The Sun.
London, England, 1859-05-12 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Sittings in Banco, before Lord Campbell, and
Justices Erle, Compton, and Hill.)
REID V. HEARD.-LIBEL.

Mr. M. Smith moved for a rule calling upon Mr.
Clement Heard, the proprietor of the Bridgewater
Times, to show cause why a criminal information
should not be filed against him for a libel charging
t he plaintiff, a gentleman who resides at Burnham,
with having practised bribery in favour of Col.
Tynte and Mr. Kinglake at the late election for
Bridgewater. The libel complained of charged the
plaintiff with having come into the town with the
sinews of war, that he opened an office for the pur-
chase of votes in a slaughter-house, and knocked
them down at £25 a head. Mr. Reid, who was a
large landed proprietor in the neighbourhood, denied
in the most positive terms that he took any part in
the election. He had on the day of the polling gone
over to Bridgewater, and had inquired at Colonel
Tynte's and Mr. Kinglake's committee-room, the
state of the poll.
Lord Campbell—It is a very serious imputation
on a gentleman to charge him with bribery. Read
the libel.
Mr. Smith then read the libel—" At the last mo-
ment, and when terror and dismay were evidently
.depicted upon the face of the liberal party, and it
being as well known to them as it was to the Con-
servatives that Messrs. Padwick and Westropp had
a clear and decided majority of the promised votes
up to the time of commencing the poll, a friend in
need came forward in the person of a neigh-
bouring gentleman, well known for his love of
electioneering and for his orchids, and brought
into the Liberal cause the sinews of war. The news
soon spread. An office for the purchase of votes was
opened in a slaughter-house at the back of a
butcher's premises, and we are told that a man
of the name of Jenkins, a dissenter, and deacon of a
Baptist chapel, formerly a butcher and now a small
farmer, was installed cashier. A band of supernu-
meraries—radical Scotchmen, dissenters, and some
we are told even professing preachers of the Gospel
ran about amongst the venal electors and drove
them into the slaughter-house were they were
knocked down at the rate of £25 a head to forfeit
their promises to vote for Messrs. Padwick and
Westropp, and were driven to the p::11 to vote for
Colonel Tynte and Mr. Kinglake."
Mr. Reid deposed in his affidavit that on the 2d
of May he called at the defendant's and asked to see
the times, as he had heard there was a panic in the
money-market on Saturday. The defendant said
" I have not got the Times. There was a panic
here on Saturday. We all know you brought the
money here and bribed the electors. I wish you had
been to the devil or in London instead of being
here." (Laughter.) The plaintiff denied the impu-
tation, and that denial he now repeated on oath.
Lord Campbell—You have established your case
for a rule. The libel imputes very grave and in-
dictable offences.
Rule nisi accordingly.
JENKINS V. BRAGG-LIBEL.
Mr. Smith also moved for a rule for a criminal
information against the defendant, who is the pro-
prietor of the Somerset County Herald, for having
published the same libel, and whichreflected on the
plaintiff, charging him with having acted as cashier
for the purchase of votes. The plaintiff denied the
truth of the statement, and he felt bound to proceed
that he might clear himself from the imputations.
Lord Campbell said that great license was gene-
rally allowed at elections, but such grave and ,seri-
ous charges could not be endured, and the learned
counsel might take a rule.
Rule nisi accordingly.
THE QUEEN (ON THE PROSECUTION OF THE REV. J.
M. NEALE) V. CURTIS-ALLEGED LIBEL.
Mr. Kemplay, on behalf of the Rev. J. M. Neale,
moved for a rule calling on the defendant, the pro-
prietor of the Brighton Gazette, to show cause why
a criminal information should not be filed against
him for libel. The applicant is a clergyman of
the Church of England, and in 1846 vas ap-
pointed one of the wardens of Sackville College,
near East Grinstead. He had occupied apartments
in the College up to the present period, and in 1851
a fire broke out in one of his apartments, resulting
in the destruction of some of his property. The
libel complained of was published in the Brighton
Gazette of the 14th April last. It was as follows :
" Serious application affecting the Rev. J. M. Neale.
Our attention was called to a circumstance which
took place on Monday, before the East Grinstead
magistrates, when a summons was applied for -by
Superintendent Kennard, of the East Sussex con-
stabulary, against the Rev. J. M. Neale, Warden of
Sackville College, to call upon that gentleman to
answer any charge that might be preferred against
him for attempting to set fire to Sackville College
in 1851. Having heard that this application was
made with the entire sanction of Captain Mackay,
the chief officer of the East Grinstead constabulary,
we sent our reporter to East Grinstead, and we
gather from him that a sitting took place at Forest-
row, about three miles from East Grinstead, and
that the application was made before a full bench
of magistrates, comprising B. Hall, Esq. (chair-
man), C. Tooke, Esq., J. Price, Esq., G. Galley,
Esq., Lord West, Major St. Clair, and Captain F.
Moore; and several a the magistrates are, we un-
derstand, the personal friends of the Rev. J. M.
Neale. Sonie preliminary business haing been
transacted, the charman said the room must be
cleared ; when our reporter stated that he attended
for the press, and wished to know if he might re-
main ; but he was informed the inquiry would be
private, and that no reporter could be allowed to be
present. Under these circumstances we are not in a
position to inform our readers of the precise nature
of the application." The article having stated that
the charge was for setting fire to the college, went
on to say, " The inquiry lasted half an hour, in the
presence of Captain Mackay and the superintendent,
when they were requested to withdraw. After an
interval of twenty minutes, during which time the
magistrates deliberated, they were then called into
the room, and Captain Mackay was informed that
his application could not be entertained."
Lord Campbell—ls that the whole of the libel ?
Mr. Kemplay—Yes, my lord.
Lord Campbell—lt states that a charge was made
against this gentleman and dismissed.
Mr. Kemplay—l was about to call your lord-
ship's attention to the writer's motive.
Mr. Justice Erle—Does your affidavit state there
is no truth in the statement ?
Mr. Kemplay—No. I am informed that the
application was made.

Mr. Justice Crompton—And this was a report of
what occurred before the magistrates ?
Lord Campbell—Really this is the most extra-
ordinary application I have ever heard since I have
had the honour of a seat in this court.
Mr. Kemplay—Mr. Neale proceeds to state there
were previous articles in the same paper reflecting
on him.

Lord Campbell—Your application must be con-
fined to what you complain of as libellous in the
article on which you move.
Mr. Kemplay said he would read part of an
article which appeared in the Brighton Gazette of
the 17th of February last. It was—" Then only will
our pen find rest from exposing most painful pro-
ceedings, and then only may the poor pensioners
and sisters of the charity expect to enjoy that
peace and security for the closing days of their lives
which the college was designed to afford them, but
which design has been repeatedly annihilated
through the indiscretion of those whose duty it was
to preserve peace, and not to be continually break-
ing it." The applicant felt it to be his duty to
come forward at the earliest moment and deny the
charge. The article showed that the proprietor of
the paper did not intend to desist from his attacks
until he had removed Mr. Neale from hi'S office.
Lord Campbell—l am of opinion that there is no
ground whatever for this application. I hope the
jurisdiction which this court exercises with respect
to criminal informations is for the public good, but
I think it ' would be most oppressive if the court
interfered upon such an application as this, for the
publishing of a simple statement of what is allowed
to be literally and strictly true. It does not reflect
upon the gentleman at all ; it merely states.that a
charge was made and dismissed. Ido not see the
slightest ground for our interference.
Mr. Justice Erle was of the same opinion. It was