The Sun.
London, England, 1862-07-01 00:00:00

LA TV INTELLIGENCE.—June 30.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
(Sitting at Nisi Prius, before the Lord Chief Justice
Erie and a Special Jury.)
DA'YY V. PEMBERTON—LIBEL ON A MEDICAL MAN.
This was an action to recover damages for libel;
and the defendant pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Lush, Q.C., Mr. Karkslake, Q.c
and Mr.
Honeyman were counsel for the plaintiff;
Mr.
Bovill, Q.C., and Mr. Garth for the defendant.
Mr. Lush, in opening the plaintiff's case, said it
was one which would require their most serious con-
sideration, as it most deeply affected the character
of the plaintiff; and he must say that of the defen-
dant also. Mr. Davy had for 14 or 15 years been
in practice at Romford as a medical man, in which
town he had the largest share of the business in his
profession. The defendant had also for a consider-
able time lived near Romford, where he cultivated
about 70 acres of land ; and in addition to this oc-
cupation, he acted as agent for the management of
the property of his brother, who had assumed the
name of Barnes upon his accession to the estate ;
and for tbe purpose of this business the defendant
had an office at Mile-end. On the 20th of June
last year ten copies of the libel now complained of
were sent through the post ; one of them to Mrs.
Davy, the plaintiff's wife, and the others to inti-
mate friends and patients of his, all of them being
posted in London, and all of them having been
written by the same hand. The envelopes, how-
ever, appeared to have been written by a different
hand. The libel was in the following terms " A curious incident in the life of a Sawbones. Who-
soever lieth with a woman that is a maid,' tc., Leviticus
xix., 20. And Nathan said unto Davi(d), Thou art the
man,' 2 Samuel xii., 7. The abovementioned Sawbones
had occasion some time ago to attend a maiden lady, living
at or near Brentwood ; and this maiden lady kept only one
servant, who was so curious to know what was going on
in her bed-room, that she took it into her head to look
through the keyhole, and behold she saw the Sawbones in
bed with the maiden lady."
There was not one word of truth in this statement,
from beginning to end, and indeed it was not even
true that the plaintiff had attended any maiden
lady at Brentwood. Immediately the circum-
stances came to the plaintiff's knowledge
he issued a bill, offering £5O reward for the disco-
very of the delinquent, and inquiries were set on
foot, but no clue could be obtained until, on account
of some information which the plaintiff obtained, he
applied to the manager of the County Bank at Rom-
ford. He put one of the envelopes before that gen-
tleman, who at once said, " lam very sorry to tell
you it is the writing of a gentleman who has been
a customer of ours for a long time. It is the writing
of Mr. Pemberton." There could be no possible mo-
tive for the defendant wishing to injure the plain-
tiff, except indeed that he was an intimate friend of
a gentleman who was a rival of the plaintiff in busi-
ness, and however insufficient, such a motive was
supposed to be the operative cause. The plaintiff,
however, did not rest satisfied with having obtained
the opinion of the manager of the bank,for he placed
one of the envelopes before another gentleman,who
was employed as clerk in the bank, and asked whose
writing was on it, and he immediately answered,
" Mr. Pemberton's." A person was employed to go
into Mr. Pemberton's office, at Mile-end, and place
one of the envelopes before a person whom he found
there, and who, without a moment's hesitation,
pronounced it to be the defendant's. At this
stage of the proceedings it was thought right to
communicate with the defendant, and accordingly
on October 2 Mr. Clifton, the plaintiff's solici-
tor, wrote to the defendant, stating his regret
that the result of inquiries was the conclusion
that he was the offending party, and asking for the
name of his solicitor. On the 25th Mr. Pemberton's
solicitor replied, stating that he was instructed by
his client to disclaim, in the most positive manner,
any knowledge on his client's part, not only of the
authorship but of the very existence of the letters
themselves and of the circumstances stated in them,
and he requested that the plaintiff would abstain
from mentioning Mr. Pemberton's name in connec-
tion with the matter. There was one singular cir-
cumstance in connection with the denial, and that
was that although the defendant denied any know-
ledge of the existence of the letters, it would be
obvious that he had himself within a day or two
after the bill offering the reward was posted, read.
it. The defendant applied to inspect and take pho-
tographs of the libels, and having inspected the
documents his solicitor wrote, saying that his client,
" having examined the letters and envelopes, and
from circumstances that have come to his know-
ledge since the inspection, he has come to the im-
pression that the envelopes, if not the letters, are
in the writing of his eldest son, Robert Pemberton,
who left England for Australia in October, 1861 ;"
and the writer, in continuation, expressed his deep
regret that he should be led to the conclusion that
any member of his family should have published
the infamous libel of which the plaintiff so justly
complained. Now, it was singular that Mr. Robert
Pemberton, the son, was an undergraduate of Cam-
bridge; he had taken his B.A. degree, and a living
had been purchased for him in the neighbourhood
of Romford, which was worth £BOO a year, and
yet all at once he went to Australia, without being
ordained, or qualifying himself for his profession,
and he went in such haste that he took with him
nothing but a carpet-bag. A commission had been
sent over to examine him in Australia, and he stated
most distinctly that neither the letter nor the writ-
ing upon the envelopes was in his handwriting, and
added that he never saw or heard of the documents
until he got to Australia. Ile also denied that they
were in his father's handwriting.
Witnesses were then called who produced the
letters in question, and also some documents which
were admitted to be in the defendant's handwri-
ting, and witnesses were also called who expressed
their opinion that there was a great similarity be-
tween the defendant's handwriting and that of the
libels.

The case had not concluded when the Court rose.
(After Term Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Guildhall,
before Mr. Justice Keating and a Common Jury.)
SOFFE V. MARTINDALE...-SERIOITS CHARGE AGAINST A
MEDICAL ASSISTLNT.
This was an action for libel. The defendant
pleaded first, not guilty, and secondly, a justifica-
tion.

Mr. S
for tergeant
l Parry and Mr. T. Chitty were
Mr. D. Keane were for the defen
counsel he paintiff. Mr. Hawkidantns, QC., and
Mr. Sergeant Parry, in stating the plaintiff's
case, said he was a young man about 24 years of
age, who had been educated for the medical profes-
sion, and for the last five years had
eztiendthaes
assistant to Mr. Prince, surgeon, of sta
Linton Union, Cambridgeshire, who was also
medical officer to the union. The defendant, who
is a gentleman of considerable landed property,
also resides in the same parish. On the 22d Feb-
ruary last Mr. Prince was called on to attend a
young woman named Harriet Townsend at the
house of her mother, who was in poor and humble
circumstances. That gentleman sent the plaintiff,
and on calling at the mother's house, he found the
girl in bed suffering from measles. He went up
stairs in company with the mother, and found her in
a small dark room. She was suffering, as was stated,
from measles and a sore throat; and as diptheria was
very prevalent he requested her to get out of bed and
come to the window that he might the better be
able to examine her throat. She was got out of
bed, and in addition to her long night-dress her
mother wrapped her up in a blanket. The plain-
tiff asked for a spoon with which to depress the
tongue, and the mother fetched it, being absent
only a few seconds. After examining the throat
he desired the mother to put her to bed and
keep her warm, and he left before the girl got into
bed. After this the mother received an intimation
that the defendant wished to see her, and on her
calling on him he questioned her relative to the
plaintiff's conduct towards her daughter. She re-
plied that the plaintiff's conduct was not indecent
towards her daughter ; that her daughter's person
was not exposed, and that the plaintiff had notAll
usesi
abusive and indecent language to her. she
appeared,ownn
f the expression,m e
measles."
sh. "3,
complained"pulled
ber of
daughterwas, toen uts 0e h f
bed
dr
full
The mother, it felt
igirl in her then state
some
annoyance to-
the plaintiff in having th e
remarkg relative to her
taken out of bed, and his
dirty feet. On the 4th of March the defendant
swrote t
ean,leatnted nrtnoe
etfhethe Rev.gna guardians,
s,Deaennietalli,ning
vicar of
the
libel in question, which was in the following
terms:—
~ Rev. Sir,—Mrs. Townsend has been to me to
complain of the medical officer's assistant's extreme
gross, indelicate, and abusive conduct to her
in
daugh-
ter. I refer her to you, and request youhe
your capacity of guardian and vicar of.
ttel
they parish
e
to lay such disgusting treatment immediately
the board. I shall also myself writeh to
portico gars,
chair-
man of the board, and give him
before them.
them."
and, if necessary, take the woman
hreimpliodathnatthe
To that letter the Rev. Mr. D
plaint to the
defendant ought not to complain
indi-
vidual guardian, but to m
the letter to the plain-
board. The defendant di
Rev. Mr. Daniell handinege _
did. not do so ; and on the
a d his legal adviser to
tiff, he immediately e hniiset to
in
ample apology; but the
bring the matter to
for a retractationd h
fore p
al an i
apologyn t iff af t e, rth
uponat
an issue. Application was made
personally
asked
threatened to expose him to the clergy-
which he r yd'anTt
defendant refuse
tath'Oecdoemfepnl
th-oeining parish. The plaintiff attributed
man of an (13,1
this ill-feeling on the
epart of the defendant to his
(plaintiff's)
at a meeting which the
defendant had called in reference to certain cha-
ritiea,
and rities,over which he presided. To show the
feeling of
interferingthe defendant towards the plaintiff,
he wrote to the College of Surgeons to know if the