The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1886-11-06 00:00:00

THE ARMSTRONG CASE.

The Queen's Bench case of "Broughton and Wife
v. Squire," tried on Tuesday, before Justice Manisty
and a common jury, arose out of the Eliza Armstrong
ease and it was an action of libel founded upon the
publication of a pamphlet called "The Maiden
Tribate of Modern Babylon." The defendant by his
pleadings traversed various allegations of the plaintiff,
and he also pleaded that the words complained of
were originally printed in the Pall Mall Gazette in
the course of dealing with a matter of public interest
for the purpose of exciting public feeling in favour of
a bill that was then passing through Parliament, and,
which dealt with the matters referred to in the pam-
phlet. -
Mr. Crispe and Mr. Rose Innes were for the plain-
tiff, and Mr. G. M. Cohan for the defendant.

Mr. Crispe, in opening the case, said that the
plaintiff, Mr. John Broughton, had for many years
worked for the Stokes. A secretary to the
Marylebone Association for improving the dwellings
of the working classes aid he had all his life held
a very respectable position. He had lived in Charles-
street, Lisson-grove, for three or four years, and,
prior to that, he lived for eight or 10 years in one
place of residence. The action was to recover com•
pensation for the injuries which he had sustained in
consequence of a libel of an atrocious character.
Originally the action was brought in the name of Mrs.
Broughton, his wife, she being primarily affected by
the libel, which, to speak briefly, accused her of being
a brothel-keeper and also of being a proeuress. It
was unfortunate that she had died since the action
was brought, but Mr. Broughton had a right of action
still remaining in him as an original plaintiff, because
the offence charged was an indictable offence, and
Mr. Broughton might, as well as his wife, have been
indicted for keeping a disorderly house.
Evidence was given to show the publication of the
pamphlet, which was entitled "The Maiden Tribute
of Modern Babylon," at 3, Red Lion-passage, and that
the defendant's name was over the door. In the
course of this evidence it was said that Mr. and Mrs.
Broughton had brought an action for the publication
of this matter against the Pall Mall Gazette, and a
sum of money was paid to the plaintiffs to settle that
proceeding.
Mr. Jonn Broughton, the plaintiff, who described
himself as a labourer, was called, and ho spoke to
Mrs. Jarrett calling at his place as to engaging a ser-
vant. Jane Farrer was first spoken to, but she was
too old. She was 18 or 19. Eliza Armstrong was
afterwards spoken to, and she was engaged as a ser-
vant to go to Wimbledon, and she went away.
After this was there any disturbance outside your
place? I have been abused by people all over the
world. It was said that my wife had sold a child for
£5. Whilst my wife was dying my windows were
broken. He could not go out without being called
after, and he became ashamed to go out. At his
wife's funeral people called out, "It is a good job she
is gone; she will not sell any more children."
Cross-examined: He was paid £2OO for the settle-
ment of the action which he brought against the Pall
Mall Gazette. In the article no name is mentioned;
what is there to connect it with your wife? Every-
body said it referred to my wife. He could not read
himself, but the people read out that it referred to
to Charles-street and to Mrs. Broughton.
After some further evidence.

Inspector Borner deposed as to the proceedings at
the Old Bailey in connection with the prosecution
there, and this completed the ewe for the plaintiff.
Mr. Cohen submitted that there was no evidence to
go to the jury to prove publication of the alleged libel
by the defendant; that it had not been proved that
the publication referred to the plaintiff; and that Mrs.
Brougton being dead there was no cause of action on
the part of her husband.
Mr. Justice Manisty, after argument, said he thought
thac the case must go to the jury.
Mr. Cohen, in answer to his lordship, said that he
should under the circumstances call no witnesses for
the defence, and Mr. Crispe then summed up for the
plaintiff.
Mr. Cohen, in addressing the jury, submitted to
them that there was no evidence upon which they
could safely find that the pamphlet had been pub-
lished by the defendant; and, this being so, that he
was entitled to their verdict.

Mr. Justice Manisty, in summing up, observed that
the jury no doubt, like most oler people, had heard
of the shocking exhibition that took place during
some days in the streets of London last year by the
publication of the statements which had been re-
ferred to in this case. These publications contained
such horrible details as to have established a state of
things that he trusted would never be permitted
again. He trusted that those who were responsible
for the administration of tha law would take care that
such a gross ou:rage should not be committed again.
But with all that now they had nothing to do, save
that except so far as the evidence in this case might
satisfy them that this pamphlet was published by the
defendant, and largely sold in the streets of London in
and through the month of July in last year.
A juror: The plaintift'Fi counsel had said that he
had brought the action in order to clear his character,
but he had already received damages from the Pall
Mall Gazette.

Mr. Justice,Nanistv ri9 did not clear his cha-
racter then; ticr s_t coor7
The jury retired ,Lisider the subject, but having
been locked up for nearly two and a half hours, they
were in the end discharged without being able to
agree upon a verdict.