The Sun.
London, England, 1862-04-05 00:00:00

ASSIZE IN T_ELLIGEIIV CE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—KINGSTON, APRIL 4.
CIVIL COURT.
(Before the Lord Chief Justice Erie and Special
Juries.)
WALROND V. LONG AND ANOTHER.
This was an action against the printer and pub-
lisher of the Morning Post newspaper for a libel,
the nature of which and of the case generally will
be best understood by the simple statement of the
case as it arose.
The defendants pleaded only "Not Guilty," not
justifying the alleged libel.
Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Holl were for
the plaintiff; Mr. Lush, QC., and Mr. Hannen
were for the defendants.
On the 3d of January there appeared in the Post,
under the head of the " Westminster Police Court,"
the following report, which it was admitted was a
fair report
"Mr. Arnold was occupied the whole of the afternoon in
the hearing of a case in which Miss Walrond, the daughter
of Lady Janet Walrond, was charged, on a summons, with
the illegal detention of a valuable terrier dog, by, Miss
Caroline Norton (niece of the Hon. George Norton), whose
case was conducted by Mr. Gadsden, barrister.
" Mr. Gadsden having opened the case, as afterwards
proved in evidence,
" Mr. Arnold, both at this and a still further stage of the
proceedings, when it became obvious that there would be a
conflict onestimony as to whether the dog was a gift, urged
that the matter should be placed in the hands of a mutual
friend to determine, instead of being pressed before him.
"- had evidently been on terms of intimacy, and
the whole case wouici, in an proem:am-7, nave to rirena
upon the memory of the ladies who claimed the dog; and
he thought that if they named any gentleman with whom
they were both acquainted, and were bound by his decision,
a most satisfactory result could be arrived at. Some con-
versation took place between the parties, but, as it was found
the case could not be arranged, it went on."

[The report then stated the contradictory evi-
dence on both sides, and ended thus :—]

" Mr. Gadsden said he did not far a moment wish to im-
pute anything like perjury for the defence, but he thought
the ladies acte under a misapprehension of what had oc-
curred. _ _

" Mr. Arnold said that after such circumstantial evidence
as ho had just heard from Lady Walrond and her daughter
it was quite impossible there could be any misapprehension
on their parts. They agreed with the complainant that the
dog was at first left with them, and next positively proved
that the dog was afterwards given to Miss Walrond by
Miss Norton, who appeared to have entirely forgotten that
fact. The summons was accordingly dismissed."
The Miss Walrond here mentioned was the plain-
tiff in this action.
In Punch of the llth'of Tanuary appeared some
-humorous verses on the case, headed " "Irma
Canemque." And in the Post of the 16th appeared
the following, headed " Spinsters and their Idols,"
which was the first libel sued for. It was in the
form of a letter to the editor of the Morning Post.
(We omit immaterial passages) :
" Sir, —A case was decided on Thursday which really de-
serves attention, however ridiculous may seem the conduct
of the principal parties concerned. A dispute arose between
two ' ladies of quality' as to the possession of one of those
canine favourites who may be justly termed the ' spinsters'
idols,' and are often (failing a human admirer of
the male sex) beloved with quite as intense a passion, and
striven for with as eager a rivalry as the favoured two-
legged mortal. . . A tall spinster taking a fancy to a
wee spinster's dog, driving constantly in the weo spinster's
carriage, and pouring flatteries into the wee young spin
ster's ears, at length became possessed of the much coveted
little animal, it having been confided to her care during the
temporary absence of his mistress. The wee young spin-
ster, on her return, demanded her dog. The tall spinster
refused to give it up. The weo young spinster wrote sev -
ral notes and made several attempts to obtain admittance to
the presence of the dog and his detainer, but the tall spin-
ster, keeping watch from an upper window, . . kept
the wee young spinster on the safe side of the door. The
wee young spinster, irritated at the detention of her pro-
perty, . . actually summoned her quondam friend to
show cause why she refused to return their mutual idol.
The tall spinster, accompanied by her mother, obeyed the
summons, and appeared in court, swearing that the wee
young spinster had given the dog; that she had, in fact,
presented it with a formula strongly savouring of the mar-
riage ceremony, to wit, ' I, Caroline, give you, Harriet, this
dog.' The wee young spinster earnestly denied both the
speech and the gift, and still clamoured for the idol. The
other spinster persisted in her version of thelltory. Tho
dog, neither better nor worse than his fellows, remained ab-
solutely dumb. The magistrate, more puzzlechthan Solo-
mon when he decided on the experimental order of slicing
in two a living object of dispute, dismissed the summons,
on the doubt that the young spinster might have given the
dog and forgotten it. Now, although this supposition is
in the teeth of evidence proffered by the butler of the tall
spinster. to the effect that he had been ordered to watch over
the safe keeping of the disputed favourite, and prevent its
being reclaimed—in fact, to keep the dog in seclusion, like a
gentleman who fears a sheriff's officer may tap him on the
shoulder as ho sallies out—yet it is not to the rights or wrongs
of these ladies I particularly wish to call attention in this
letter. If they like to pull caps for the spinsters' idol, let
them; but I wish to know why a different measure of justice
is meted out to poor and rich, to ladies of quality and persons
in fustian jackets. A short time ago a remarkable decision
was made. A man, suspected to be a d ogstealer,was seen walk-
ing in Regent's Park, followed by a remarkably handsome
Maltese spaniel. A constable inquired how he became pos-
sessed of it. The man's reply was that he knew nothing
about the dog. The constable listened with incredulity,
acted with prompt energy, took the sauntering promenader
before the magistrate, and although it was not proved who
the dog belonged to, or that it was stolen at all, the fustian
jacket was sent to prison for six months, and I presume is
in prison now. Now the question is, could that man have
satisfied the magistrate by affirming that a lady had given
him the Maltese treasure; that, with a solemn formula she
had made it his property, saying, Louisa Brown, give
you, John Snooks, this dog'—would such a statement have
quieted the magisterial doubts, and, if not, why not P The
parties in the case decided on Thursday are a niece of the
Hon. G. C. Norton, plaintiff (the wee young spinster) and
the daughter of Lady Janet Walrond, of Dulford-house,
Devon, a defendant already known on a former occasion.
I will not ask your readers to consider whether, even sup-
posing the spinsters' idol to have been really given, and
then reclaimed, the merest schoolgirl would not have re-
turned the animal to her capricious schoolmate instead of
affording the absurd spectacle of a public brawl as this ma-
turer dog-fancier has done ? I leave those ladies entirely
out of the pale of inquiry, and I merely repeat the question
is the man in the fustian jacket still in prison because a
nameless Maltese spaniel ran sniffing at his suspected heels,
and could he have cleared himself by any such explanation
as has decided this case in fashionable life ? . . . The
amount of grief this dog has caused is probably to him a
matter of indifference, as, indeed, it is to me; but the ad-
ministration of justice, even in small particulars, can
never be a matter of indifference; and, meanwhile, it is a
pity some author does not write a book on dog worship, in
imitation of Carlyle's ' Hero Worship,' for it is a very curi
ous phase of the human intellect.

"A LOOKER ON."
The plaintifrs'attorneys hereupon wrote to the edi-
tor of the cost a letter, in which they characterised
the above as

"A gross and vindictive libel upon our client, Miss Wal-
rond, not only seeking to hold her up to public condemna-
tion, by giving an intentionally untruthful report of the
circumstances of the ease, of the evidence adduced upon
the hearing of the summons taken out by Miss Norton, and
of the magistrate's judgment, and most unwarrantably
imputing to Miss Walrond perjury and dishonesty, but also
seeking to make her a mark for public ridicule ;"
and they demanded the name and address of the
author. Upon this the editor of the Morning Post
published the following paragraph, which also was
complained of as a libel, and formed the subject of
the second count in this action. The paragraph,
which was in conspicuous type and position, ran
thus:--
" 'Norton v. Walrond:—This ease, in which a claim for
the extradition of a dog seems to cause in the hearts of two
young ladies a fiercer passion and a more certain war than
a like demand for two bipeds has raised between Britannia
and Columbia, has not been consigned to the oblivion
which we think it deserved. It has brought down on our
heads an ultimatum from a legal firm, who require from
us the name and address of the author of a letter headed
' Spinsters and their Idols,' which was inserted in the
Morning Post' of the 7th inst."

and characterise it as a gross and vindictive libel
upon their client (quoting the letter of the attor-
neys as above) :
,4 Now, it is not the custom of respectable journals to
give up the names which are communicated to them in con-
fidence, and we shall, therefore, not depart from the este •
blished rule. In the next place, we cannot for one moment
admit that the letter in question deserves the severe terms
applied to it. 'We gave it insertion as a clever and banter-
ing comment on what everybody regarded as a very absurd
proceeding. Nothing could be further from our intention
than to permit the publication of anything approaching to
a libel on either of the young ladies concerned. Indeed, so
careful have we been upon this point that we declined to
insert a letter from James Brightwell, a witness in the
case, who wished to correct the evidence he had given, and
who made further serious allegations against Miss Val-
rend. We refused to give his letter, on the ground that
a court of justice was the proper place for his statement,
and not our columns. In another instance we abstained
from printing a letter from J. G.,' assigning as our reason
that wo could not be responsible for publishing statements
of so personal a character against the client of the firm who
have addressed us, unless the author chose to authenticate
them by allowing us to give his name to the public. Hav-
ing thus proved our good faith and freedom from ill inten-
tion in the matter, we repeat that we looked upon the letter
Spinsters and their Idols,' as possessing only an amusing
character such as might bo attributed, for instance, to the
witty ballad, Arma Oaneraque,' which appeared on this
very subject in last week's _Punch, and we considered it,
therefore, fairly entitled to the publicity it sought,"
Upon this the present action was brought.
Mr. M. Chambers, in opening the case for the
plaintiff, admitted that the report was fair, but
urged that the letter was net a fair comment on the
report, and dwelt very much upon the phrase "ma-
tured dog fancier"
applied to the plaintiff, and in-
sisted that the scope of the letter of " A Looker. on"
was to impute to his client that she was a dog-
stealer, lie had no doubt tiure were gentlemen of
the highest honour and character connected with
the .111 w-fling Post, and he thought it was a pity
they hid not inserted some amen*. Evert at the I