The Sun.
London, England, 1869-12-15 00:00:00

(Before the Common Sergeant.)
THE LIBELS ON SIR JOSEPH HAWLEY.

Dr. Shorthouse, the editor and proprietor of tl:e
Sporting Times, surrendered to answer an iniict,
went charging him with wilfully and maliciously
publishing a defamatory libel on Sir Joseph Hawley.
Sergeant Ballantine appeared for the prosecution,
the defendant conducted his own case.

Sergeant Ballantine stated the case against the
defendant, which, it will be recollected, was a libel
published in an article appearing in the Spurting

inics, commenting upon the conduct of Sir Joseph
Scratchawley in milking -the public by scratching
the two favourites, Siderolite and Blue Gown, for
the Liverpool Autumn Ilandic:iy, and winning the
race with Lic:or.

Mr. Georbe Lewis, the solicitor, having proved
the purchase of a copy of the paper at the defen-
dant's office,

Sir Joseph Hawley was called, and in answer to
questions put to him by Mr. Sergeant Ballantine,
said—l am the owner of race horses. I had three
horses, named Sider°lite, Blue Gown, and Lictor,
entered for the Liverpool Cup, and on the Monday
previous to the racy I scratched the first two. 1
had backed Lictor to win the race to the amount
of about MO. I have not been guilty of the dis-
honorable actions imputed to me by the libel.
Sergeant Ballantine-1 don't, Sir Joseph, pro-
pose to ask you whether you have been guilty of
all the charges that have been made against you.
Cross-examined by Dr. Shorthouse—Mr. Lewis
purchased the copy of the Sporting 'limes at the
office on the Monday following its publication about
five o'clock. I had then taken out the summons.
I had been to the office of the "Man about Town.'
The summons was granted on my evidence, but not
before I had possessed myself of copies of the paper.
I had had copies supplied me in the first instance
by my newsvcndor. I have not indicted him for
selling the libel. I come to the conclusion that you
printed and published the libel because I see your
name at the top of the paper as editor. I have
no evidence that you printed and published the
libel—that I leave to my solicitors, as I am not
up in the law. When I saw Farrah he was
told that proceedings would be taken against the
editor for libel.

Dr. Shorthouse—Do you know when the sum-
mons was served ?

SirJ. Hawley—No, I d 3 not.

Don't you know that it was not served until
the Wednesday following the Monday 2--. No, I
do not.

When did my letter of apology arrive ?—On
Wednesday.

Don't you think that my apology was written
before I heard of the 6111111110LIS?—No, I do not.

Then you did not think it was sufficient ?—I did
not go for an apology at all. You knocked me down
and I went for redress. I roust say I believe the
aro!ogy was written through fear.

You have not suffered much in consequence of
the libel.—l think it most offensive, and, tuerefure,
I am determined to resent it.

Your friends have not turned you up since its
publication ?—No.
They have rallied round you in greater numbers,
have they not don't sec that.
Have you not been urged to this proceeding by
others?—No ; I thought it was so grave that it was
right for me to go on. ➢ly friends thought the libel
was a most infamous one. I have never seen any
pleasant criticism of my conduct in your paper, fur
I seldom read it. I hate reading libellous papers
as they annoy me. I have seen sur:h expres,ious
as "Thank God, we hope Sir Joseph will not win ;"
that's not pleasant. (Laughter.) I do not read
your paper much, I tell you that fairly.

Did you not on one occasion object to a Derby
winner, Pretender, and stop the. settlement ?
I heard some rumours relative to the owner of the
horse, and I wrote to the stewards of the Jockey
Club to postpone the settlement until the rumours
were enquired into.
How long bas your turf career extended?—
Twenty-seven years.
Have you ever been criticised, berfore ?—Oh,
yes ; no doubt about it ; but never like the com-
ments that appeared in your paper.

his Grace the Duke of Beaufort, in reply to
Sergeant Ballantine, said he had no doubt that the
articles about Sir Joseph Sk:ratchawley related to
Sir Joseph Hawley.
Is it not quite in accordance with the rules of the
Jockey Club, and the practice of honourable men,
to scratch horses for certain races when more than
one is entered for the same race?—Yes, certainly.
What does your grace understand by the term
" milking" ?—Swindling.

Dr. Shorthouse—And has your grace come to
town merely to tell us that milking means swind-
ling?—No, I came to answer any question that
might be put to me. I never saw a slang dic-
tionary. I take milking to mean laying against
your own horse and then scratching it, that I call
swindling.

What is the difference between honourable
and dishonourable scratching ?—lt may happen that
an owner having three or more horses entered for
a race might not have an opportunity of trying
their respective merits until a short time before the
race, and after that he would be perfectly justified
in scratching any of them.
Did your Grace not have the number of a certain
horse, Lord Ronald, on one occasion put up and
then withdrawn ?—Such a circumstance did occur,
but it was done without my knowledge. Imme-
diately I saw the number up I galloped up and had
it taken down. Such a proceeding is a finable
offence. The matter was inquired into by the
Stewards of the Jockey Club, and they were
perfectly satisfied with my explanation of the
matter. lam not a newspaper proprietor, but I
have a share in one called the Sporting Gazette.
The Common Sergeant—Then if a horse was
scratched after the entry all bets would be lost.—
Yes, that is so.
Sergeant Ballantine—lt is in fact just as bad as
cheating at cards.
General Peel—There is nothing irregular in
scratching two horses where three of the same
owner's are in the same race. Milking a horse
would be an act of dishonesty. If an owner bets
against his horse and then scratches it it is most
dishonourable.

The libel having been read, Sergeant Baliantine
said that would be the case for the prosecution.
Dr. Shorthouse then addressed the jury, and said
no one more regretted the publication of the libel
than he did. It appeared without bis knowledge,
and he was so horrified when he read the first two
paragraphs that ho at once set down and wrote a
letter of apology to Sir Joseph before he heard a
word about the summons.

Witnesses were then called to show that Dr.
Shorthouse did not write the article in question.
The Common Sergeant, in summing up the evi-
dence, said there could be no doubt but that the
article in question was a most scurrilous one, and
the question for the jury was, had the defendant
exercised due care and caution before the libel was
published.

The jury, after some deliberation, returned a
verdict of guilty of not exercising duo caution.
Sergeant Ballantine said there was another
article in the paper on the queen and Mr. Pea-
body, which showed that the publication was a
most scurrilous one, and ought to be suppressed.
The Common Sergeant, after consulting the
judges, sentenced the defendant to pay a fine of
£5O, and to be imprisoned for three months.
The defendant was removed from the Court in
custody.
Frederick Farrah pleaded guilty to an indictment
charging him with publishing the newspaper con-
taining the libel. The judge ordered him to enter
into sureties for £2OO to come up for judgment
when called upon.
Gilbert Robins pleaded guilty to publishing a
libel on Sir Joseph Hawley in a newspaper called
the Man About Mwn. The judge sentenced him to
pay a fine of £25.

At the weekly meeting of the Metropolitan Board
of Works on Friday last, Mr. Arthur Allow, of Parlia-
ment-street, was appoiut‘d. Deputy-Surveyor of the dis-
trict of St. Martin-in-the-Fields and St. Ann, Sobc , We6t-
minster, in consequence of the illness of Mr. lieuo.4ll.