The Sun.
London, England, 1856-07-07 00:00:00

""°l4s____AthNDA V EVENING, JULY 7, lsse.

THE SUN,

AILW AY INTELLIGENCE.

METROPOLITAN.

LAW INTELLP4aICE.--,Tvly 5.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Guildhall, aster term, before
the Lard Qhiet Baron and a Special Jury.)

DIDDLE V. THOMPSON AND ANOTHER-ALLEGED LIBEL.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
from the defendants, Messrs. Thompson and Sun, the pro-

prietors and publishers of the Leicester Chronicle, com-
pensation in damages for an alleged libel published in that
paprr on Ist March last, reflecting upon, the character of
the plaintiff. The defendants pleaded not guilty, and a
justification so far as part of the alleged libel went.
It appeared that the plaintiff, in 1830, started in
business as a mrnufaeturer of gloves and cloth pieces,
at Leicester, which he carried on with success un-
til 1843, when he entered lute partnership with
a Mr. Ramsden, a spinner, at Huddersfield. In
1848 he started a manufactory of Lisle and Berlin

laces at Leicester, with one Briggs, who had previously
been in his employ. Unfortunately the partnership
with Ramsden was found to be unprofitable, su much so
that, in 1851, the firm were involved to the extent of
bet Ween 6,0001. and'7,ooo/., which arose in consequence
of bad debts. The partriership was then dissolved, it
having been arranged thai Rimsden should conduct the
business and discharge the liabilities. However, Rams-
den having become insolvent, the liabilities were thrown
upon the plaintiff, who, in the first instance, had invested
5001, in the Huddersfield conoerns without rd iving any
return. There were then acceptances out to the amount
of 1,6001. on account of the Yorkshire concern, and the
plaintiff owed about 2,3001. to his bankers, the Messrs.
Paget, of Leicester, who were his largest creditor& Iu
this state of things the plaintiff consulted two of his York-
shire creditors', Mr. Brooke and Mr. De Paiva, to whom

he owed 1,6801. and 4501. respectively ; and they recom-
mended him, notwithstanding that his liabilities amounted
to nearly 7,0001., to continue his Leicester business, and
at the same time Brooke surrendered 10s, in the
pound of his claim, leaving the plaintiff 15-1. or 10g. in
the pound for the rest of his creditors—his liabilities
being at that time 4,8001., and his assets 3,5001. He
did not tell Messrs. Paget that be was insolvent, but he
told them that he had got out of the Yorkshire ccncern
better than he anticipated. After this the plaintiff car-
ried on the Leicester business till 1854, when, in conse•
quence of the total cessation of all shipments to Austra.
ha, he found that he was a considerable loser, his debts
being 5,6671., and his assets 4791. 19s. 6d. On May 9,
1855, being pressed by one of his creditors who had ob-
tained judgment against him, he filed his petition, and on
the 14th of Aug. obtained a second-class certificate, his
estate paying 4d. in the pound. In this state of things, an
article, which was of considerable length, appeared in the
Leicester Chronicle of the Ist of March last, in allusion to

the bankrupt's circumstances, and which was the matter
now complained of. It was headed " Speculation and
Bankruptcy," and commenced by saying, " In the tragi-
cal end of J. Sadleir there is much material for contem-
plation. He was but the type of a class which, we are
afraid, is numerous. It is difficult to c impletely describe
that class, but a few hints may help our readers in compre-
hending its principal attributes." Tee article having al-
luded to the career of Sadleir, touched upon the failure
of Mr. George Pell, of \Velford, Northamptonshire, and
continued—" Another case has happened nearer home
of a similar description ; we mean the case of John Bid-
dle, who has lately passed through the Court of Bank-
ruptey. He was well known in this town from the as-
sumption of the dre,s of the Society of Friends (the
plaintiff, although not a Quaker, was dressed in the garb
of one), and he had placed himself in no inferior position
in the conduct of pi and local affairs
He selects his own opportunity, and throws himself into
the Court of Bankruptcy, passes through such an exa-
mination as is common in that court, and with the slight
stigma of a second-class certificate, after paying 4d. in
the pound, probably starts again, like Mr. Pell, of Wel-
ford, his plumage only slightly damaged, on a new career
of reckless ambition." The statement relative to the
plaintiff, coupled with the harsh comments on the frau-
dulent career of Mr. Sadleir in the same article, it was
contended, amounted to a malicious and injurious libel,
and hence the present action.
The Lord Chief Baron, at the conclusion of the plain-
tiff's case, said that, in his opinion, any man who, being
in insolvent circumstances, went on trading and did not
tell his principal creditors of his position, was not acting
like an honest man or a fair trader.
Mr. Sergeant Byles addressed the jury for the defence.
He said the defendants had for many years conducted
their paper in a highly respectable manner amongst a
manufacturing cominuuity, and they thought it their
duty to comment fairly on transactions which they con-
sidered discreditable. He would ask them was not the
article a fair comment upon the plaintiff's acts ? Was
not 'what had been stated true in every respect, as
proved from the plaintiff's own mouth—strictly and
literally true and, unless the greater the truth the
greater the libel be the law of the land, they would be
justified in returning a verdict for the defendants.
He contended that his clients had only exercised
the power of fair comment, which was entrusted to
them as public journalists. The press was now the great
public instructor, and the public were much indebted to
them when they exposed malpractices. That the plaintiff
was a bankrupt under discreditable circumstances was
abundantly proved. The article, when speaking of
Sadleir's career of vice and forgery, did not mean to im-
pute forgery to the plaintiff—it only meant to ascribe
that he had become a'bankrupt under discreditable cir-
cumstances.
The Chief BaroU, in summing up, said the real ques-
tionAvas how much and how far the article complained
of was applicable to the plaintiff. There could be no
doubt that if the plaintiff had been classed in the same
category with Sadleir—with the view of ascribing the
'same delinquencies to him—that he, in the event of the
juetificNtion not establishing it, would be entitled to a
verdict. But the question was, had the article exceeded
the fair limits of discussion in relating all the facts in
connection with Sadleir, then Pell, then the plaintiff,
but stating only what was true of the latter, and finally,
commenting upon them as specimens of the way
in which the business of life was now conducted. If
they thought the article was only a fair comment on
current public events, and that the facts relating to Bid-
dle, the plaintiff, were true, the defendants would be
entitled to their verdict. The question was, whether
the article had gone beyond the fair limits of discussion.
The most prolific 'source of misery in this country arose
from persons trading beyond their capital and living
beyond their means. No man was justified in carrying
'on his business for a single day beyond the time he
was able to meet his liabilities. He considered trading
in insolvent circumstances highly dishonest, and, in
his judgment, the man who would do so was half-way
to Hounslow-heath, as matters went in former times.
considered that Mr. Brooke, who advised the
plaintiff to go on trading when he was so deeply in-
volved, was not entirely free from blame. The ques-
tion, however, for the consideration of the jury was,
were the comments fairly made, not alone in the 'dis-
charge of a public duty, but in the rights of the free-
dom (,f public discussion If they were of opinion
that the remarks which applied to-Sadleir were intended
to apply to the plaintiff, they would return a verdict in
his favour, awarding him such damages as they consi-
dered he was entitled to.
The jury immediately returned a verdict for the de.
fendants.

—" your ever affectionate." Oa the 28th Dec., be said
" I wish I could find words sufficient to express toy fond

affection for you, hut time will prove.'' On the 9th
Jan., "I was very much pleased at seeing you on Mon-
day laNt, but since I have really felt home to be more
dull than ever," and on the 2jd, "You cannot conceive
how dearly I love you, dearest, and with how much plea-
sure I look forward to our marriage, as I know how happy
I shall be at all times when blessed with your presence."

Tire marriage having been fixed for the 3d April, in' the
meantime the gentleman went in search of a suitable re-
sidence for the plaintiff ; and in January he took a place
called Hill-house, and be also ordered a brougham and a
phaeton. On the 17th March, however, Mr. Smith, the
plaintiff's father, received this extraordinary letter, to
which he wished to call their attention, indicating, as be

thought it did, a vacillation and impropriety of conduct
perfectly inexcusable under such circumstances, N% ben
the happiness and the very life of this young lacy were

at stake.

The letter was :

" Dear Sir,—For various causes, the affair fixed _fur
the 3d of April must be postponed.—l remain, yours
faithfully, " THOMAS WOODFINE."
Nothing more than that. Inquiry was made as to the
reason of this, and the reason alleged was, that an af-
front had been offered to the defendant's family in not

sending an invitation to the wedding breakfast to his
sister, Mrs. Thompson, who resided in Loudon. The
fact, however, was, that an invitation had actually
been sent to that lady, and no reason could be ascer-
tained why the letter should not have been delivered.
He was told that there was no intention to give any

offence, and eventually the matter ended in the de-
fendant expressing his penitence for what he had
done, and he took charge himself of the second
letter to Mrs. Thompson, in order that there should
be no misdelivery again. The day for the wedding
was altered to the 17th April, and every preparation
was made for it ; but before the day arrived the defen-
dant began to harp upon the old story. There were
various pretexts ; but the principal one was that Mrs.
Thompson had notreceived an invitation, though she had
in fact received the second invitation, and had answered
that Mr. and Mrs. Thompson could not possibly come.
He also said that his mother did not like the young lady;
and on the let April, Miss Smith, with a female com-
panion, waited on Mrs. Woodfine, and asked whether
she had done anything to offend her, and expressed her
_ _

sorrow if she had done so. She also asked whether Mr.
Woodfine was at home, and at first he was denied, but
afterwards he came into the room with his slippers on,
and appeared as though he had been in the house, all the
time. On the next day Mr. Woodfine called on Mr.
Smith, and requested to see his daughter. The old
gentleman, after what had occurred, was not desirous
that his daughter should be seen when he was not
present, but the defendant contrived to get into
the room where she was, and locked the door after
him. He said to her, " I will marry yon on this
condition, that your father," or else is was " None
of your relatives shall ever MOSS my threshold."
He might as well have said to the young lady, " I will
marry you if you cut off your right hand." She said,
" No, I cannot marry you on those conditions." On
which he ran out of the house, saying, " She says no ;
she says no." The consequence was that the second
day fixed for the wedding went off as the first had
done, and no resource remained but to bring the ac
tion which was now before them. It was an action
to which there was no solid defence, and the .only ques-
tion would be to what damages this young lady was en-
titled for this causeless and most distressing conduct of
this gentleman.
Mr. Henry A. Smith, the plaintiff's father, was
called, and said—l reside at Hornehnrch, and was for a
great many years iu the Audit-office. My daughter was
21 last July. The defendant told me that the brewery
last year produced 6,0001. profit, and he also said he
had 16,0001. or 19,0001. in the funds. The defendant
spoke to me in June, 1855, and said he had made pro-
posals of marriage to my daughter, and she preferred his
naming it to me. I told him my daughter would have
no fortune until I died, and I also said I should
wish to see his mother on the subject, and the defendant
asked what was the necessity of that ; was he not old
enough to judge for himself ? He alluded to a former
engagement he had had with a Miss Jones, and he entered
into some details as to the manner in which it was broken
off. I had an interview with his mother afterwards, and
told her what her son had said, and she offered no objec-
tion. After this the defendant continued his attentions to
my daughter, and was received as her suitor. The de-
fendant looked out for a house for my daughter. He looked
at Mr. Wagner's, the best house in the neighbourhood ;
but Mr. Wagner would not giveit up. Ultimately he took
Hill-house, and-was to give 2001. a-year for it. The wed-
ding was fixed for the 3d Ansi:, and I was to give a break-
fast. After the receipt of the letter in March I sent Mr.
Matthews to the defendant, and the answer was, "If I
had anything to say I must go to him." I went with
Mr. Matthews, and saw him in the presence of his
mother. I asked him to explain the meaning
of his letter, and he said, " You have insulted my
family." I said, "In what manner?" and he said, in not
having sent an invitation to Mrs. Thompson, his sister.
I told him that the letter had been sent, and he observed
that there were various modes of intercepting a letter on
its road. I reminded him that he had promised to
take a letter and explain the circumstances. He then said,
" You have insulted my mother ; you never sent her a
letter of invitation." Mr. Matthews observed that, if we
had sent her a letter of invitation, living, as she did,
in the same village, they might have taken it as an in-
sult, and that when be was married be had not sent an in-
vitation to his mother. He then said, " Mr. Smith ac•
°used me of wanting to serve her as I served Miss Jones."
I said, "Mr. Wood fine, do you want to break off the mar-
riage ?" He said, "I do not say so—it must be post-
poned." Mrs. Woodfine observed, " Your daughter
cannot love my son, for she has allowed him to take a
house at Upuiinster, and to be so far from the brewery."
Mr. Woodfine said immediately, "Oh ! [nether, mother,
that has nothing to do with it." The house which had
been taken was about a mile from the brewery. I said I
thought Mrs. Woodfine did not like my daughter, and
her reply was, " I certainly do not like your daughter;"
that she was extravagant and bad tempered. She said
there were plenty of other houses, and referred to on e
occupied now by Mr. Denbigh, and let at 301. a year. I
again adverted to the letter that we bad sent to Mrs.
Thompson, and I said, " Perhaps by this time they may
have received the letter." He rose up and attempted to
ring the bell, and said, " Oh ! if you doubt my word,"
and he, in fact, ordered us out of the house. After, that
Mr. Woodfine renewed his visits to our house. I saw him
on the 24th of March. He shook hands with me, and ape.
logised for his conduct. He said he was sorry for having
been so hasty ; if he at any time did wrong he wished to
apologise for it. After-the 24th of March Mr. Woodfine
called as usual. On the 2d April he came through the sur-
gery into the dining-room where I was sitting. Mr. Mat-
thews let him into the room, and he asked if he could see
my (laughter. I said "No;she is unwell, and suffering from
the treatment she bad received from your mother and
yourself." He said "It is a pastry excuse ; it is an in-
famous lie." I told him I was at a loss to understand
what he meant by his vacillating conduct ; one day com-
ing down to apologise for what he had said the day pre-
vious, and another day allowing his mother to insult my
daughters, and standing by whilst they were insulted. I
told him I was quite at a loss to know what he meant—
did he mean to break off the marriage? He said, "You
are a fool, you are a liar, you are a placeman and a
clerk"—(a laugh)—and he shook his fist at me. I told
him I should be ashamed to revert to what his father or
his grandfather had been ; and there I was wrong, per-
haps. He said he wished to see my daughter,
and I sent up for her, and, before my daugh-
ter, asked him to speak up like a man ; and I said,
"Do you wish to break off the engagement—you are
trying to force my daughter to do so." He said he wanted
to see her alone, and I would not let him. He said, " I
must appoint a meeting with Mi-s Smith," and out we
both went—Mr. Woodfine going before me through the
surgery; and I after him. All of a sudden he slipped
round, went back to my daughter, and locked me in the
surgery. (Laughter.) He locked himself up in the room
with my daughter. I did not hear what passed between
them. He came out with my daughter, and his words
were "Do you agree to my proposal ?" My daughter
said, "No, never on those conditions." He then left
the house, saying, "She says no'—she says no." I
said," My good fellow, she does not say no,' and he
said, "You are a liar," and that is the last time I have
spoken to him.
The cross-examination of this witness was concluded
shortly before 5 o'clock, and tee case was adjourned un-
til Monday.

ROLLS COURT.
BALDWIN V. BALDWIN.

This was a suit to take the opinion of the Court whe•
ther a specific bequest to a charitable use, under the will
of William Baldwin, of Sedgley and Bilaton, near Wol.
verhampton, had been revoked by a codicil to the 'aid
will. The will was executed on the 25th of May, 1854,
whereby the testator gave 4,0001. to his tru...tees to
provide stipends and annuities for old persons of both
sexes, not exceeding nii,e in number, who through mis-
fortune had become indigent, and were worthy object-
of charity. The trustees were to be empowered to sele. t
the parties, with a preference for the testator's family
servants, should they require aid in their old age, and
to devise rules for the conduct of the almshouses. Is
three weeks after the testator made a codicil to this will,
confirming all other bequests to his sister and brother,
but revoking the bequest to the purposes of hie intended
charity and the providing the inmates thereof with sti-
pends and annuities for their support. This codicil was
dated 19 days after the will, and the property, upon
probate of the will on testator's decease, was found to be
fully adequate to all the objects contemplated by the
testator. The. defendant, Martin Baldwin, now con-
tended that the charitable bequest had been revoked by
the codicil.

Mr. R. Palmer, Mr. Wicking, Mr. Bird, and Mr.
Druce were in the case.

The Master of the Rolls gave judgment, observing
that the words of the codicil were sufficiently explicit to
convey the intention of the testator to revoke the legacy
to the charitable object, and the intention of the testa.
tor so clearly expressed must be carried out.