The Express.
London, England, 1866-11-10 00:00:00

tala Nnteitigence.

BAIL COURT.—Nov. 9.
littings at Nisi Pri?s.-_-(Before Mr. !Justice Blackburn

sad • COmmon Jury.)

NORRIS AND run N. MUTH AND 01111811.—LIBM.
This was an action brought againstthe proprietors of the
Daily Tekgraph newspaper to recover compensation in
damages for libel The defies:Lots pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Digby Seymour, Q.C. sad Mr. Russell were counsel
for the plaintiffs ; Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., for the defendants.
It appeared froze the opening statement of the learned
counsel that the plaintiff's wife had been • governess in
various English and continental families of distinction.
She was subsequently married to the plaintiff, and on the
27th of March last, whilst he was ill in bed, his
attention was called to an advertisement in the
Daily Tekgraph of that date, referring to his
wife, whose maiden name was Ellen Frances Bearden.
It was in the following terms " Ellen Franca. Ramadan,
governor at Madame Orcheska's, sent two children to •
poor Russian woman, one in 1858, the other in 1861, both
of them afflicted. At the time the second one was sent
she was at Madame O'Flarty's, an Irish family. She paid
for them for some time, promising soon to release me of
them, but hoped they would die, as they were b a relative.
Not having kept her promise, would be th to any
one who would give information that would lead to her
discovery, by letter to Madame de Schikler, 17, Place
Vendome, Paris. Her appearance elderly, tall, thin, false
hair and teeth, melancholy countenance." The plaintiff
went immediately to the office of the newspaper, and
complained of the publication of so foul a libel,
upon which he was offered an apology. The learned
counsel concluded by remarking that this was a case in-
volving consequences too serious for him to accept a verdict
for nominal, damages and an apology. The libel was one of
so gross a nature, and the negligence on the part of the
defendants in inserting it so great, that he called upon the
jury to give the plaintiff substantial damages.
The libel was put in and read.
That was the plaintiffs' case.
The defendants called no witnesses.
Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., addressed the jury on behalf of the
defendants. He said the insertion of the advertisement
was owing to the carelessness of • clerk who was formerly
in the empploy of the defendants, but who had now been
discharged in consequence. It was • mere inadvertence
that would occur in any business establishment, and the
libel itself the proprietors knew nothing about. Imme-
diately the plaintiff applied to them they offered to insert
an apology, dictated by himself or his attorney, in the moat
conspicuous part of the paper. That offer was not ac-
cepted, and be thought that it had been refused for more
purposes than for the benefits of the plaintiffs. The
learned counsel concluded by saying that he was in-
structed now to offer the most heartfelt regret for any
injuryprieto tharst
of the
the n plaintiffs might
were ave suffered, and
hetha the
proewspaper willing at present
moment to carry out the offer they had made—that of in-
-1 meting an ample apology. A verdict of 40s. would entail
upon the defendants the necessity of paying the whole of
the costs-1001. at least, and he thought that was sufficient
to meet the justice of the case.
The learned Judge, in summing up, told the jury the
question for them to decide was one entirely of how much
damages the plaintiffs were entitled to. The libel in ques-
tion was not one of a alight character ; it was one imputing
immorality to the plaintiff's wife. It was purely a ques-
tion for them, and they would decide what amount of
damages the plaintiffs were entitled to.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs—damages,
501., and suggested that the learned judge should request
that a report of the case be inserted in the Daily Telegraph
newspaper.
The learned Judge remarked that he could make no such
request ; the proprietors of the paper would use their own
discretion.