The Express.
London, England, 1864-11-05 00:00:00

DOWNING s. WISEMAN.

This was enaction for libel tried before the Lord Chief.Ttn-
bee in hl latilmiez in May last. when the jury returoed a verdict
for the plaiutitf. deniams 10/. The plaintiff, a young Mtn
wider age, wee a draper's assistant, and the defendant
was • draper carrying on business at Lowestoft.
The plaintiff had Leen in the defendant's employ.
and diseivirged by him. He afterwards applied to Mr.
Guy. draper, io the :titresd, frff a situattoo, upon which
Mrs. Guy, who is a relative of Mrs. Wiseman, wrote for ha
character, aid to her inquiries the defendant wrote the
letter complained of. The ktter, amongst other things,
stated that the plaintiff had lived with the defendant four
months. and proceeded—" Where he got his ref erisoce from
I cannot say. I gave him one, nor would I, only that
be is a thief. He stole both money and geode; the goods
be stole were principally mark for his own wear. The
money he stole I suppers was at meal times. I should
think be robbed me of 5/. or 61. of money." There was
another passage He robbed me of from 3s. to 6.. per
day. rakish he spent for sweets and jewellery, as all other
lads do ; my cash account never mine right until after Le
left we, sud then all in the shop seemed to know all about
it." The defendant pleaded sat guilty, and also a
justiboatioo, which latter was withdrawn on the
trial. 'I he p'.aitit:ff, in his evidence, admitted that
be had au attachment towards one of the females
in the shop, to whom he made trifling promote, sonic
of whisk Me mother paid for. He had a few articles out of
the shop which were stopped out of his wages. On the
trial the letter, it was coutetdrd, was • privileged cannon.
nicatios, sod the defendant deposed that during the time
the plaiutiff was with him be fiequestly found the cash
short, but Le bad no other grounds for charging the plaintiff
with tailing .t Other thou that Le dressed and that
aft. rL. left the cash account was not wrong. He charged
tic platatill with taking the money, but be denied it, and
when he discharged him he told him be was ton fast for him
out of the shop, but not fest enough in it. Wheu he was
leaving 1441m:rut saw some scarfs in Lis mom, and an
arc-mit ras struck between them and settled; defendant
said there had bees disputes between him and his wife
about hoe taking money oat of thy till, thtuzli
she afterwards acconoted for it. Ile believed the
couttot. of the letter to be true, and be told
the plaintiff when be left be would rot give him a
ehairct,r. i:vidence was th• n called for the plaintiff to
rebut the defendatit'e insieuations against him, and the
young woman who acted as cashier Oster of the young
Wothati for WI he had an attachment) gave at as her
• that he could not have takes any moire, from the
• ,ii•• said that the defendant and his wife would
both ../ t...: take looney from the till and soy thee
mare It all right at sight, but they did not. The Lord
Chit? Ja aae left it to the jory to say if they considered the
defetolaut in.ted bow: Ole, het their verdict Wee adverse to
that VIC., of the .iu.ati-o. Sabsequently Mr. Bolwer, for
tLe defendant, uLtaitat 1 a ruse for a new trial ou the ground
of the latter being a privileged communication and written
in rood f. it h.

Mr. D. Seymour, QC. (with whom w•as Mr. J. 0.
Graffito). sh.m..l rause Egasuot the rule. 110 eoutemled
the Imam tiara of the untie' eau a qumtion rowel! for the
jury. Ile hoped toe (-nut vuauld Lot deport from the role
at coml. low to grout new Melo where the damaogeo
were ut ak!. uuleos under very peculiar and eztrocol-
bar, Lira...in...Luxe., such os dial not rxibt in Om cane.

1;:lwer, iu support of the rule.urgeri that this ass just
ewe ..1 thew cases ',bete the tole should he departed flow.
It as pleAtle.l3 of the greatest importance, red deserviug
of ftIrLS er invcstiguti• w.
Tic Iz•rd Chief Justice said he thought the rule must
apply an this case. Though strongly oppoed to it, he d.d
out think tl e verdict could be cried a leiverae oue. 1:
Was '4O •rtuuate the defeudant did not have a special j
in %Lich rase N0...1i1y they would have gives a vettlici f. r
the al. Voilaut, or have aims heavier damages, ill which raw
the rola. referred to would hot apply, sad there would Lae.,
bees a ride for a bow trial. He did all ho could on the trial,
eonatateld aotla ins duty, to uphold theta commando:dims
behaves, parties relative to the characters of wrvar,ta, be.
muse he sew the extreme danger peewee would h, liable to
in arti..g bona fide if they ware to be subjected to actions for
libel, and have to pay damages for busing expressed them-
selves a little too strongly. If the defeualaut had merely
stated II at be discharged the plaistolf because he be.
lieved he 11,41 a thief, he would not have heen liable ; but
be was inellued to think the verdict was giveu against the
defeudsot in cussequesce of his having failed to prove his
justiticatiou. _

Mr. Bulwer said that was unfortunately pleaded, but on
the trial he dropped it 10 soon as be could. (Laughter.)
The Lord Chief Justice—Yee, but Mr. Seymour made the
tenet of it, and no doubt got a verdict by it. He well shook
it in the laces of the jury.
After some further argument,
The Lord f•hief Justice said be sincerely regretted that
the rule alluded to interfered with their granting a rule in
this rase. He inhowitatingly stated that be was thoroughly
disisetisrioi with the verdict, although he could not sac,
seder all the eircumstseerir, that it was a perverse cue. It
the defendant Awl confined his remarks to his boos fide
belief that the plaintiff had committed potty theft, both of