The Sun.
London, England, 1857-06-25 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—June 23.

COURT OF COMMON PLE:IS.
(Before Mr. Justice Creseweil )
JONES versus lIA.LES.
This was an action fur an alleged lib,l aeainst the de-
fendant, as publisher of the Daily Noes, Mr. Sergeant
Byles, Mr. E. ;Tames, and Mr. Keene were counsel for
the p'aintiff ; Mr. Hill, Mr. Lush, and Mr. Fitzpatrick
for the defendant.
Mr. Keene opened the pleadings. The declaration
contained a count charging the defendant with a libel.
The defendant plea led, first, not guilty ; and a 3 to part
of the alleged libel, a justification.
Mr. Sergeant Byles, in addressing the jury, said the
plaintiff, Dr. Jones, was a gentleman who had pro-
fessed the pactice ef medicine for a long series of years.
He was for twenty years a practitioner at Latter-
worth, and was now residing in Albany-street, Regent's
Park. The defendant was the r gister d proprietor of
the Daily News, and the act:on was brought for a
serious libel contained in the Daily News of Mondaa,
the 10th November last. He only did the Daily News
justice when he said that it was not in the habit of
inserting articles which assailed the character of private
individuals, but on the present occasion there had ap-
peared in its columns a libel of a character which it was
utterly impossible that any gentleman should allow to
pass without appearing before a public tribunal and de
minding an explination thereupon. He might say that
where a man's character was dealt with unfairly and un-
justly, but only general accusations were made, the pro-
per course was to pass them over in silence and to leave
them alone ; but where a distinct accusation of a very
serious nature, or even of a trifling nature, was made
against the personal character of an individual, if he
were to hold up his head in society, it was absolutely
essential that he should appeal to the law for re-
dress. He gathered from what appeared in this libel,
as undoubtedly the fact was, that a gentleman of
the name of Brettell, as English gentleman, was
resident in Paris, and that he had a fortune of some
four or five thousand a year. He died in the month
of November, 1856. Shortly after his death there
appeared the extraordinary paragraph in the Daily
News to which he would call Weir attention, and on
which he should take the I.berty of making one or two
observations. The proprietors of the Daily News were
represented by their able counsel, and the jury would
bear whether they intended to upheld their plea of justi-
fication by any evidence. The libel complained of ap-
peared in a letter from a correspondent of this newt-
paper, dated " Paris, Saturday Evening," audit was in
these words :
"I mentioned two or three days since that some
friends of the late Mr. Alfred C. Brettell, entertaining
suspicions that the cause of his death had not been truly
stated, had applied to the Procureur Imperial for a post
mortem examination. The funeral took place before any
order on the subject was made. But the result of a
judicial inquiry has so far confirmed the grounds for
suspicion, that the authorities have thought it right to
have the body exhumed. A post mortem examination
was made this day by Dr. Tardieu, the eminent surgeon
usually employed in such cases, and the contents of the
stomach, the heart, liver, and lunge, enclosed in two
sealed jsrs, have been taken away to be examined. The
stasis ctcauses so much excitement among the English resi-
dents of the Faubourg St. Honore, and is so generally
talked of, that I no longer fear to prejudice any one by
giving an outline of the case as it has been represented
to me. Mr. Brettell was a gentleman of a large fortune,
amounting, as some say, to 60,0001., and as others say,
to 100,0001. Toe whole of this fortune is understood
to be left by will to an English lady, now in Paris, who
was no relation to the deceased. He was in a bad state
of body, owing to intemperate habits, and it appears
that he was shaken and injured a good deal by the fall
from the box of his carriage, which occurred, not at
Chantilly, as stated by mistake, but on the Lamarche
race-course. After that accident he was taken home
and placesi under the care of his ordinary medical at-
tendant, Dr. McCarthy, an English subject, but a li-
censed member of the French Faculty or Medicine. He
got considerably better, and Dr. McCarthy did not con-
sider him in any immediate danger. However,
whether by his own wish or not, I have not heard,
a Dr. Jones, who it seems had attended him
on previous occasions, was sent for by telegraph
from London, and it is alleged that Dr. Jones
proceeded to treat him without putting himself in com-
munication with Dr. McCarthy, which it is said, accord-
ing to the medical etiquette usually observed, he ought
to have done. This Dr. Jones administered to the pa-
tient a white powder, which he took from his waistcoat
pocket, and two hours after taking this powder Mr.
Brettell died. Now the circumstances which are consi-
dered to call for explanation oa the part of 15r. Jcnee
are that he at first signed a certificate that the deceased
had died from epilepsy, that he subsequently stated that
he and Dr. McCarthy were both prepared to certify that
concussion of the brain was the cause of death (the fact
being that Dr. McCarthy declines to concur in any such
certificate), that he has on several occasions admitted
that the medicine he administered to Mr. Brettell was a
most potent one, and that when pressed to say what it
was, his only answer is, That is my secret.' On being
interroga'ed by the commissary Of police, and staked to
produce a specimen of the powder, he said he had none
left, but he finally wrote a pre'cription for making it
up. Although the circumstances certainly call for that
thorough investigation which they will receive, I can-
not help thinking that it will turn out that there has
been no wilful poisoning in the case. In the meantime
Dr. Jones has been ordered net to leave Paris, and is
Under surveillance."
Now the jury would pardon him for reminding them
that no excuse for uttering slanders was to be found in
the fact that the parties had heard them from other peo-
ple. It was perfectly clear, and had been recently laid
down in cases which be need not allude to, that if a
person published a libel on another, imputing to him
great misconduct, his saying at the same time, " I have
heard it ; it is the current report," was no justification
whatever, for if that were s a then the moat atrecione
libels might be published on anybody, merely by aiding
that people said so, and that the writer had heard it.
When the defendant assumed ta justify such a libel as
that, it was necessary for him to show, not only that the
reports existed, but that the circurnetauces embodied in
those reports were true. He had read the libel, and there
were some facts in it which undoubtedly ware correctly
stated. Mr. Brettell was a geni lerrian of large fortuneliring
at Paris. He waul i not say how Mr. Brettell met his
death, but he believed it was true that he was shaken and
injured by afa 1 from the box of his carriage on the La-
marche racecourse, and that he sustained a serious in-
jury, from which two or three days after he died. So
much of this 1:5:1 was true. It was also true that there
was a post-mortem examination. It was not true that
the funeral took place before any order on that subject
was made, and there were many other statements which
were not true, but with which he need not encumber his
statement at that moment. The paragraph stated that
Mr. Brettell had left the whole of his fortune to as
English lady now in Paris, who was no relation of the
deceased. Now here was a dark insinuation. Then
it stated that Dr. Jones was sent for from London, and
that Dr. Jones administered to the deceased a white
powder, which he took from his waistcoat pocket, and
that when Dr. Jones was asked to state what the white
powder was, be replied, "That is my secret." The pa-
ragraph wenton to state that ‘lalthengh the circumstances
certainly call for that thorough investigation which
they will receive, I cannot hely thinking that there has
been no wilful poisoning in the case. In the meantime
Dr. Jones has been ordered not to leave Paris and is
under srrveillaree." The meaning of that was that
people thought Dr. Jones bad murdered the deceased.
But dismissing the charge of wilful poisoning, here was
a gentleman in the practice of physic who was charged.
at all events, with the grossest possible misconduct and
ignorance. It was stated that he administered this
white powder, and that the deceased died two hours
after. The writer then went on to state ciecurnstances
of suspicion against Dr. Jones, saying that he had sign-
ed a certificate that the deceased died of epilepsy, and
that he subsequently stattel that he and Dr. McCarthy
were both prepared to certify that death was caused by
concussion of the brain, whereas Dr. McCarthy declined to
concur in such certific ate. The learned sergeant, proceed-
ed to say that he should have an opportunity of address-
ing them again, and that it was sufficient to state at pre-
sent that this was a libel of a most serious character. He
had nothing to do but to put in the libel, and the
defendant stood convicted of having published it. The
defendant's counsel said the libel was true in substance
and in effect. Tbat was the f,arful issue which lay upon
his learned friend. He ventured to prognosticate that
at the conclusion of this ease his learned friend would
find that he had not supported his pica of justification,
and that it had not availed him.
George Oakley was then called—He produced the cer-
tificate kept at the Stamp-office, certifying that the de-
fendant is publisher of the Daily News.
Mr. James said that was the case for the plaintiff.
141• Hill submitted that there was no case. There
was no evidence that the Dr. Jones mentioned in the
paTAFeraysw the plaintiff in this case.
T;at`l-.f S',ula,Sisg Japes
--There is certainly no evidence of that.
""• was then called. He said—l am a
surgeOn at Latterworth. My father is a medical piaCti-
my f tioner in t.
onlado n:.1have read this libel. It applies to
for some years. ather.
Brettell was a patient of my father's
Cross-examined by Mr. R.l._
I have heard from my
father that he had attended him for delirium tremens. I
have also heard from my father that Mrs. Cunningham
succeeded to ene-half of Mr. Brettell's fortune. She is
not related to Mr. Brettell.
The reason I believe the
libel applies to
ney lather is, that' received a letter from
hire, and from
my knowing Mr. Brettell
and that h
0
Was a patient of my father s.
Mr. Hill then addressed the jury for the defence. nu
said his friend Mr. Sergeant Bytes had brought to bear all
his dexterity in his conduct of this case. hate lad made
some observations to them, which might be termed corn.
mon-place, because they wore used in all cases of this
kind.. If a man's private character were assailed it was a
matter of course that be should seek to
Janes donethimse in hislfriht
with the public. But what had . Dr. n
case? This libel as it was called was published on Nov.
10, and on the 13th an action was brought. His learned
friend bad admitted that the Daily News was not in the
habit of printing libels against the personal character of
individuals. The article complained of appeared in the
letter of the Paris correspondent, and Dr. Jones did not
condescend to write to the Daily News saying, "17"
have done wrong;" and demanding a contradiction of
any of the statements which were income'. No ; but
in order. to justify his character he served the publisher
with a writ, that he might put damages into his own
pocket and costs into the pocket of some one else. Then,
why was the action conducted in this hurried cunning
manner, holding everything back, and trusting to make
out a case by picking holes in the case for the defence ?
If the plaintiff had been actuated merely by a desire to
plage himself right before the public, would he not in