The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1886-11-27 00:00:00

ACTION AGAINST THE LORD CHIRB

JUSTICE.

In the Queen's Bench Division Mr. Justice Denman
and a special jury have been engaged for more than a
week trying the case of Adams v. Lord Coleridge and
another. This was an action to recover damages for
some alleged libels, and it arose out of matters which
have already attracted considerable attention. The
plaintiff, in his statement of claim, set out that he was
by profession a journalist, and engaged in the business
of a newspaper proprietor. The first-named defen-
dant, Lord Coleridge, was the Lord Chief Justice of
England, and father-in-law of the plaintiff; and the
other defendant, the Honourable Bernard Coleridge,
was the eldest son of Lord Coleridge. He further said
that at the time of the publication of the libels com-
plained of certain legal matters were pendiag between
the plaintiff and the defendants, which by mutual
consent had been referred to arbitration,
and such matters were actually under the con-
sideration of the arbitrator. The libels com-
plained of consisted of documents purporting to
be copies of letters passing from and to various per-
sons, and an extract or extracts from a foreign news-
paper. The plaintiff alleged that about the first week
of July the defendants, without the knowledge of the
plaintiff, and with the object of wrongfully influencing
the arbitrator's judgment in the award, forwarded to
the said arbitrator the said documents, which con-
tained false and malicious statements concerning the
plaintiff. In conclusion the plaintiff claimed £20,000
damages; and he also asked for an injunction to
restrain the defendants from a repetition of the libels.
Lord Coleridge, in answer to this, pleaded deaying the
publication, and denying also the meanings attributed
to the words. He also denied that any of the documents
complained, of had been published; by his authority.
He further said that while the previous action of libel
was pending between the plaintiff and the defendants,
the latter delivered all the documents then in their
possession referring to the relations between them-
selves and the plaintiff to the defendants' solicitor, Mr.
Charles Harrison, as their professional adviser, for
the purpose of putting him into possession of all
matters of fact connected with the said action for
libel, and among the documents so delivered were
those set out as libels with the exception ot those in
the sub-divisions G and H. The documents were sent
direct by the Hon. Stephen Coleridge to the said
Charles Harrison, and were never in the actual pos-
session of the defendants. The matters in dispute
were referred to Lord Monkswell as arbitrator, and
thereupon the letters and other documents bearing
upon the determination of the case submitted, had to
be placed before the arbitrator for the purpose of
being considered by him as evidence, and the fact was
that copies of the said letters and documents set out
in the statement of the claim were inadvertently
(through the mistake of a clerk in the service of the
defendants' said solicitor) forwarded to be placed
before the said arbitrator. Such documents,
however, were never intended to be for-
warded or to be placed before Lord Monks-
well, and as soon as the aforesaid inadvertent de-
livery of the copies of the letters and documents was
discovered Mr. Harrison applied for permission to
withdraw the same from his possession, which was
granted before the making of his award, and without
the contents of the said letters and documents having
affected or influenced the judgment of Lord Monks-
well in making the award. Beyond this it was said
that there never was any intention on the part of any-
body to publish the said letters and documents. In
conclusion, it was said that if there had been any
publication it was made in good faith and without
malice, and such publication was a privileged com-
munication. The defendant, the Hon. Bernard Cole-
ri ige, among other things, pleaded that the documents
complained of were never in his custody or control,
and if they were forwarded to Lord Monkswell it was
done without his knowledge or sanction, and contrary
to his express request.
Several peers have been called as witnesses in the
case, and on Saturday last the plaintiff himself was
under cross-examination. He admitted that at the
time his engagement with Miss Coleridge was made
he was not making an income sufficient to maintain a
wife in her position. He also acknowledged that
Lord Coleridge had since June last year paid his
daughter £6OO a year under the deed of settlement.
A letter written to Lord Monkswell was read, in
which Mr. Adams denounced the action of those on
the defendant's side who were responsible for sending
to the arbitrator documents of which copies had not
been furnished to him, and in reply to counsel said
he deliberately accused those concerned in that sup.
pression with fraud. The documents in question, it
was explained, had been sent to Lord Monkswell by
inadvertence and without Lord Coleridge'a knowledge,
and they were withdrawn, the arbitrator stating that
in law they were irrelevant.
On Monday the defence was opened by Sir H.
James, who expressed his conviction that the lurj
would come to the conclusion that Lord Coleridge
had acted according to the dictates of a man of honour
Lord Coleridge was then called and examined by Sii
C. Russell. A memorandum written three years a 2
by his lordship, whiah formed one of the two grounds
of the action, was read. In this his lordship stated
that, although Mr. Adams had engaged himself to
his daughter without even asking for his sanction, if
he would only show that he was in earnest in desiring
to acquire the means of marriage, he would at once
settle £3OO a year on his daughter for life. In his
reply Mr. Adams rejected the proposal " unhesitat-
ingly without discussion and without reserve," and
threw upon Lord Coleridge "the responsibility of
whatever untoward consequence might ensue." Lord
Coleridge's examination had not concluded at the
ritina of the Court.
onlw-day Lord Coleridge was further caammea.
He declared that there was not. the least foundation
for the suggestion that he had suppressed anything,
or that he had authorised any one to send any of the
confidential letters to the arbitrator. His lordship
was cross-examined by Mr. Adams in great detail.
mainly upon the question of the letters, and upon his
sta#ements, founded upon what Miss Cobbe had told
his lordship, who had since withdrawn them tlat Mr.
Adams had been in a darkened room with Mies Cole-
ridge. Pressed by several questions from the pl.aintiff,
I Lord Coleridge said he had never dreamed of
breathing the smallest atom of aspersion upon his
daughter's character. After the plaintiff had been
repo Itedly reminded that his questions were irrele-
vant by Mr. Justice Denman, who said it was not
cross-examination, but persecution, the jury expressed
the opinion that the auestions put were apart from
the issue altogether. Mr. Adams at once closed his
cross-examination. Mr. Harrison having explained
bow the documents complained of were inadvertently
sently sent to Lord Monkswell, the hearing was again
adjourned.

MASSACRE OF FRENCH SEAMEN IN
THE RED SEA.
ADEN, Nov. 22.
The captain and seven men of the crew of the
French war vessel Pengouin have been massacred by
the Eessah Somaulis at Ambadu, where they had
landed to obtain a supply of water.