The Express.
London, England, 1863-05-08 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-MAT 7.

Sittings in Berson.—(Bofors Justices Crompton, Blackburn,
and Mellor.)
BRYMIT V. roar (cIass).—MARRIAGE F.
Mr. Prideaux moved for a rule calling upon the plaintiff
to show canoe why the issue settled in this cam by Mr. Jus-
tice Blackburn at chambers should not be amended, or why
the orders made should not be rescinded and the parties re- '
mitted back to the original pleadings, or why all proceed-
ings should not be stayed. This was an action by a pa-
rishioner of Martini, in the county of Backs, against the
rector for refusing to marry
Mr. Justice Crompton—ls the plaintiff the lady or the
gentleman!
Mr. Justice Blackburn—The man and woman were put
forward as plaintiffs, and I prohibited the use of their
names in the squabble with the vestry.
Mr. Prides= said the action was brought and various
pleas pleaded, and, among others, one to the effect that an
immemorial custom prevailed in the parish that a certain
fee should be paid oa the celebration of marriage, and that
the plaintiff had refused to pay it. The case was several
times before Mr. Justice Blackburn, at chambers, who ulti-
mately said it was a am in which the pleadings ought to be
set aside, and an issue in fact tried under the Common Law
Premiere Act. The parties could sot agree on the issue,
and it was afterwards settled by Mr. Justice Blackburn
giving permission to mane to the court if he (Mr. Pricleanz)
was not satisfied with the terms of the issue. He emOdusd
&modification of the issue was necessary, but the learned
judge refused to interfere. He thought it wee a ease that
mold be better disposed of at chambers than in the full
court, _ . _

Juetioe Blackburn said that when the partite were
before him at chamber there was no getting them to epee
to anything. Having once settled the issue he was =-
willing to have the question raised again before him. In
fact he would rather not have anything to do with it, unless
the parties would give the learned counsel absolute power
to act.
Mr. Prideaux said the issue was not in accordance with
the learned judge's order, and did not meet the points In
dilPute. He would undertake that this should be the last
time he would trouble the learned judge, if he would again
entertain the question at chambers.
Mr. Justice Blackburn said that having got rid of the un-
fortunate man and woman from the action, who had
sinoe got married, and having directed an issue to be tried
whether 10a. 6d. was the right and proper marriage fee, and
if not, to let the jury, in the discretion of the judge who
would try the case, soy what was the proper fee, he thought
he had gipveo the parties all that was required.
Mr. Pridrna said the issue between the parties was
whether the fee was 10s. 6d. or 135., 10s. to the clergyman
and 3L to the clerk.
. . . .

It7,aau ately arranged that Mr. Justice Blackburn
should again undertake to settle the matter at chamber,,
Mr. Prideaui undertaking that he would abide by his lord-
ship's decision.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER-MAY 7.

MUM(' in Banco.—(Before LordOhief Baron Pollock and
Barons Margo and Bramwell.)

MAI:MONT AND WRITS O. PAULSON AND 1/1111AND—LIBEL.
This was an action to recover damages for • libel con-
tained in an advertisement published in the Manchester
Examiner, under the heading of " Public-houses to Let,"
stating that persons who wished to take such bonsai
• mut be aware of Mews. Beaumont and White, Surat
brewers, of Staleybridge." The plaintiffs said that the
word "Surat" was generally understood in Manchester to
mean an inferior or adulterated article, and alleged that in
consequence of this advertisement many of their customers
bad ceased to take their beer. It appeared that the adver-
tisement wag taken over the counter in the usual manner,
and paid for, and that the defendants did not know who
was the author. In a subsequent number of the paper
the defendants published an apology to the effect that
they did not understand the meaning of the advertisement,
and that it maimed • very stupid one, but since it
had given annoyance to Messrs. Beaumont and
White they expressed their aroma regret at
its publication, and on the action being brought paid dOs.
into court. At the trial at Liverpool before Mr. Justice
Kontos the jury found that this wu an apology, and that
40• was salt:Mot to compensate for the injury the plaintiffs
had sustained, and returned a verdict for the defendant..
Mr. Edward James, Q.C., on the part of the defendants,
now showed cause against a rule which had been obtained
for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was against
the evidence. He said the person who took the advertise.
ment had no idea that the word " Sant " bore snob • con-
struction as the plaintiffs put upon it, but thought it wan
the name of the brewery. No sooner, however, dal the de
fendanta ascertain that the plaintiffs oomplained of it as
damaging to their business than they inserted in their
paper the apology in question, and they at the same time
wrote a private letter to them, offering, if they were not
satisfied with it and wanted • further apology, to publish
any other reasonable paragraph ; but the defendants sent no
reply and immediately commenced the action.
Tke Lord Chief Baron said if • word with • harmless
meaning signified in the slang phraseology of • particular
neighbourhood something very bitter and aggravating a man
was not bound to know that, and if the defendants pub-
lished the word "Surat" in the advertisement without
being aware of its offensive application they could scarcely
be called upon to make an apology.
Mr. Pope having also been beard on the same side,
Mr. Temple, Q.C., and Mr. Kemplay, who appeared in
support of the rule, contended that as there was ample evi-
dence to prove that the plaintiffs had sustained substantial
damage, the action should be sent down again for trial.
The Lord Chief Baron, in giving judgment, said the court
had an undoubted right, in a cue of libel, to interfere with
the verdict, where the jury found that not to be • libel
which the court would upon demurrer have decided to be
one, but there was more than one instance in which the
courts and judges bad expressed an opinion that this right
ought to be used sparingly and cautiously, and especially on
the question of damages. The court was now of opinion,
looking to the circumstances of this cane, and considering
that the jury might have thought the plaintiffs had contri-
buted to their own loss by selling a bad brew, which they
admitted they bad done on one occ.iaion, that the rule for
a new trial should be discharged.
Rule discharged.

COURT OF PRORATE AND DIVORCE.

MAY 7.
(Wore the Judge Ordinary.)
GILES V. 01128 AND QUAWf LEY.

Mr. Kerslake, Q.C., and Dr. Swabey appeared for the
petitioner ; Dr. Spinks for the respondent.
In 1858, Jobn Giles, a farm labourer, in fiamenietahire,
married Mary Westioott. • young woman in a somewhat
better position in life. In the following year he went to
Australia, in the hope of bettering his condition, and
soon afterwards a ch. d was born to him. During his
absence the wife became housekeeper to James Quartley,
fernier, at West Anstey, and she had a child by him in
August, 1861. Gilee did not return till 1862. The defence
was a plea of desertion and misconduct conducing to the
adultery ;but though the petitioner himself was called, by
permission of the court, no material fact was elicited.
Verdict for the husband ; but the decree was suspended
to enable a private arrangement to be made respecting some
money to which the respondent had 'unneeded, and which
the petitioner had not reduced to pommies.