The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-02 00:00:00

LIBELLING A DENTIST:

On Saturday last M. Fresco, a surgeon dentist,
earring on business in George:-street, Hanover-
square, brought an action in the Court of Common
Pleas against Mr. Bowen May, an attorney! for

libel. It was to recover damages for the following'
alleged libel which had been written by the defen-
dant, and published in the Medical Circular on the
16th March, 1859—" Quack dentists—On Monday,
Mr. Bowen May, as solicitor to the London Medi-

cal Registration Association, applied for and ob-
tained a summons from the magistrate, at Bow-
street, against Andre Fresco, of 9, George-street, •
Hanover-square, and 513, New Oxford-street, call-
ing himself a surgeon dentist, for obtaining money
under false pretences from a Mrs. Jones, the pre-
tence being that he was recognised by diploma of
Dr. Edward Cock, principal surgeon of Guy's Hos-
pital, as set forth in his advertisement, whereas Mr.
Bowen May produced a letter from Dr. Cock, stat-
ing that he knew nothing of the man except his
impudent and false statement in the advertisement,
and which his solicitor had endeavoured to put a
stop to. Mrs. Jones also stated that the defen-daut
had endeavoured to obtain a further sum by
violent conduct in coming to her house and using'
strong language. The summons is returnable on.
Monday, the 20th instant. We are glad to see that
the society is still following up the quacks." In
answer to the action, the defendant pleaded not
guilty, that the plaintiff was not a surgeon dentist,
and a justification.
The case lasted the whole day, but the following
is a summary of the principal facts :—ln the spring'
of 1859 Mrs. Jones applied to the defendant in re-
ference to a transaction she had had with the plain-
tiff about some teeth, and the defendant seeing that
the plaintiff in his advertisement said,. Andr&
Fresco is duly recognised (by diploma) by Dr. Ed-
ward Cock, the present principal surgeon of Guy's
Hospital, and by many other eminent medical
men," applied to Mr. Cock, who wrote as follows :
" I have no knowledge whatever of Mr. Fresco ex-
cept from his advertisement, and the use which he
makes of my name is an impudent falsehood. I
have in vain attempted to put a stop to the imposi-
tion, and Mr. Taylor, the late solicitor to Gafa
Hospital, at my request, wrote him repeated-letters
on the subject, to which no answer was returned. I
was advised that legal proceedings would be pro-
bably fruitless, and certainly expensive, and SO the
matter dropped." The defendant thereupon ob-
tained the summons at Bow-street, but on the hew.-
ing of the summons it appeared that in 1849, Mr;
Cock had given the following certificate :—" I have
examined the diploma which A. Fresco received
from the Medical Commission at Dort, and find it to
be to the best of my knowledge, correct and au-
thentic in every particular. It declares that he has
passed a satisfactory examination before a legally
authorised board, and that he has been found in
every way skilled to practise as a surgeon dentist."
Mr. Cock had entirely forgotten the circumstance
until the paper was shown to him. The magistrate
dismissed the summons, but no report of this termi-
nation of the application was published in the Medi-
cal Circular, though the proprietors of the paper
did a week or two afterwards offer to insert the
fact. Previous to the application to the magistrate
the plaintiff had taken steps to bring Mrs. Jones's
case before the Bloomsbury County Court, and a.
long report of the trial appeared in the Medical'
Circular, in which there was also a short comment
upon it. The present plaintiff sued Mr. Yearsley,
one of the proprietors of that paper, for libel in
consequence of the publication of the report and the
comment, when the jury awarded the plaintiff 40s.
in respect of the comment, but held that the report
was privileged.
In the course of the evidence on Saturday it was
said that the defendant had volunteered to write
the statement now in question, whilst on the other
hand it was said that he had only written it at the
request of Mr. Yearsley, and had furnished it to
that gentleman in strict confidence. The plaintiff
said that he had before the libel earned about £l,OOO
a year gross, and that his business had been ruined
in consequence of the libel. He however admitted
that before the libel he was frequently summoned
for small amounts in the county court; and he had
raised money by getting bills discounted. He stated
also that before the libel he had no money, but he
denied that he was insolvent.
The Lord Chief Justice said in his opinion the
article in question was a libel, and therefore the
point for consideration was what should be the
amount of damages. According to tho'case of Lewis
v. Levy, the publication of preliminary pro-
ceedings at police courts might or might not.be
privileged, but the publication of the preliminary
proceedings which inculpated the party, and the
omission to publish the subsequent :proceedings
which exculpated him, never could be justified. If
the object of Mr. May and the association with
which he was connected was to prevent unqualified
persons from obtaining the money and ruining the
health of their patients they deserved credit for
their motives • but if they infringed the rights of
any person they must do so at their,own risk.
The jury found for the plaintiff, damages £450.
The defendant's counsel applied for a stay of
execution, upon the ground that the article in ques-
tion was privileged, and that the damages were ex-
cessive.
His lordship refused the application.