The Sun.
London, England, 1858-05-31 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.--May 20.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
' (Sittings in Banco.—Before the Lord Chief Baron,
and Barons Martin, Bramwell, and Channel].)
SWEARING IN OF THE CHANCELLOR OF THE
EXCHEQUER.
At half-past 11 o'clock the Right Hon. B.
Disraeli, Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his full
robes of office, and attended by his mace-bearer,
came into court to be sworn in.
Mr. Walton, the Queen's Remembrancer, having
administered the usual oaths,
The Chancellor took his seat on the bench, and
called upon Mr. Elwin James, as the senior Queen's
Counsel present, to move.
Mr. James accordingly moved that the fact of
the'Chancellor of her Majesty's Exchequer having
taking the oaths should be recorded by the Queen's
Remembrancer.
This having been done the ceremonial concluded,
and the Chancellor, having bowed to the learned
barons, retired.
BARNET V. ALLEN.-LECIAL DEFINITION OF g' A
BLACKLEG."
This was an action for slander, tried before Mr.
Justice Erle at Maidstone, The slander com-
plained of by the plaintiff, an upholsterer at Wool-
wich, was, that the defendant, a fishmonger of the
same place, who had a raffle, which took place on,
the 27th of August, at the Edinburgh Castle pub-
lic-house, Woolwich, called him a blackleg. The
jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, and a rule was
subsequently obtained by Mr. Sergeant Shee to set
aside the verdict and to enter a nonsuit or for a
new trial, the question raised by the rule being
whether any inuendo had been proved, and if
proved did it disclose a cause of action.
Mr. Edwin James now showed cause against the
rule, and said that the court were called upon to
put a legal construction on the word " blackleg."
The term did not occur in Johnson's Dictionary,
but on the authority of Webster, "Blacklet, is a
term applied to notorious gamblers and cheats.".
By the Bth and 9th Vic., c. 109, sec. 17, the act
for amending the law of gaming, cheating at cards,
dm, was made an indictable offence, and to call a
man a blackleg was to charge him with such an
offence. The defendant replied on the plaintiff hav-
ing first called him a Jew pig.
The Lord Chief Baron No, only a pig.
(Laughter.)
Mr. James—Well, a pig, which, from its asso-
ciation with pork, was supposed to be offensive to
a Jew. (Renewed laughter.)
The Lord Chief Baron--I think the word black-
leg is applied to any notorious gambler, but to in-
fer that a man was a notorious gambler would not
be actionable.
Mr. James—A "leg" may be a person on the
Turf, but if you call him a blackleg it imputes to
him cheating. There would be no harm in calling
an attorney a sheep, for that imputes innocence—
(laughtet)—but if you call him a black-sheep, it is
clearly actionable.
The Lord Chief Baron—ln the " Man of the
World" Sir Pertinax Macsycophant says to the
chaplain, because he would not bring about an
affair of gallantry, "You are a black sheep."
Would the chaplain have had a cause of action
against Pertinax Macsycephant ? (Laughter.)
Mr. James—lf the chaplain had been an attor-
ney he would. (Laughter.) In this case a witness
was called to prove that he understood the term
"blackleg" to be applied to a person who got his
living by cheating and dishonest practices. Thole
are many terms which a judge might not have
heard, but which would convey imputations well
understood by others. There is the word " cracks-
man," applied to burglars, and " smashers,"
utterers of bad coin; often heard at the Old Bailey.
Then there are the terms " duffers' " or, as they
say in America, "shysters." I admit that, in
placing a construction on terms such as these, the '
judge should take the common sense of the jury.
' Black sheep" is clearly a term imputing miscon-
duct.

Mr. Baron Watson—To call a man a black sheep
is not actionable, but if you call an attorney a black
sheep it s. Calling a man a cheat, imputing that
he obtains money by false pretenc,s, is actionable;
but to call a man a cheat generally is not.
The Lord Chief Baron—l have heard more than
one Cambridge man say, " I would rather bet with
a blackleg than a gentleman ;" and I am quite sure
they did not mean a man who cheated, but a bet-
ting man who made a livelihood by that means.
Mr. James—Then I am quite sure, my lord,
that it would not be so understood in any club in
London.
The Lord Chief Baron—l consider gambling is a
most disgraceful mode of making a livelihood, and
I for one am by no means desirous of enlarging the
number of terms on which actions for slander may
be brought.
Mr. James—No one is ; but there is not a club
iu London in which, if a man were known to be a
blackleg, any gentleman would associate with him.
The Lo rd Chief Baron—That is very likely ;
neither would they with rascals or cheats, but to
call a man a rascal or a cheat is not actionable.
Mr. James—But the jury found blackleg was.
The Lord Chief Baron—ln my opinion it is not
the duty of the jury to say what is the meaning of
the English language.
Mr. Baron Bramwell—My lord is right if this is
an English word proper, because the Court must
construe it if it is, but if it be a slang word then
the jury should place a construction on it according
to the meaning it generally receives. A great deal
depends whether this word blackleg is English or
slang.

Mr. Doyle, who followed on the same side, in:
stanced the case of several noblemen and gentlemen
who kept racers and made large bets every year,
but no one would think of calling them blacklegs,
because their dealings were honourable.
The Lord Chief Baron—lt is not actionable to
call a man a villain, though " a villain is a vile
and wretched person and capable of great crimes."
Mr. Baron Martin—What do you say to calling
a man " a lame duck ?" (Laughter.)
Mr. James—lf you call a person on the Stock
Exchange a lame duck, it is actionable.
Mr. Joyce having been heard in support of the
rule, contending that the word blackleg did not
impute an indictable offence,
The learned judges, between whom there was a
difference of opinion, delivered judgment seriatim.
The Lord Chief Baron said—l am of opinion that
this rul must be made absolute. The question is
—is it actionable to call a man a blackleg without
any specified damage ? and it appears to me it is
not ; and no evidence was given—if it w‘ati
wh.Ol I think it was n )t— o support tkat.
The word blackleg has been used long enough in
writing and speaking. The English language is to
be understood nut merely in experts in slang, but
by the pUblic at large. When teat is the case it is
the office of the judge, not of a witness, to place a
construction or, it. I certainly understand the mean-
ing of the word to be a person who gets his living by
frequenting racecourses, and who plays games of
chance and skill, getting the best and giving the
least olds, but not • necessarily cheating in the
s,nsa of the statute referred to in the common law
of the land. That heing, in my judgment, the
meaning of the word, it is not actionable to call a
man a blackleg. It is even less so to call a man a
cheat, a thief, or a villain. The law has thought it
better, unless grave accusations are made ag•iinst a
man so as to put him on his defence in a criminal
court, that mere words-of. heat should not be the
subject of actions, unless they conveyed slander of
title, slander of business, or were followed by
specific mischief for which the party should have a
right to redress. I think tnat the expression
"blackleg" dues not impute to a man anything for
which he could be necessarily punishable. In
the dictionary it is a term applied to " notorious
gamblers and cheats ;" but in order to make out the
meaning sought to be attached to it the definit on
should have bean in the dictionary, "notorious

gambling cheats and cheating gamblers." In this
case the plaintiff is simpliciter called a blackleg.
Considering therefure the proper view the courts
have taken on this subject, clisidering it is not ac-
tionable at law to calla man a "cheat," "swindler,"
" villain," " rascal," "scouudrel,"_a,ii terms
which unquestionably impute dishonesty, unless
followed by Facial dal age, I think that the word
blackleg is not actionable ; that the action thera-
fore is not maintainable ; and that the rule must
ba discharged.

Mr. Baron Martin said he was very sorry there
was on this point a difference of opinion in the
court. The question before them was did the word
" blackleg" impute an indictable offence, and, if
so, was it the subject of action ? That necessarily
depended on the sense in which it was received by
the pe:.sons who heard the expres-ion. If it con-
veyed to the minds of tho-:e who heard it that the
person to whom it had been applied had committed
an indictable offence, then it was actionable.
He thought that in this case a question arose for
the jury whether tLo term was so understood by the
persons who heard it ; and, therefore, in his opi-
nion, the rule ought to be discharged.
Mr. Baron Bramwell said he agreed in all that
the Chief Baron bad said, with the exception of the
meaning he had put on the word " blackleg." If !
this word was a proper natural English word, the
judge was bound to put a meaning on it, and no ex-
pert should be called to put a meaning on it. If it
were a slang word, a witness might be called to have
the sense in which it was usually understood. If
the word were English, he agreed with Baron Mar-
tin; if slang, it should have had an interpretation
put upon it by a witness. If English, the inuendo
was unnecessary ; if slang, it was proved. It seemed
to him it was an English word which imputed an
offence within the meaning of the act, of fraudulent

gaming, and that the action was maintainable. For
his own part he regretted that there were a great
many terms which were not actionable—such, for
instance, as opprobrious epithets applied to women.
Mr. Baron Watson agreed with the Lord Chief
Baron that the rule for a nonsuit should be made
absolute. A blackleg might be a professed game-
ster or cheater at cards, but he could not find out
that it imputed a criminal offence, and therefore,
in his opinion, the action was not maintainable.
The Court being equally divided, the rule, ac-
cording to practice, was discharged.

SUTTON V. BATH.---"WHAT IS A GENTLEMAN ?
This was an interpleader issue, tried at the la3t
assizes for King,stoo, before Mr. Justice Erie, when
the verdict passed for the plaintiff ; a rule was after-
wards obtained for a new trial on the ground that
on the registration of the bill of sale the maker
was improperly described as a gentleman. The
maker of the bill of sale was the well-known
"Dr. Sutton," sometimes advertising himself as
"Dr. Hall," and by other names. He made tha
bill of sale to his father, to secure an advance
alleged to have been made to enable him to stud/
medicine in London. In the affidavit filed with the
bill of sale he was described as a gentleman. In
evidence he said he was nota qualified practitioner,
though he acted as a medical man, and advertised
himself as Dr. Sutton, but he had not within the
last six months described himself as M. R.O. S.
Mr. Edwin James and Mr. Raymond showed
cause against the rule.

Mr. Walker Williams supported it.
The case of "Allen v. Thompson" (Ist Hurstoll,
and Norman) was relied on, where it was held, Oa'
a gentleman meant a person without any °coal*.
tion, and that if a person had any profession or
trade, he was bound so to describe himself; and al:
though such a man might be entitled to be styled
gentleman, it would be an incorrect descriptioll
within the statute.

The Court, however, thought that the word gen;
tleman was the best that the maker of the bill
sale in this instance could use to describe himself
and that the rule must therefore be discharged.
Rule discharged accordingly.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius at Guildhall—Before 31(t.
Baron Channell and Common Juries.)
PAWSEY V. HUTT-SLANDER.
This was an action for slander, to which the de"
fendant pleaded not guilty, and a justification.
Mr. Tindal Atkinson was counsel for the plaintiff;
Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr. Hawkins were for the
defence.

Both parties had been inthe service of Miss Bur
Jett Coutts, at her residence, Holly Lodge, High:
gate, the plaintiff being under gardener and carter,
and the defendant head gardener and bailiff. The
slander complained of was that the defendant had
~
said the plaintiff had been cheating Miss Burdett
Coutts by bringing less coke from the gas works
than he received, and that he had stolen hay, 1"
consequence of which he had been discharged from
the service. The plaintiff denied the truth of the
charge, and explained that as regarded the hay be
was in the habit of taking some with him wheal!!
went to the gravel pits on some occasions when IN'
horses were short of corn, and leaving it at tOe
"Jolly Butchers," a public-house on the way, to
be used on bis return. With reference to the coke'
the foreman, the clerk, and the gatekeeper of the
gas works were called, and proved that the plaintit
could not get more coke than charged for without.'
connivance with the servants of the companywhiP
they denied. Mr. Down a gentleman who occasional!y
overlooks the conduct of the servants at HAP
Lodge for Miss Burdett Coutts, proved the clir
missal after inquiry.
For the defence, it was contended that the a'
fendatit had only acted in the discharge of his dal
to his employer, and he and several witnesses were
called to prove the plea of justification. One vi;t,
Less, the under ostler at the Jolly Butchers, air
posed that the plaintiff used to take two nose-bad"
and when he reached the house emptied one, an
then divided the contents of the other; On silc_,e)..
seven occasions witness had, by the expre7
order of the head ostler, paid the plaintiff 23.
for the corn thus brought. He admitted in,,
cross-examination that he had been "in trouble
for receiving corn from waggoners who stopped et
the house.
After a lengthened summing up by the learned
•
Judge,
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintw!re.,
Damages 50/.