The Express.
London, England, 1868-06-20 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

After term Nisi Prius sittings at Westminster.—(Before
the Lord Chief Justice and a Special Jury.)
11.1 SI ALLAH r. JOHN TONE AND MENUS.
. . . . _

This was an action for libel against the Standard news-
paper. The defendants pleaded that the words complained
of were inserted without actual malice ; secondly, an apo-
logy, and payment of 20s. into court.
Mr. Baker Greene, Mr. Butler Rigby, and Mr. Macrae
Moir were counsel for plaintiff ; Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., Mr.
Serjeant Ballantine, Mr. Archibald, and Mr. Allan for tho
dcfmidants.

This action arose out of the trial of Risk Allah, at
Brussels, for the murder of his ward, Charles Readley,
and also for forgery and fraud. The facts, from the noto-
riety which the cause acquired from the Brussels trial, and
the more recent action this week against the Daily Tele-
graph, so fully reported from day to day, must be so fresh
in the minds of the public as to render it unnecessary to
again publish them.
Mr. Baker Greene, in stating the case to the jury, said
that the issue in this case was different to that in the
case of the Daily Telegraph, the onus of proof being
thrown on the defendants. The defendants were the pro-
prietore of the Morning and Evening Standard and the
Morning Ilerald, and although the plaintiff had a right
to bring three separate actions for what appeared in each
of those papers, he bad felt he would not be justified in
taking such harrassing proceedings against the de-
fendants, and he had therefore contented him-
self with but bringing one action in order
to justify his chtuacMr. The articles complained
of dealt principally with the charge of murder,
and in the course of these observations, the
writer stated that "giving the accused the bene-
fit of his acquittal we cannot help wishing that the
exculpatory evidence had been more direct," that there was
blood upon the pillow and blanket—that Risk Allah's as-
sociates were of an equivocal character, one being a con-
victed forger—that he ostentatiously predicted that the
boy would commit suicide, and he placed a loaded
fowling-piece within his reach—that Risk Allah
appeared nervous and excited that morning.
Rxception was also taken to these parts of the article re-
ferring to the evidence of the experts as to suicide or mur-
der, observing that the matter had not been cleared up,
and the mystery still remained secret. The plaintiff prin-
cipally complained of the statement that the jury had ac-
corded to Risk Allah the benefit of a doubt; that being no
doubt based on the retirement of the jury to consider their
verdict, a formality required by the Belgian laws.
The second article complained of was inserted
in the Evening Standard, and that was also complained of
as containing misstatements of facts, other inaccuracies,
and contradictions of what had been previously stated.
The learned counsel having read the articles in extenso,
and commented upon the objectionable parts, and the
adverse tone of the articles generally, said that when
these articles appeared Risk Allah instructed
his solicitor to apply to the defendants for an
interview, for the purpose of correcting these state-
ments. An interview took place between the at-
tornies, and an apology was drawn up and sent to the
defendants. The plaintiff demanded as a right that the
apology should contain a correct version of the dream-
dance, and in order to do that it was necessary to go over
the same ground the defendants had traversed, and to reply
to the charges seriatim and explain them. That apology
was accompanied with a letter stating that if it
contained anything objectionable the plaintiff's attorney
would be ready to confer with the defendants, with a
view to a mutual arrangement. On let January follow-
ing, the plaintiff's solicitor received a letter informing
him that a statement was in course of preparation, which
it was hoped would be satisfactory, and the plaintiff's
solicitor replied that he hoped it would be framed in the same
spirit as the apology he had drawn up. Plaintiff then issued
his writ. On the 2nd of March the defendants published an
article upon Risk Allah, copied from the Pall-mall Gazette,
adopted from the Lerant Courier, of a very offensive
character, which said Risk Allah was known as an hospital
dresser in the Crimea, and not the distinguished person he
represented himself to be, and that he was trading on his
reputation, and further, that he would not have brought
an action in his own country, where he was well known.
Plaintiff did not issue a second writ against the Standard
for its insertion, as he might have done, and also against
the Pall-mall Gazette but he had preferred to wait until
the conclusion of the Daily T ggrapsl trial. That had been
concluded to Risk Allah's ea ••daction, and he had now
no intention of proceeding further; and even now he was
ready to accept a withdrawal, in the fullest manner, of all
the clarges alleged against him in the defendant's news-
pers.
The Lord Chief Justice—May I here step in as me-
diator

Mr. Coleridge—We have already apologised in the
most ample manner. The plaintiff's counsel was not
bound to read the apology, but it should be remembered
that the correspondence he had read was written without
prejudice.
[The case was proceeding when our report left.]