The Express.
London, England, 1867-02-08 00:00:00

COURT OF QtTMPS BENCH.-FEB. 7.

After Term Nisi Nitta Sittings.—(Before the Lord Chief
Justice and Special Juries.)
STRAUSS V. FRANCIM. -LIBEL.

This was an action for libel against the Atheneum.
Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., Dr. Keneally, and Mr. Hodgson
were counsel for the plaintiff ; Mr. Denman, Q.C., and Mr.
Joyce were counsel fur the defendant.
blr. Coleridge, in stating the case to the jury, said the
plaintiff, Dr. Strauss, was a gentleman well known, he be-
lieved, in the literary world, and of considerable attain-
ments in various branches of literature, with a large com-
mand of foreign languages. The plaintiff hail been en-
gaged throughout his life in literary pursuits, and be be-
lieved up to this time without the shadow of a stain upon
his reputation. The plaintiff produced some time since a
novel, called " The Old Ledger," which he sold to Messrs.
Tinsley. The Atheneum published a criticism on that
work, and was the subject of an action for libel. It
came on for trial at Kingston before Lord Chief Justice
Erie, and was arranged by the withdrawal of a juror.
After that the Atheneum republished the libel with com-
ments on the trial, making the matter ten times worse than
it was before the action was brought in the first instance,
The Atheirmara was a paper conducted by many literary
men. It was a publication from which the public derived
weekly a great deal of amusement and information ; and
so long as it kept within the limits which the law pre-
scribed relative so the liberty of the press in this country,
let it go on and prayer ; but valuable as they must all
feel the liberty of the press to be it must not be allowed
to degenerate intolicentiousness, and, under the guise of the
discharge of literary duties, be made a °over for malignant
and malicious attacks from private feelings. The Atheneum
having declined to give up the author of the libel this
action bad to be brought against the defendant, the
printer and publisher. The first libel appeared on 13th
January, 1866, and in reviewing the publication it stated
that "Our first impresaion on opening it was that so many
italics and inverted commas were never congregated in
such • space before. Our last, that it is the worst attempt
at a novel that has ever been perpetrated." The article
went on to charge the work so being an abominable one,
containing an amount of bad French, Latin, German, and
English, and vulgarity, profanity, indelicacy, inanity,
and self-complacency, with a perpetual recurrence of abuse,
or, as the plaintiff more euphoniously described it, slightly
discursive reflections on men living and dead wholly uncon-
nected with the subject. The learned counsel said this
was no doubt the expressions of opinion of some smart
young gentleman who was fleshing his maiden sword, and
who thought to put down a writer by the wave of the
plume of the Atheneum goose feather. Persons who write
must submit to beririticise4l. Critics could not be expected
to be, and it was hoped they would not be, particularly
mealy-mouthed, and if a critic wanted to say anything
smart in reference to literature or art let him do so, but
let it be after he had carefully considered the subject,
and without illfeeling, otherwise it was very much like
the story of the frogs—fun to him, but death to the
unhappy persons whose works might be under review.
Now, in this article the writer in the Atheneum
had not only thought proper to comment on
what took place at the trial, but had repub-
lished the first libel, and added further comments,
which the plaintiff considered libellous. The learned
counsel then read the article in extensor, and in conclusion
said he should put the plaintiff into the box, and give the
defendant an opportunity of cross-examining him, and. If
possible, show there was • justification for the second
libel, which was published on the 13th of April without
any fresh offence having been committed by the plaintiff.
It was an unprovoked attack on the part of the At.a4rust,
showing an amount of soreness of feeling and a personal
vindictiveness and spite which they ought not, in the paid.
tion they held in the literary world, to have permitted to
have sullied their pages.
The publication of the article was admitted. Dr.
Strauss deposed that be was a Canadian by birth, but
lived in Germany from 8 years to 19 years of age. Since
then he had travelled in various countries, and had
resided, more or less, about 26 years in this country. He
was a translator and interpreter of languages and a
writer. He obtained his living by those means. He
had edited many scientific periodicals in this country,
and was the author of • French and also a German gram-
mar. He was the special correspondent of the Daily
Tdefeup4 during the late continental war, and he had also
conducted the French correspondence of mercantile
houses. Ile was the author of the three volume novel,
" The Old Ledger." He sold the first edition of 500 copies
to Messrs. Tinsley Brothers, reserving the second edition
to himself. No more copies were asked for after the pub-
lication of the first libel.

The Lord Chief Justice said the case would turn on the
book. It would be impossible for the jury to do justice to
the case unless the book was put in.
Dr. Kcneally said he did not go on the first libel.
Mr. Denman said he would put in the book if the plaintiff
declined.

Dr. Keneally declined to put in the book.
Dr. Strauss wee croes.ezamined by Mr. Denman. He
said be received 751. from Mown,. Tinsley for the first
edition of the work. A second edition was not coiled for.
He did not send or order the book to be sent to the
Allirntruns.

Evidence was then given to show that the quotations
in the book were in very good French and German. There
were some typographical errors which were intentional,
such as a Russian character speaking French.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. Denman submitted that an action for libel on the
criticism of a book—a comment on the work without any
personal allusions to the author of an offensive character—
did not lie, and also that the other part of the article
was a bona Me report of the 'proceedings at the trial, and
that the objectionable part of that article, that the with-
drawal of a juror VMS from the knowledge which the de-
fendant possessed of the plaintiff's means, that if they
got the verdict, all they would get would be their costs
on
per.
Chief Justice said he would reserve the • int
if necessary. He agreed that the fair criticism of a • ..k
was not the subject of a libeL
Mr. Denman, in opening the defendant's case, said that
many important principles were involved relative to
comments on literary productions, and what took place in
courts of justice. The plaintiff had brought his action
for the original article which described the book certainly
in strong language, but not at all unfairly, or in such
language as a fair and honest critic, applying
his mind to the contents of the book, would use.
The plaintiff also had brought the action for the damages
he had sustained by the remark in the article on the trial
relative to the probability of the defendant not getting
his costs. Lord Ellenborough had laid down, so long ago
as 180$, that every man who published • book oomuutted
himself to the judgment of the public, and that true, ho-
nest, and fair criticism, so long as it did not follow the
author into his domestic life, was allowable. It would
appear that as soon as the book was published it was for-
warded to the At/armrest for the purpose of criticism.
The Athenment possessed a high reputation, as being •
publication which guided the public in their avoidance of
idle and foolish productions—a publication which was
highly necessary when they considered the number of