published at' Wolverhampton) on Samuel
Clifton Timmins, also of Dudley, Mr Kettle
prosecuted. In charging the Grand Jury, his
Lordship said the practice of newspapers devoting
themselves to private matters and gossip, instead of
matters of importance, was on the increase, and it
was to be regretted. If the libel charged was such
as was:calculted to bring the prosecutor into con-
tempt it was a libel, or rather came under the
legal definition of libel.
In toe afternoon the 'Grand Jury returned a true
bill against Robinson, and the trial proceeded. Mr
Ke IVe prosecuted: Mr. Darling defended.
Mr. Kettle, in opening the case, said the prisoner
lived at Dudley, and was a contributor to a satirical
x paper called the Magi. -which was printed in
Wolverhampton and ea, 4,1 eel around Dudley.
On the 17th January the''ii, wing paragraph ap-
peared in that paper under the Dudley head: "The
brother of Hamlet (in barnacles) got down to Jack's
in tie Entry and fell among thieves, who, having
taken 17s 6tl off him, left the purse on the ground.
Next day Sammy called, and the landlord being a
good Samaritan got the sum of 4s. returned, put i
in the purse and gave it to Sammy with , his bless
ing. Well, I always thought horse dealers were
"fly cows." That paragraph was calculated to hold
the prosecutor up to public ridicule arid ' contempt.
Prosecutor had a brother who was very fond cf re-
citing Shakespeare, and went by the name ot
Hamlet. Prosecutor, too, was well known as a
horse dealer. Before the publication of : this para-
graph prisoner met the prosecutor, and asked him,
"How about the purse; was it 17s, • Sammy ?"
Prosecutor said he knew nothine. of what prisoner
was referring to. This clearly showed that prisoner
was the author of the libel. If sach things as these
were permitted to be published no one would be
safe.
James Paulton, printer, Princess A:ley, Queen
Street, Wolverhampton, said he prided the Magpie
in question. On page 5 was the Dudley letter in
which the paragraph complained of was printed. It
was printed frem ALS.; which he believed was in
the handwriting of t!e itrisoner, who wrote under
the nont de plume .
~ k. 03 Man in the Street."
Prisoner was the •.aftit:l 01.: correspondent of the
Mctgpie. The handwriting. from Dudley was not
always the same, He had never seen prisoner write.
- In cross-examination witness said he did not
think the paragraph injurious. The humour was
rather rough, and was not of the polished sort as
printed in Punch or Vanity Fair regarding Mr.
Gladstone.

Mr. Slnutel Clifton Timmins, the prosecu. or
said he was a horse dealer on commission, and lived
in Firs-street, Dudley. One day he was driving
along with-a
.man named Evans, when the prisoner
shouted, "Sammy, how about the purse ?" Subse-
quently he met him in the Dudley Market House
when prisoner again repeated the question. Prose
eutor said, " Come . here ; I don't know what you
mean by that purse." Prisoner asked if he lost 17s
fid, at Jack's in the Entry; and that he got 4s back.
He said he had not, that he did not know what
prisoner was'talking about, and that if he (prisoner)
put him ;n the Magpie he (witness) would commence
an action against him. He had never been in Jack's
entry, or lost his purse and money. He know at
that time that prisoner was a contributor to the
Magpie, After this-the paragraph appeared in the
paper, an he had no doubt it referred to him. He
subsequently met the prisoner, and asked him what
he Meant by this, when he commenced chaffing, and
" Wasn't it 175 6d, ?" There was no truth in
the whole matter, and he did not know where the
place was. lie had a brother who wore spectacle,-,,
and was in the habit of reading Shakespeare for the
benefit of charitable institutions. Cross-examined
The plisoner had sent a Mr. Blackham to say he
would apologise for writing that paragraph. He
would not consult to take the apology now, even if
the Court consented.

William Mane, newsyendor, deposed to selling
a copy of the Magpie to the prosecutor.
- Sergeant Simpson, Dud!ey, said that when he
served the summons on prisoner he slid, st They
have got the wrong Sammy. How can he prove
that 17e is the broiler of Hamlet in Spectacles ?
He had no doubt the paragraph referred to prosecu-
tor. Prisoner admitted writing the paragrapll to
witnes.

Mr. Win. Evans proved that he heard the pri-
soner say to prosecutor, " What about the pur-e,
Sammy ?"
Mr. W. H. Baker, shorthandwriter Dudley, said
he had no doubt the paragraph referred to the pro-
s reutor.

Mr. Darling, for the thfence, complained that,
the prosecutor had not brought a civil act7on against
the prisoner. He argued that tho paragraph wa4
not a libel, and w_ts only intencicd for " chaff" and
fun, and never was intended nor was it calculated
to injure the prosecutor.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty, with a
strong recommendation to mercy, on the ground
that prisoner had offere I to apologi-e. The jury
also added that they thought the prosecutir had
not been injured by the libel.
The Judge said it was a very gross case to libel
people in private life in that manner, and should
meet with the strongest reprobation. The sentence
was one (by's itnprismment and a fine of £2O.