The Express.
London, England, 1860-06-29 00:00:00

We, JUNE.

tm inttiligtnct.
---
COURT OF QUEENS BENCH.—Jingz 28.

Sittings at Niai Pritts for Lauda& —(Before the Lord Chief
Justice sad Special aria.)

V.
This was an action by
.the plaintiff, Algernon John
Hearne, • gold printer on business at Buinghall-
street, against the defendant, who is the printer of the
Morning Star newspaper, to recover damages for the publi-
cation of an article on the 24th of May, 1859, which pur-
ported to be • fair commentary on certain proceedings
su in
the Divorce Court, wherein the plaintiff ea
respondent and his wife as petitioner, but which in reality
amounted to an illegitimate criticism on the facts of the
I case as they were developed at the hearing of the petition,
and to a tampering with these flute.
It appeared that the plaintiff and his wife Mary Ann were
married in August, 1846, and that after having cohabited
together until March,lBs4,at Charles-street, Hatton-garden,
at 24, Red lion-street, and at 2, Church-plain, Covent-
the plaintiff left his wife, because, alleged by him,
rarsdas
wife acknowledged herself to be guilty of infidelity.
However, in the following month of October, the plaintiff
Hearne falling ill he was visited by his wife, who remained
with him at his lodgings in WertmorelateLplace, in the City
of London, for the purpose of nursing him. Recovering his
health, the plaintiff again separated from his wife because,
as he to-day declared, of his having discovered that during
his illness she had renewed her former practice of visiting
places of pnblic amusement, such as the Canterbury HalL
aooompanW by a gentleman. Between that and Christmas,
1867, the plaintiff frequently saw his wife and contributed
certain small sums from time to tins, for her support, but
from that time forward he did not do so. In October,
1856, the plaintiff MU charged with having struck his wit;
• blow, whereby her eye was blackened, and after
• lapse of two years or more from his hay-
ing finally separated from her, he admits he
formed a connexion with a woman named Book*
by whom he has had two children. In Aummt,
18198 the wife petitioned for a divorce, on the ground of his
edaltery with the woman Buckle, coupled with cruelty and
desertion. The petition came on to be heard on the 23rd of
May, 1869, before the Judge Ordinary, Lord Campbell, and
Mr. Harm Martin. The plaintiff filed affidavits in answer
to hie wife's petition, but he did not appear either by mini.
sal or in person at the hearing, inasmuch as he was advised
by his legal adviser that if he were to do so, and produce
the evidence in his power, he would defeat the object he had
in view, which was the ambition of hie maniage. The
proof of the adultsagwas sammough, but the only act of
enmity provable the single blow struck in October,
1866, while up to Christmas, 1857, it was shown that the
plaintiff had mace his wife • weekly allowance,
all the court would rent was a decree for judicial
separation, niudemning, however, the husband, as is
usual, to the payment of the cost.. This being so,
on the following day, the 24th, the Morning Star news-
paper published • short report of the proceedings in
"Hearne v. Hearne," which stated that a petition had been
presented by the wife for a divorce on the ground of her
husband's adultery coupled with cruelty aod desertion, but
the proofs as to cruelty and desertion failing became of the
respondent having paid money to the petitioner within the
two gone preceding the presentation of the petition, the
o would only vent a decree for • judicial separation.
Having published this report, on the morning afterwards
there appeared in the columns of the Star • leading article,
Which purported to expatiate on the unevenness of the
justice meted out to husbands and to wives in the Divorce
Court, and in exemplification of that theor"y the writer thus
refers to the case of " Hearne v. Hearnereported in the
Star of the day before On the 3nl of August, 1846, Mr.
Algernon John Hearne, • bookseller, carrying on business
in the City of London, entered into the bonds of wed-
lock, and until the month of March, 1854, he
appears to have lived with hie wife like • decent member of
society. A little lees than 8 years of constancy and good
behaviour seems however to have been the utmost duration
of persistent rectitude compatible with his limited amount
of moral principle ; for at the period last mentioned be
abandoned her, and there seems every probability that she
would never have heard of him again had he not been
visited in the October of the same year with • severe
attack of illness, which recalled him, if not to a sense of
duty, at any rate to • sense of the requirements of his own
comfort. Awakened by personal suffering to •
tenr7no:i
ary appreciation of the domestic blessings which he
had forfeited by his own misconduct, Mr. Hearne sent for
his deserted wife, and besought her to return and attend
him in his illness, and that lady, with the forgiving spirit
common to her sex, though often, unfortunately, dis-
played towards most unworthy objects, yielded at
once to his solicitations. Fur two months she nursed him
with affectionate assiduity, and with so much success that
by the middle of December his health was completely re-
stored ; but no sooner war this result attained than the
ungrateful vagabond again left her without making the
smallest provision for her support. Once more Mrs.
Hearne addressed herself to the task of struggling single.
handed for subsistence, and her efforts were so far fruitful
that she was able to exist without extraneous aid until
October, 1856, but at that period her resources failed her,
and she was compelled to apply to her husband for assist.
ante. When she first called upon Mr. Hume, who wee at
that time living in adultery with another woman, and com-
municated to him her certainly not unreasonable request,
the brute knocked her down, and otherwise treated
her with shameful cruelty, but a renewal of her
petition extorted from him a promise to allow her
the munificent sum of ss. per week, and the concession of
this stipend was no doubt greatly stimulated by the reflec-
tion that • repetition of his former violence would probably
invoke the intervention of the police, and entail upon him
the salutary discipline of six months' imprisonment with
hard labour. For twelve months Mr. Hearne, cohabiting
meanwhile in comfort with his paramour, continued to pay
to his lawful wife a stipend equivalent to the wages which
a housemaid receives over and above her board and lodging;
but in October, 1867, his fit of generosity came to an
abrupt termination. Ever since that time his wife lug
Lved solely upon the fruits of her own exertions, end in
May, 1859, she applied for a divorce, the
grounds of adultery, cruelty, and desertion. The
ease appeeu:s to be so clear that few persons
would be inclined to deny that, upon the common
principles of justice Mts. Hearne was entitled to the relief for
which she sought ; for the facts alleged were not denied,
nor was any attempt made to show that she herself had
been guilty of any criminal *abduct, her husband being so
well convinced of the rottenness of his cause that he made
no attempt to oppose her player. But, unfortunately, the
principles of English justice, far from being identical with
the common principls of
justice, are ill truth very un-
common principles indeed, as Me. Hearne has learned to her
cont. Since the court decided that, the allowance of sa.
• week having been paid to her up to October, 1857, and
bar petition having been filed within lees than two years of
that date, the desertion had not been proved, and WOW
quently refused to grant • divorce, and decreed only •
judicial separation, condemning her to • life-long mock
widowhood, unless death should convert it into a reel ono,
by cutting short her husband's iniquitous career."
It sou the article thus published which constituted the
libel charged io the present action.
The defendant pleaded first, not guilty ; secondly, a
justification of the allegations contained in the article ; and
thirdly, that it was but • fair 'and legitimate comment upon
the psimedinp in the Divorce Court.
2k. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Holt appeared for the
plaintiff ; Mr. EdwinJainee, Q.C., and Mr. H. James, for
the defeadaet.
The publication of the article having been admitted,
Algernon John Hearne, the plaintiff, mu examined by
Mr. Hell at some length, in support of the above facts.
The witness stated that on the day of the hearing he
seat a letter to all the newspapers, including the
Star, reqiiesting them not to publish any report of the pro-
wading' in " Hearne v. Hearne," as a most unjust and un-
expected decree hail been obtained against him in his ab-
sence, and requesting them to withhold publication until
an opportunity was afforded him of having Unease re-heard.
Notwithstanding his appeal, • report appeared in the Mot IP
iSV star, and on the following day the article ouniplained
of. He immediately wrote to the editor protesting against the
article, and entering fully into all the facts of the ease,
which 'letter was put in and read.
This letter the defendant acknowledged, and be ulti-
mately, by • letter of the 31st of May, undertook to insert
say explanatory statement from the plaintiff, provided his
communication did not contain any libellous attacks upon
third parties. The witness, in conclusion, stated that he
estimated his losses for the three months succeeding the
publication at lOW.
Cron-awnined by Mr. James—l never did send in say
exculpatory statement to the Morning Star office.
The Chief Justice--What would have been the use, if he
could only have exculpated himself by libelling others?
• ernes-examination continued—At Christmas, 1852, I must
have been living in Red Lion-street. I swear I did not beat
my wife then ; neither did I strike her. I have no recollec-
tion of her being obliged to take refuge in the room of •
fellow.ledger. I will swear positively she was nut obliged.
la 1854 I did not refuse to support my wife. I lost sight if
her after Christmas, 1857. Between 1864 and 1867 my wife
saw me almost every week. She came to me for money,
ad I used to give her sometimes 55., sometimes 164.,
sometimes 11. 1 conmenced cohabiting with Buckle in 1857.
Ai Christmas, 1857, I called upon my wife to give her •
pr sent, but I found she had gone away and bad sold her
furniture. I was in Westminster-hall when my wife's peti.
glria was being heard. I retired froni court when the coon-
." commenced his opening. I remained outside until the
ekee of the case. . . . .

The shout-band writer's motes of the proceedings in tile
Divorce Court were here put in and red, to show that what
transpired there did nut justify the allegations in the
article.

—Cra•-exarniostion by Mr. James continued—l was sum-
mooed to the court at Guildhall for giving my wife a blath-
ers, bat I did mot attend. I did strike my wife once with a
elighos-bussb. I think it was in 1854. I had been up
all night, and she came to ask me for money. Hite caught
hold of my oast to prevent my leaving the
room. That was the nal. time I ever remember striking
her. In December 18671 allowed Mrs. Buckle to take my
name. In March 1858 she had • child 1111:11.0 In about
April 1858 I found out that my wife was • with a man
in Harriscestroet. After that I never wed her •
mil&. Between Christens 1867 and April 1868 I Gould
vim As was.
Tide sired the plaistifa or.
Mr. James Intimated it was not his intent= to call wit-
less= he the istabeo.
Mr. Soil lodes summed up the plealiire ass,