The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1886-05-22 00:00:00

SEQUEL TO THE GREAT TURF
FRAUDS.

The case of Murray v. Brown was tried on Monday
before Mr. Justice Field and a common jury, in the
Queen's Bench Division. It was an action for libel,
the defeßce being that the communication charged
as libellous was privileged. Mr. Murphy, Q.C., Mr.
J. E. Vincent, and Mr. S. Lynch were counsel for the
plaintiff; and Mr. Cock, Q.C., and Mr. S. B.
Abrahams were for the defendants..

Mr. Murphy, in opening the case, said the
action was brought by one -Edwin Murray—a man
who had offended against the law, and who, for so
doing had suffered 18 months' imprisonment with
hard labour—against the defendant, Mr. Alexander
Brown, banker, of Lombard-street, for a false and
malicious libel. The plaintiff, having paid the
penalty for the scandalous fraud of which he had
been convicted, was, when he endeavoured to retrieve
his character and earn an honest livelihood, entitled
to fair play, and he (the learned counsel) wished that
the persons who had at first circulated this libel were
the defendants in the present action. He should state
that the plaintiff and a man named Kurr had, with
others, been convicted for their participation in what
was known as the Goncourt Turf Frauds, and for
which Kurr was sentenced to a term of penal servi-
tude, but got a ticket-of-leave, and in consequence of
his good conduct Mr. Howard Vincent, then at the
head of the Department in Scotland-yard, granted him
the exceptional privilege of allowing him to report
himself periodically by letter instead of personally.
Those, however, who succeeded Mr. Howard
Vincent recalled that permission, and documents
baying come into Kurr 's possession which showed
he had been unfairly treated in the matter, he
was required by the authorities to disclose their
source, which he declined to do, and went off to
Geneva. In the meantime Murray had called at Scot-
land-vard and stated that Kurr was not to blame, that
he (Murray) knew from whence the information was
obtained, but he would not disclose from whom, and
from that moment Murray and Kurr were watched
men, every step they took being dogged by the police.
Murray and Kurr being together at Geneva, set up a
watch business there, feeling it was perfectly possible
to buy watches at a small price there, which could be
profitably sold in England when they were brought
into direct communication with the purchasers, and
this business was carried on under the name of
"Henry Williams and C 0.," and who opened an ac-
count with the defendant's bank in Lombard-street.
They thereupon issued a circular, in which they
stated that a large keyless silver watch would be sold
for £l, and a laay's keyless gold watch at £2, which
they could well do, as the former only cost them 10
' francs, and the other 35 francs, and to this they added
that intending purchasers might, if they so wished,
send them money orders post dated for ten days, so
that they could be stopped if the goods supplied were
not approved of, and which could be returned to them
qt their own cost. Amongst the persons in this
country before whom this circular came was a Mrs.
Humphrey, the wife of a postmaster in a town in
Leicestershire, and it set forth the advantages of deal-
ing with the firm of Williams and Co., on what they
termed as "The Watch Approbation System," and
offering to each purchaser, as a further inducement, a
lottery ticket issued by the Belgian and French Govern-
ments, the happy possessor of the winning number being
thus entitled to from £3OOO to .C5OOO. On this circular
coming under her notice, Mrs. Humphrey forwarded
to the plaintiff two postal orders for £1 each, in re-
turn for which the firm was to send her a gold watch.
On Dec. 19 or 20 last the police authorities issued a
notice which was headed "Convict Office, Scotland-
yard," and which they had certainly no authority to
issue. In that notice they said that it came to the
knowledge of the police of the metropolis that a fraud
was about to be attempted by a gang of notorious
convicts in Switzerland, and went on to warn people
that although they might receive as a sample a good
art'cle at first, worthless ones might follow, and they
would be deceived. He should add that in the
police notice it was stated that the lottery
tickets presented to purchasers of the watches
could only result "in the benefit of the con-
spirators." It was not now alleged that either
Murray or Kerr were guilty of fraud in connection
with this business, for the whole matter had been
investigated before the tribunals at Geneva. This
police notice having been published in the news-
papers, came under the notice of Mrs. Humphrey,
who, feeling uneasy, telegraphed and wrote to the
defendant as the hanker of Williams and Co., direct-
Ing him to stop payment of the postal orders crossed
on the bank, subject to further directions; but on
Dec. 23 she wrote to him telling him to pay the
amount, as she had duly received the watch, with
which she was well satisfied, and she was glad to
say "she had not been taken in." Mr. Brown
however took up this position—he would not give up
these two or some other 29 orders, and at an inter-
view which he had with Mr. Murray, he having a
full knowledge that Mrs. Humphrey had received the
watch and was satisfied with it, called him "a
swindler." The libel charged as having been published
by the defendant was that he had sent one of these
police circulars to Mrs. Humphrey, and when she
declined to answer certain questions that her solicitors
put to her on the matter, they wrote that their client
would bring it before the Post Office authorities, and
she must take the consequences. Under these cir-
cumstances he submitted that the libel was not privi-
leged.
Mr. Justice Field: The defendant has no more
right to publish the notice issued by the police than
if it had been issued by the Lord Chancellor or any
one else.

Mr. Murphy: The question was whether the com-
munication of this police notice was privileged. In
consequence of that notice the plaintiff had to give
up his business.
Mr. Justice Field: The injury done to your client
was by the police.
Mr. Murphy: But the Commissioner of Police is
not responsible.
Mr. Justice Field: Unless you can make out that
the defendant had not reasonable and probable cause
you cannot succeed.
Mr. Murphy: I feel that difficulty, My lord.
Mr. Justice Field: I cannot see that this libel
points to anybody. There is not the slightest trace in
it that either Murray or Kurr was indicated as the
notorious convicts who were about to attempt a fraud.
I hold that as Murray has served his sentence no one
is entitled o libel him, but unless you can show that
the defendant had not reasonable and probable cause
you cannot succeed.
Mr. Murphy: I have advised my client that the
difficulties pointed out by your lordship are insur-
mountable, and therefore he submits to judgment
against him.
Mr. Justice Field, in addressing the jury, said that
it would be most reprehensible if the police interfered
with a man who had undergone his punishment in
earning an honest tiving. Sitting as he had been in
the Central Criminal Court and other courts, he had
never, after taking the greatest pains to inquire into
the matter, found it was a fact that he police hunted
down discharged criminals, although it was generally
imagined that they did so.
The jury then found a verdict for the defendant,
for whom judgment was entered.