The Sun.
London, England, 1870-04-23 00:00:00

THE ACTION FOR LIBEL AGAINST
" MORNING POST."

FRIDAY.

To-day in the Court of Common Pleas, before Mr.
Justice Wines and a jury, the case Picard v. Broad-
bridge was heard. This was an action for libel
brought against the proprietor of. the /horning Post
by Mr. Francis Picard, public accountant, 39,
St. James's-street, Piccadilly. Mr. O'Malley, Q.C.,
and Mr. Francis appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Chas. Pollock and Mr. Ashley for the defendant.—The
Case, as opened by the counsel for the plaintiff, was
that in the latter part of 1869, several letters appeared in
the Morning Post, concerning the circulars of money-
lenders. On the 9th of December, one of the
correspondents enclosed a copy of a circular
issued by plaintiff, in which he offered his
professional services to gentlemen in difficulties. This
letter was inserted under the heading of "The Nuisance
of Money Lenders," and the correspondent characterised
the plaintiff's circular as "the most unblushing of its class."
The plaintiff, it was stated, had never been a money
lender in his life, but had been of great use to many per-
sons in difficulties in arranging their affairs. On seeing
the letter, he, through his solicitor, applied for the name
of the writer ; but the defendant refused it, and therefore
took upon himself the responsibility of the writing. On the
15th of Dec. defendant put in the paper what he now pleaded
as an apology, but which, the learned council urged, the
jury should consider an aggravation of the libel, and a
most impudent and insulting paragraph. They headed it
" Money-Lenders," and merely said they had been
assured by the plaintiff that he was not a money-
lender. There was not a word of retractation
but it was really a reiteration of the slander. The papers
of this country had a great power—that of blasting a
man's reputation, and an editor ought to make careful
inquiry before making a serious charge against
a man by name. Mr. Picard had not asked
for pecuniary recompense, but for a retractation
and apology, and even now made the same offer ; but if
that should be refused, then he must appeal to the jury to
mark their sense of the conduct of the defendant. Papers
thought they could sometimes carry those things with a
very high hand, but he (the learned counsel) was
happy to say that between the character of the
individual and the power of the journal there intervened
the authority of the jury.—The plaintiff was called, and
denied that he was or had ever been a money-lender.—
After formal proof of the libel, counsel for the defence
addressed the jury, urging that a full and ample
apology had been tendered in the columns of the paper,
and there was no ground for characterising that apology
as either impudent or insulting. His lordship, in
whether Summing theup
' leftit
htoad defendant
whether there was an evidence of malice.
thacetedjurrairly to 2
andsay
The jury, after consulting for a few minutes returned
a verdict for the defendant. His Lordship said
he should have been very much surprised if they had
found any other verdict.

THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS.

FRIDAY.

The adjourned meeting of the fellows and members of
this college was held to day, at the institution, Lincoln's-
Inn Fields, for the purpose of discussing and considering
the present position of the college with respect to probable
legislation, and the formation of a single examining board
for each division of the United Kingdom. E. Cock, Esq.,
F.R.C.S., president of the college, in the chair.
Mr. HoLuEs, who opened the proceedings, said that
neither the motion nor the amendment made at the pre-
vious meeting at all coincided with the opinions of the
majority of the members present. The motion, as pro-
posed, pointed to put the formation of the licensing board
entirely in the hands of some department of the Govern-
ment. He believed the members at that meeting had not the
slightest idea of abro,,atinr, their functions, and putting
themselves in the hands of the Government.
Mr. GANT moved an amendment, which was a
direct negative, and taking both into considera-
tion, if the motion was put he should hold
up his hand against it. But it was a different thing when
they asked them to leave the matter in the hands of the
existing corporations. That was so strong tht.t he could
not go with him. If the amendment should be negatived,
he should propose one to the effect that examiners in
licensing boards should be elected in part by the Royal
College of Surgeons.
Mr. HEATH said the meeting that day was in a different
position to the last. Since then the President of Council
had brought in his bill, and there was no more represen-
tation in it than in the former bill, but the interests of the
several corporations were carefully taken care of. He
went in favour of the State being the governing body.
Mr. GISAINE contended that as the State spent a great
deal of money in the cause, they had a right to expect to
have persons to study their interest. If universities were
self-supporting, like that college, they would not allow
any interference. He hoped they would never do as
France did in its worst days and forget that self-govern-
ment is part of the arrangement of the country. What
would lawyers or clergymen say if the Government wished
to examine who should enter the professions.
Mr. BAXTER LANGLEY was of opinion that State licenses
for practice should be regarded as the minimum qualifica-
tion, and that the governing bodies should be elected by
members, of the corporations, who would have regard to
the gradations of rank of those whom they appointed.
Mr. J. M. CLARKE should not vote for either the motion
or the amendment, but would urge them not to put them-
selves into the hands of the enemy, but keep to a repre-
sentative system.
Mr. ROGEnS HARRISON said he should adhere to the
amendment he proposed at the former meeting, that the
word "not" be left out of the resolution.
Mr. GANT also adhered to his motion, which was,
" That the members of the Examining Licensing Board
should not be left in the hands of the existing corpo-
rations."
The President put the amendment to the meeting, when
it was lost.
MR. HOLMES then proposed an amendment to the
effect that the examiners should be elected wholly, or in
part, by the Royal College of Surgeons of England.
Mr. CARR seconded the amendment, which was carried,
and on being put as a substantive motion was carried
also.