The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-12-08 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.--DEC. 1.

(BEFORE THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE AND A COMMON JURY.)
TOMMEY v. CLEMENTS.—Mr. Knowles and Mr. C.
Clark appeared as counsel for the defendant. The plain-
tiff appeared in person, and addressing the court, stated
that this action was brought to recover damages for a
libel contained in the following article, which had ap-
peared in The Observer newspapers on the 16th of August
last :—" In the dearth of newspaper topics, the Daily
News wastes a great deal of valuable indignation upon
the police of London, on the strength solely of a man
whom they call insane, which is full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing. A Mr. Henry Tommey, writes a
letter to Sir George Grey, which he publishes in the
Daily News. Our contemporary says he is mad, or, if
he is not mad, he has much reason to be so, for he
is worse used than ‘Jarndyce v. Jarndyce.' Now, Mr.
Tommey's illusage by the Court of Chancery, consists en-
tirely in having maintained a losing suit against a wealthy
benefactor for many years, in which he sued in forma
pauperis, and was defeated at every stage . . . and
his last resource is to halloa a libellous attack upon all
concerned in the judgment, about the streets of London.
The article then stated the fact of Mr. Tommey having
been arrested while distributing certain pamphlets, and
discussed the comments of the Daily News on the con-
duct of the police and magistrate, and concluded by
saying—" The Daily News must get a better client and
a clearer cause before it makes a good case of the secresy
and tyranny which we would denounce as quickly as
they, if there was the slightest cause for any such accu-
sation." The defendant had pleaded that the alleged
libel was true in substance and fact. The plaintiff then
proceeded to read along statement of the persecutions
he had endured, and the injustice done him in the Irish
Court of Chancery. He stated he had published the
history of his wrongs in a small pamphlet, which he
would read. Lord Campbell: I find it is entitled,
" Serious Charge of Treason and Conspiracy against
Lord Chancellor Cran worth, Sir E. Sugden, alias Lord
St. Leonard's, ex. Chancellor Blackburn, the Master of
the Rolls in Ireland, and other Officers of State."
Plaintiff : I am prepared to prove everything I state in
it. Lord Campbell : We cannot enter into that question
now. The defendant is bound to prove the truth of the
libel ; if he does not you will be entitled to a verdict.
The article from the Daily News was then read. Mr.
Knowles proceeded to address the jury on behalf of the
defendant. He said he had nothing to do with the
contents of the pamphlet ; his only duty was to show
that the article charged was only a fair comment
on the transactions. He laboured under a disadvantage
in having no counsel opposed to him ; if he had, the
case would soon be disposed of. It appearer: that Mr.
Tommey had been engaged in a protracted litigation in
the Court of Chancery in Ireland, and had at length
been finally defeated in an appeal to the House of
Lords. Under the excitement produced by this defeat
he published the pamphlet of which they had heard,
and on the evening of the 13th of August he was selling
them in Waterloo-place, accompanied by some boys with
large placards. A crowd, of course, soon collected, ; a
person named Smith gave the plaintiff in custody to a
constable ; he was taken to the station.house, but dis-
charged in about five minutes. The plaintiff took it
info his head that the person who had made the
charge was a nobleman of rank, and when he could not
discover his name he applied next day to Mr. Bingham
at Marlborough street police-office on the subject. The
magistrate said he could give him no redress, and recom-
mended him to apply to the Home Office. The plaintiff
then addressed a letter to the Daily News, and the editor,
being, perhaps, at a loss for a topic, published an
article on the case, ending with a tirade against the
police. The editor of The Observer, being, perhaps, at
equal loss for a subject, took up the defence of the police.
The learned counsel then went through the article, and
contended it was only a fair comment on that which had
appeared in the Daily News. The policeman who had
taken the plaintiff into custody, and the officer who had
taken the charge, were then examined. They stated
they did not know the person who made the charge, and
that the plaintiff had not been detained more than five
minutes. This closed the defendant's case. Henry
Tommey, jun., the son of the plaintiff, was then called,
and examined by the plaintiff. He descr'bed what had
taken place on the occasion of the plaintiff's arrest ; he
was refused admission into the station house. Plaintiff
was about an hour and five minutes in custody, He
asked for the name of the person making the charge.
The sergeant promised to give it next morning, but did
not do so. Some thousands of the pamphlets had
been sold, but since the publication of the article
in The Observer the sale had entirely ceased. Tho two
boys who were carrying placards for the plaintiff, were
examined. They said he was detained in custody about
an hour. Mr. Knowles proceeded to sum up the case for
the defendant. Lord Campbell : You have not put a plea
of " Not Guilty" on the record ; you are bound by your
plea to prove the w hole of the matters stated in the
article. There are a number of facts stated of which
you have offered no proof. Mr. Knowles admitted that
some of the facts on which the article commented had
not been proved, but he submitted that, if in point of
law the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict, nominal
damages would be amply sufficient.. The plaintiff then
commenced addressing the jury ; he was several times
warned by his lordship that be could not com-
ment on anything which had not appeared in
evidence. fie dwelt at considerable length on
the history of his sufferings in the Court of Chancery,
and contended that ha had been most unjustly
treated by the police. His lordship, in summing up the
case to the jury, said it was a most painful case. He
though the police would not have done their duty if they
had not prevented any person from circulating so
notorious a libel as was contained in the plaintiff's
pamphlet. The defendants by their pleas had under.
taken to prove everything stated in the article. They
had proved the principal fact, that the plaintiff had been
taken up by the police ; but if the jury considered that
there were any allegations in the article which had not
been proved, the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict. If
so, under all the circumstances of the case, he must say
he thought merely nominal damages would be sufficient,
but the jury would judge for themselves. The jury,
after a short consideration, returned a verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages, One Farthing.

In reference to the above The Observer of yesterday
says : —ln the case of The Observer an action was brought
against the proprietors by a person named Tommey,
who considered himself aggrieved by some comments in
this journal, not on his conduct, but on a leading
art cle that appeared in the Daily A'ews, reflecting on
the proceedings of the police. The facts are smply as
follows : —The plaintiff, Tommey, had had a suit in the
Court of Chancery for sixteen years, and the case had
terminated adversely tohim. Thereupon he published,and
sold in the streets, a pamphlet charging Lord St. Leonards
(late Lord Chancellor), Lord Cranworth (the present
Lord Chancellor), and two other judges, with treason and
conspiracy. A person named Smith gave him in charge,
and Tommey was taken to the station-house, where the
charge was not pressed, and he was discharged. 0
applying for the name of the party who had given him
in charge, he was told to call the next morning, when
it was refused. He then applied to Mr. Bingham, the
magistrate, who could not give it him. Finally, he had
recourse to Sir George Grey, who furnished him with the
information required. The Daily News then wrote a
strong article impugning the conduct of the police, and
The Observer explained their proceeding. Tommey,
however, fancied that The Observer considered that he
was mad, and upon this he brought his action, and laid
his damages at £5OO. He conducted his case in person,
and presented, as Lord Campbell observed, a" most la-
mentable spectacle." No one who was present, in fact,
could fail to feel commiseration for the unfortunate posi-
tion to which litigation had reduced him at the age of 73
years. The judge, indeed, severely condemned those
who had influence over him for nermitting him to make
such a sad spectacle himself. From an oversight in the
pleadings, Tommey obtained a verdict, with one farthing
damages, Lord Campbell observing, that the plea of " not
guilty ' not having been put on the record, because of its '
not being possible, without going to a large expense in
bringing witnesses from Ireland, to legally justify all the
statements made in the article in question, the jury were
compelled to give a verdict in favour of the plaintiff.
This trial, however, Illustrates how unjustly the law, at
times, acts. It was admitted by Tommey in his address
to the jury that he and his family were reduced to extreme
poverty, and that, therefore, he was compelled to conduct
his case in person. It is, therefore, quite clear that he was
not in a position to pay the defendants' costs had the
verdict been in their favour, which would have been the
case if the omission before referred to had not taken
place. But the proprietors of The Observer in that case
would have been put to a large outlay. Tommey, no
doubt, might have been proceeded against, and perhaps
imprisoned, but that would have been no satisfaction to
them, either in a humane or in a pecuniary point of view.
As it is, they will have to pay their own costs, simply
because a person whose imaginary or real grievances have
so excited him as to fancy a libel almost in everything that
is said or writen about him. Whilst the law remains as
it is, no journalist or even private individual is safe, as any
moment ho may be proceeded against by parties who have
everything to gain and nothing to lose. This is clearly so
unjust that some amendment of the law ought to be
effected. Thus much for the case of The Observer.

REPRESENTATION OF LANARKSHIRE.-Mr. Bailie Coch-
rane, of Llnarkshire, has started as a candidate for this
county, vacant by the recent demise of Mr. William
Lockhart.