The Sun.
London, England, 1854-03-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TITUMSDAY EVENT N IvIARCII 23, 1884.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCIIIT—MAIDSTONE, MARCU 22.
(Before Baron Alderson, and a Special Jury.)
HARTNOLL V. DURHAM.
This was an action for libel. The defendant pleaded
not guilty and a justification as to a portion of the libel.
Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., Mr. Bovill, Mr. Lush, and
Mr. H. A. -Simon appeared for the plaintiff ; Sir F.
Thesiger, who came down upon a special retainer, Mr.
Bramwell, Q.C., Mr. Willes, and Mr. Jackson were for

the defendant.
This cause was tried on Tuesday, and it occupied the
whole of the day, and was not brought to a close until

late in the evening.
Mr. Chambers in opening the case described it as one
of considerable importance, inasmuch as it involved the
question whether the press was to be protected in fair
criticism upon public matters for the interest of the
public, or whether, because the observations that
were made upon any particular subject might give
offence to certain persons, the person making those ob-
servations in the discharge of his duty was to be grossly

slandered with impunity. The learned counsel then pro
ceedesl to state that the plaintiff, Mr. John Hooper Hart-
noll, was the proprietor of a newspaper published at
Greenwich, called the Kentish,Mercury, and he had also
for a ''(rood many years conducted a weekly publication,
called the Post Magazine, which devoted its attention
exclusively to matters conducted with insurance com-
panies. The defendant, Mr. Durham, was the chairman
of the board of directors of a company called the Unity
Fire Assurance Association, and it was in that capacity
that hes was charged with having published the libel of
which the plaintiff complained. As he had stated, the
plaintiff took a very great interest in the subject of in-
surance, and he devoted his ,attention to examining the
accounts of the companies that offered themselves to the
notice of the public, and there was very little doubt that
the information he thus rendered was of great import-
ance, and tended materially to prevent persons from
being defrauded by connecting themselves with offices
based upon unsound principles. After the passing of
an act of Parliament called the Joint-stock Com-
panies Registration Act of 1846, which was an act
that gave great facilities to the formation of com-
panies of this description, the plaintiff was struck with
the enormous increase in the number of insurance corn-
parties, the number previous to that period having been
fifty-seven, whereas after the passing of the act they in-
creased to 396, and he felt it to be his duty in the dis-
charge of the task he had undertaken to look closely at
the mode of management of every .new company that
was started, and to caution the public if he believed their
calculations were erroneous, or that the way in which
their business was conducted was such as to leave no
possibility of success. In August, 1852, the company
id question, which was called the Unity Fire Assurance
Association, was provisionally registered in accordance
with the provisions of the act. The capital was to be
one million, to be raised by 500,000 shares of 21. each,
and the deposit to be paid upon each share was to be 55.,
and the defendant was stated in the prospectus to be the
chairman, Major Stones the vice-chairman, and a Mr. T.
li. Bayliss was the secretary and manager: The com-
Tany made great efforts to obtain popularity ; a meeting
was,held at Manchester, where there was also a general
entertainment at the laying of the first stone of 'the
eplendid building intended to be the offices of the com-
pany'; and in August, 1853, there appeared in all the
London morning papers what, he said, might well
be termed a monster advertisement, inasmuch as it
filled eighteen columns of the papers, and consisted of the
names and addresses of 5,000 persons who were share-'
holders in the Unity Association. The plaintiff, ob-
sessing ad those. proceedings, foundlt right to look into
the haeounta of the cotiipny, and the result was that the
Post Magazine being insufficient for the purpose, he on the
fat of October brought out a new publication called the
Assurance Monitor, in which he gave to the public the
result of his inquiries and the information he had ob-
tained. Mr. Chambers read extracts from the publica-
tion mentioned. They referred specially to the defen-
dants' company, and represented that, although it was
put forth to the public that 125,0001. of capital was paid
up, he has ascertained by a memorandum of the regis-
tration deed that this was not the case, and that a con-
siderable number of the subscriptions were unpaid, and
then went on to say that, supposing this amount really
had been paid up, the enormous expenditure of the com-
pany in connexion with their building, advertising, com-
mission to agents, &c., would prevent them from in-
vesting more than 80,0001. or 90,0001., the interest of
which would be more than swallowed up by the current
expenses, and that the shareholders could only expect a
dividend from the hazards of the office, and .that they
must amount to four millions of pounds, and there must
not be a single loss, before a dividend of five per cent.
could be paid. The article also went on to say that upon
every five shillings paid a shilling was given to the agent
for commission, and likewise called attention to the fact
that Mr. T. H. Bayliss, the secretary, acted in the same
capacity to another joint-stock company of the same de-
scription, and that several of the directors of the Unity
were acting in the same capacity to other companies of
the like kind, which must of necessity be opponents of
the Unity. The result arrived at appeared to be that
the shareholders of that company cauld not hope to be
successful in their undertaking, for the reasons stated.
The learned counsel proceeded to say that he should
contend that the plaintiff,-acting honestly in the discharge
of his duty, had a perfect right to publish this article, in
order that, if his arguments were well founded, the pub-
lic might be guarde against the mischief and ruin that
too frequently resulted from unsound establishments of
this character, and that the defendant, acting on behalf of
the company, in attacking him as he afterwards did, had
committed a gross injustice, and had rendered himself
amenable to the present action. He had stated that the
first number of the Assurance Monit;r appeared on the
Ist October, and very shortly afterwards a pamphlet was
published, entitled "An Address to the Shareholders of
the Unity Fire Association, in reply to the unwarrant-
able attacks made upon it be the Assurance Monitor,"
and this pamphlet contained the libel of which the plain-
tiff now complained. The learned counsel here read
portions of the pamphlet in question, in which the plain-
tiff was classed as a journalist with the writers in the
Satirist, Age, Paul Pry, and other disreputable prints,
1 and it described him as an hireling writer, and said that,
like those who had formerly written in the publications
referred to, he lived by extortion and levying " black
mail" from his victims. The learned counsel having
commented at some length upon the aggravated charac-
ter of the charges made against the plaintiff, said he
trusted that when he had laid the whole of the case
before the jury they would feel that it was one which
called for exemplary damages.
Mr. Tarrant, the attorney for the plaintiff, proved
that he applied for a copy of the pamphlet headed "An
Address to the Shareholders, &c.," at the offices of the
company, and one was given to him by a clerk.
Mr. Taylor, the attorney for the defendant, was called
in order to show that he was the chairman of 'the com-
pany, and that the pamphlet had been issued with his
knowledge.
In answer to questions by Sir F. Thesiger, the witness
said that the company was provisionally registered in
May, 1852, and was completely registered in September.
The directors were —Major Stones, Mr. Garland, Mr.
Jackson (the barrister), Sir W. 0. Pell, Mr. Taylor,
(witness's brother), Mr. T. Vaughan, Sir W. C. Dalzell,
and Dr. Lloyd, one of the lecturers at Guy's Hospital.
Their qualification was 2,000 shares, but they each held
5,000. At the time the plaintiff published the Monitor
he believed the whola.of the 125,0001. had been paid up.
On the 28th of November, 1853, there was a meeting of
the shareholders at Willis's rooms, which was numerously
attended, and some person was there who distributed
copies of the Assurance Monitor, containing the attack
upon the company. The witness then alluded Co an
alteration that was made in the amount of the capital of
the company, which was raised from one to two millions
which had also been made the subject of complaint,
in the plaintiff's publication, and he said that every-
thing that was done in this respect was under the
direction and advice of the registrar of joint-stock
companies.
Mr. J. H. Hartnoll, the plaintiff, was then examined.
He said that he was formerly teacher of mathematics and
nautical science at the Royal Naval School at Greenwich,
but had retired upon a pension. He had been for twenty
years proprietor of the Kentish, Mercury newspaper, and
fourteen years ago he projected- the Penny Post Maga-
zine. This publication was devoted entirely to insurance
matters, and circulated principally among insurance
offices. After the passing of the Joint Stock Companies
Registration Act a great many new fire and life in-
surance offices were brought out, and he canvassed their
merits in his journal. He remembered the establish-
ment of the Unity in 1852, and afterwards seeing the
advertisement of the names of the shareholders. He felt
it right to make inquiries, and in conseque4ce of the in-
formation he obtained, he subsequently published an ar-
ticle referring to the' society in a publication which he
brought out for the first time on the Ist of October. He
swore most positively that he was not employed by any
insurance company to write the article, and that he did
so in consequence of his conviction that the statements
in it were true, and that they put the public in posses•
sion of the knowledge of the real condition of the cons.
pang. He also stated most positively that he had never
received a single farthing from any person whatever for
writing the article. He sent four thousand copies of the
publication, at his own expense, to the persons whose
names appeared in the advertisement as shareholders.
Upon being cross-examined by Sir F. Thesiger, Mr.
Hartnoll said, that besides his connection with the pub-
lication in question, he had kept a school at Brixton,
but since the publication of the libel upon him he had
found it necessary to modify the establishment. He
was formerly proprietor of a newspaper, called the
Greenwich, Gazette, wnica, was an unprofitable concern,
and it merged into the Mercury. He at the same time
conducted another paper, called the West Kent Guardian.
One of the county magistrates complained upon one occa-
sion of an article that appeared in his paper, and he made
an apology. A cruninal information was also filed
against bins by Lord Dartmouth, and he apologised.
Lord Dartmouth paid his own costs and those of his
(witness's) publisher, but witness paid his own. In one
of his publications he had described a person named
Hart as a " peculiar fibber, a slanderer, and a
mouthing scamp." He did so because he knew it was
true. He had slandered witness at a public meeting, and
was proved to have told an untruth, and he spoke of
him in this manner when he refused to make an apology.
Only three numbers of the Insurance Monitor were pub-
lished, and the last number appeared on the day this
action was commenced. The "monster advertisement,
as it, was called, was the principal cause of the Monitor
being published. Twenty-five thousand copies of the
first number were printed, and he directed a copy to, be
sent to every subscriber of the Unity whose name ap-
peared in the advertisement at his own expense. This
exhaus4,ed about four thousand copies. Copies were
[
also taken by the following insurance offices :—The
thaion,. 1,904 ; Woist of England, 500 ; Sun, 1,00;

Royal Farmers, 500 ; Westminster, 500 ; Globe, 1,250 ;
Atlas, 500 ; County, 1,000 ; Royal Insurance, 2,000 ;;
Liverpool and London, 500 ; London Assurance Cor-
poration, 500 ; Pelican, 2,000 ; Phoenix, 3,000 ; Norwich
Fire, 1,500 ; Norwich Life, I,oo—in all, 17,250 copies.
Fifty-five offices took no copies. The remainder were dis-
posed of in the usual way at the office. He also sent a
number of copies of the Posb Magazine of the sth No-
vember to the shareholders of the Unity. The insurance
offices were in the habit of taking a number of copies of
the Post Magazine, sometimes so many as three or four
thousand. He did not know whether his publisher ap-
plied to the company for permission to publish their
advertisement. He gave them no special instructions,
but it was customary to send a circular‘ to all the in-
surance offices. In one of his publications be said that
he and the company had had their "first innings," and
that he should be " stumped out" if he had not got the
first blow or the second. The publication of the Monitor
was to prevent him from being " stumped out." He
was not aware that the publication was anticipated two
or three days, in order that it might be ready for distri-
bution at a meeting of the shareholders.
Re-examined—The companies he had mentioned took
the number of copies he stated of their own accord. He
made no application, and had no communication what-
ever with them upon the subject. Thirty-two of the old
offices did not take any copies.
This closed the case for the plaintiff.
Sir F. Thesiger then proceeded to address the jury
on behalf of the defendant in a speech of great power
and ability. He expressed his surprise that his learned
friend should have closed the case for his client so
suddenly, and that he had not, at all events, put his
publisher into the witness-box, as, after what had
occurred during the trial of the cause, it was evident
that he could have given very important evidence
which ought to have come to the knowledge of the
jury. He admitted to the fullest, extent the right of
the press to comment upon the conduct of public com-
panies and of cautioning the public against them, where
they were conducted in an unsafe and improper manner,
and he said that if it were done in a bona fide manner
no one had a right to complain • but he should submit
to the jury that this had not been the conduct of the
plaintiff, and he believed he should satisfy them from
his own printed papers that he had been systemati-
' cally engaged in slandering individuals, and he should
then ask them whether the defendant was ,not justified
in making use of strong expressions in reply to, such a
person. Sir Frederick then read portions of the dif-
ferent publications that had been put in, and said it was
clear that in the first instance the plaintiff had called
the- respectable gentlemen who were the directors of
this company swindlers, and he evidently intended to
hold the company up to the public as a bubble company,
and that the only consequence that could result from
any connection with it would be loss and ruin. All,
therefore, that. had been done by the company had
been done in self-defence, and Mr. Hartnoll had him-
self alone to blame. What did he complain of ? The
principal charge against him was that he was a hireling
writer, and that he had made false statements wilfully,
to the prejudice of the company. With respect to one
important matter, namely, the paying up of the deposits,
it waa admitted that he had stated that which was not
true, and when he spoke of a state of things existing in
1853 which referred to the previous year, it appeared to
him that he must have known that he was committing a
wilful deception. The charges he made , against the
company were of the most, serious description, and he
was, not satisfied with merely publishing them in his
Post ill agazine, but he had suddenly brought out this new
perioflical ; and so determined was ho in his efforts; to
injure the company, that the publication was hastened
in order that it might be ready for delivery to the shake-
holders at their meeting. It appeared to him that thecom-
pany had no alternative but to give, some explanation,
and if they did make use ;of bard words, the defendant
was alone to blame. Sir Frederick then referred to the
distribution of the seventeen thousand copies of the
Monitor to the different insurance offices that bad been
named, and he said that as the prioe of the publication
was two-pence, the plaintiff must have received no less
than 1431. 15s. for those copies alone, and he asked
them as reasonable men whether they could entertain
the slightest doubt that the object was to injure and to
ruin, if possible, the new company. He then commented
upon the contents of the pamphlet containing the alleged
libel, and concluded by expressing his opinion that the
jury would thidk that, under the circumstances, and
taking into consideration the fact that, except the
plaintiff's attorney, no one else but the shareholders had
been provided with a copy of it, they would, consider it
was a privileged communication, and that the defendant
was quite justified in issuing it.
Mr. Baron Alderson then summed up, and the jury
almost immediately returned a verdict for the plaintiff,
with, ls. damages.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—LEICESTER, MARCH 20.
CROWN COURT.
(Before Lord Chief Justice Jervis.)
James Bull, aged 19, was indicted for feloniously
attempting to strangle Ann Clarke, with intent to mur-
der 124, at Misterton, on the 13th of August last.
The prosecutrix, a middle-aged woman of respectable
appearance, and the prisoner were in the same service,
the former as housekeeper, and the latter as farm ser-
vant. For some time before the night in question the
prisoner had made overtures to the prosecutrix by say-
ing to her frequently that people said that he was to
marry the housekeeper ; but she had never given him
any encouragement or permitted any familiarities be-
tween them, regarding, as she said, all advances of
the kind by him towards a woman of her age as an
insult. On the night in question he, being undressed,
rushed into her room with a rope, which he suc-
ceeded in twisting round her neck, and endeavoured
to tie to the bedpost; but she struggled violently, and
Used her hands and nails upon bim with some effect.
She also was bruised as well as hurt by the tightening
of the cord round her- neck. When she found re-
sistance in vain, she cried out that she would have him,
and then released his hold. He was in a state of ex-
treme excitement, and almost as soon as the struggle
was over began crying. He said afterwards to the con-
stable, "If she had had me, it would not have hap-
pened."
Mr. O'Brien contended that the intent to murder was
not made out by the evidence, which indicated rather
that the prisoner's only object was to frighten the pro-
secutrix hato compliance with his wishes.

The learned Judge, however, did not adopt this view
of the case, and commented upon the strong resemblance
which this bore in its circumstances to Hatta's case at
Aylesbury, begging them, at the same time, not to
allow that case at all to itifluenne their decision, but to
judge of the prisoner's intention by his acts.
The Jury found the prisoner Guilty, and he was sen-
tenced to be transported for 15 years.

stables, and Bow, 383 S, were also upon the watch.
Witness, upon a signal being given by Perdrian, entered
the house alluded to, and on asking him what the parcel
contained, he replied that there was in it a quantity of
ribbons which he had from Mr. Jenkins, whose address
he did not remember, but he lived somewhere between
St. Alban's and Dunstable, and within the last year he
first met him at Windsor. He further said that he had
been: trying to sell the ribbons. Witness examined the
parcel and found therein a very large number of rolls of
ribbons, which he believed had been abstracted from a
hamper on its transit from Derby to London.
Henry Stone, in the employ of Messrs. Chaplin and
Horae, carriers, who have extensive premises at the Cam-
den-town station, stated that on the 12th inst., the cords
which had been tied round a hamper in a truck had been
cut, and the lid untied. There was a vacant space in the
said hamper which had in it black silk ribbons. It was
consigned to Mr. Radford, Noble-street, Cheapside, and
when weighed at the station it was 521bs weight short.
Joshua Gregory, assistant to Mr. Radford, said that
the hamper arrived at his employer's premises on the
13th inst., and that goods were missed from it to the
value of 471. Os. sd.

Perdrian (the company's officer) stated that seeing a
large open space in the hamper, he reported to the
proper authorities that be thought there had been a rob-
bery. lie (witness) went into the public-house men-
tioned by Mr. Bedford, and sat down by the prisoner,
who, in the course of a quarter of an hour; took
.from
_ _

his pocket some bills, the headings of which ho tore off
and threw in fragments upon the floor, after which he
packed up the papers and put them into his pocket.
Prisoner then went to the bar, and in a low tone spoke
to the landlord, of whom he requested the loan of a few
shillings, saying that he would leave the parcel, and
call for it next morning. The parcel which prisoner
had with him weighed 521bs. There was nothing in it
but ribbons.

Bow, 383 S, corroborated a portion of the foregoing
evidence, and said that upon Searching the prisoner at
the Albany-street station-house, he found upon him two
bills with the heading wanting. The items in them
were " black silk ribbons," and the words, " bought of
John Kirby, 40, King-street, Camden-town," were en-
graved thereon. When at the station, just before the
charge was entered in the book by the inspector on
duty, witness heard prisoner say "its a very bad job."
The prisoner was remanded.

- .
LAMBETH.--Mr. Elliot gra.iited a summons on the
application of Mr. Day, vestry clerk of the parish of
St. George the Martyr, against a Mr. Drewell, of Hat-
field-place, Westminster-road, for unlawfully exposing
fireworks for sale. It was in the parish aLove-named
that a terrible and fatal explosion lately took place, and
the vestry clerk has received orders from the parochial
authorities to prosecute those who may be found ex-
posing the neighbourhood to a similar calamity.

WANDSWORTH.—Mr. Alfred Wright, residing at
No. 6, Churton-street, Pimlico, was summoned at the
instance of Mr. Thomas Bent, of the A division of police,
who is employed upon the London and South-Western
Railway, for having, on the 9th inst., ridden in a first-
class carriage from Esher to Kingston station, without
havinc, a ticket, with the intent to avoid payment
thereof.

Mr. Godson, the superintendent of the passenger
traffic on the South-Western Railway, appeared in sup-
port of the summons on behalf of the company.
The defendant pleaded that helad no intention of de•
frauding the company.
William Gibbons, a travelling inspector upon the line,
deposed that on the day in question he was riding in
a first-class carriage of the 7.4.5 'l3.m, up train, from
andalming, when, on stopping at, the Esther station,
the guard put the defendant and another gentleman into,
the same carriage with witness, as they were short of
second class carriages, and told them to change on
arriving at the Kingston station as they would then find
room in the second class carriages. After the train had
started from Esher, the defendant said to the other gen-
tleman that he had no ticket. When they stopped at
Kingston, the defendant got out of the carriage, leaving
his luggage behind him, and ran into the station. The
other gentleman also alighted and entered a second class
carriage. Witness follower: into the station unobserved
and saw the defendant receive a second class ticket from
that station, and not from Esher, to Vauxhall. Witness
hastened back to the carriage, and was seated before
the defendant returned. He then got into the carriage
again and travelled all the way to Vauxhall in the first
class. The defendant got out at that station and de-
livered his ticket up to the collector at the door, and
would have passed on but witness stopped him and de-
manded from him the fare for riding in a first class car-
riage from Esher to Kingston, and also the excess for
riding in a first class carriage with a second class ticket
from Kingston to Vauxhall, which he refused to pay.
Mr. Godson said they had a great many cases where
they were victimised in a similar manner, and it was
only when they could detect the parties as in the pre-
sent instance, that they could bring the matter before
the public as an example to others, and for their pro-
tection.

, Mr. Beadon observed that the case only showed to
him what he had always thought, that it was most es-
sential for railway companies to employ travelling in-
spectors.
The defendant, in answer to the summons, said that
he had no time to get a ticket at Esher, and at Kingston
station he thought he could not get a ticket there for
riding from Esher to Vauxhall, and so he took a ticket
from Kingston. If he had known he could have had
one he certainly would have got it.
Mr. Beadon thought there was another point the de-
fendant had to answer, and that was, why he did not
pay the excess when it was demanded of him at Vaux-
hall.

The defendant explained, as a reason, that he thought
he ought to consider the matter before he did so, as he
expected to be called before the railway authorities.
Mr. Beadon was surprised that he should suppose
that, when by paying the demand the matter would be
settled. The defendant had acted very wrong, and had
set a very bad example. He find him 40is. and 4s.
costs.
The money was immediately paid.