The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-26 00:00:00

MORNING SUN

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

L18EL...." STAFFORDSHIRE GAZETTE"-WIGLEY V. VICKERS
AND ANOTHER.

This was a writ of inquiry to assess the damages between
the parties, judgment having gone by default, for a libel con-
tained in the Staffordshire Gazette, against the plaintiff, a
publican residing in Burslem, in Staffordshire.
Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. Hill appeared for the plain-
tiff, and Mr. Thesiger for the defendant.
Mr. HILL having opened the pleadings,
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD stated the case to the Jury, and
said they were aware of the nature of the claim made by
plaintiff against defendant and another. They had already heard
from Mr. Hill that the action was brought to recover compensation
in damages for a libel published on the 23d of September last.
It was published in Burslem, a certain district of the Potteries,
which they well knew to be a place where industry was exer-
cised, and which contained a very large labouring population.
The plaintiff had been for many years in Burslem, and had car-
ried on the business of a hatter, and some time last year be
determined to give up that avocation, and become an inn-
keeper, and took a very respectable inn in Burslem, called
" The Cock." This inn he took for a term of years. He
had borne a most excellent character up to the time mentioned.
He was not a member of the Established Church, but of a reli-
gious class of Wesleyan Methodists, and they were all aware
of the virtue and piety that was found amongst that sect. He
was a person of private habits, and never appeared in public
life, although he held strong opinions on the subject of politics,
he being attached to what is called the Whig party, and the
defendant belonged to the Conservative party. As such, they
could not complain of the defendant using the strongest lan.
guage in support of his opinion, but they had to complain when
he descended into the path of private life, and he (Sergeant
Talfourd) thought they would agree with him in saying that
they (the defendants) were entirely unsheltered from those
privileges of discussion which were alike open to both the great
parties in the country. 'This libel was the more mischievous,
because it was contained in a few words, and they must recol..
lect that a great deal of description could be contained in a few
words. They could be easily remembered. It was placed, too,
in a conspicuous part of the paper, just over where they would
look for the principal article in the paper, and was contained in
what was called Notices to Correspondents. They had no
doubt read enough of newspapers to know that it was not an
uncommon thing for newspaper editors to devote that part of
the paper called Answers to Correspondents to personal invec-
tive, and by this means they gave more poignancy to the re-
marks, considering that the readers of newspapers generally
looked to the Answers to Correspondents. The editor of this
paper could not make the excuse frequently made in such cases,
that they received communications when they had hardly time
to look over them, and thus a letter from some unknown cor-
respondent might inadvertently get into their columns. But
in this case the libel had been written deliberately
and especially by the editor in answer to a supposed
question, an answer that must have passed under his
judgment. The whole of the answers to correspondents
were very short, therefore they would strike any reader, and
they would at once see that of which Mr. Wigley complained.
The first of these notices was immediately before the one com-
plained of, and is very short also, stating that Mr. Kennedy
was not the proprietor, but one of the editors, of the Anti-
Established Church Mercury. Then came the libel in ques-
tion, and which was in answer to a correspondent, signed " Con-
servative." Whether there had been such a correspondent or
not he did not know. If there was such a letter, and that
letter could explain why the insinuation in Answers to Corre-
spondents had been made, he supposed his Learned Friend
Mr. Thesiger wculd produce it, but he (Mr. Sergeant Tal-
fourd) expected that letter would remain seeret. The libel
stated that Mr. Wigley, the friend of Mercury Kennedy, had
opened a beer shop, and intended opening a news-room and
lecture-room for the accommodation of Atheists and Socialists.
He (Mr. Sergeant Talfourd) could not help thinking, that had
Mr. Wigley intended to have opened a room for such a pur-
pose, a very small one would have been sufficient. He
dared say they had never heard of a person wicked
or bold enough to avow these principles. They
were only Atheists in form—they all believed in a first
cause, although they might call it by another name, such as
chance, the universe, fate, and other such prevarications.
They would find if they went to the man in the time of soli-
tude and of death, in that hour they would find his fear confess-
ing what his tongue denied ; and although he might still echo
those sentiments they would not find a place in the secret re-
cesses of his heart. Thus the intention of the plaintiff opening
a lecture-room and news-room for Atheists, would be almost a
self-refuted charge. The libel then alluded to another body of
men far more mischievous than that of Atheists, that sect which
struck at the root of all moral obligation, and which held as light
the sanctity of the marriage tie, and inculcated the principle of
universal prostitution. This was the nature of the imputation
cast upon the plaintiff, and the only question with them was
what was the fair amount of damages to which the plaintiff
was entitled. Some observation was necessary relative to the
action being tried in this Court, and not in Staffordshire. The
action could not have been tried there till the month of March,
and Mr. Wigley had acted properly in coming there at
once to bring that action, and thereby clear his character.
The Learned Sergeant then went at considerable length into
the demerits and demoralising principles of Socialism, which
he said lent corruption to the young mind, and seduced the
imagination. He concluded an extremely long speech by
apologising for its extent, as it was necessary he should !speak
at some length on account of the brevity of the libel itself.
Had it been longer he should have contented himself with fewer
remarks ; and he left in their hands to assess the amount of
damages. He asked them to do so ;it was an honest question,
and he felt they would honestly answer it.
Mr. George Banner Dean was called to prove that the de-
fendants were the proprietors of the Staffordshire Gazette,
but as the action had gone by default, Mr. Thesiger said this
would only be a waitenf time, consequently the witness's evi-
dence was dispensed with.
Mr. William Harding deposed that he was attorney to the
plaintiff, and Coroner for the district of Burslem. Had been
acquainted with the plaintiff fOr fourtcen or fifteen years. He
.had resided during that time at Burslem, and had carried on
the business of a hatter. The witness was consulted by him
with respect to his taking the Cock Inn in Burslem. It was in
Sept., 1640, and the lease was entered into by the plaintiff for
the premises. The witness had seen the paragraph in the
Staffordshire Gazette relative to the plaintiff.
Cross-examined by Mr. THESIGER—His opinions were
Radical, and different from the opinions of the newspaper in
question. There were two Liberal papers in Staffordshire--
the Mercury and Staffordshire Advertiser. Did not know any
other Conservative paper but the Staffordshire Gazette. They
were pretty warm in politics in Burstein. The plaintiff was of
the Liberal party, and took a great interest in politics, and,
during elections, he has known him exert himself very much.
Mr. THESIGER.—Do you know Mr. Kennedy, the editor' of
the Mercury.? Is he a friend of yours ?—He is no client of
mine.
Mr. Tnemze—You may have a friend without his being
a client ; sometimes that prevents a man from being a friend,
--(Laughter. )—He is no friend of mine, but I know him.
Is Mr. Wigley intimate with him ?—He is, I believe.
There was a Conservative news-room established, I believe,
in Burslem—did you ever bear Mr. Wigley say he would es-
tablish one in opposition ?—Never.
Never heard him say he would put the Conservative news-
room down ?—Never.

I suppose there are squibs written by both political parties,
are there not?
Mr. Sergeant TALEOCTRD objected to the question, which
was overruled.
The examination of the witness was continued.--A Radical
dinner was given to the Member returned for the town, Mr.
Ricardo, and which dinner was held at plaintiff's house. Did
not know if there was afterwards a tea party of the Liberal
ladies. This was in December last.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD proposed to put in an antecedent
newspaper, containing articles on Socialism, but Mr. Thesiger
abjectbd, and it was withdrawn.
This was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. TiseslGEtc then addressed the Jury for the defendant-at
considerable length. He said he was rather astonished, after
the powerful, eloquent, elaborate, and well considered speech of
his Learned Friend, that there had been such a small amount
of evidence. His Learned Friend had said that he had made
so many remarks in consequence of the article being so short,
and ho (Mr. Thesiger) thought he meant that because
it was so trifling and short, that he must, there-
fore, draw largely upon his imagination, and thus he
had soared into the air, leaving such humble individuals as
himself to follow him in his flight, it being very frequently too
far for him (Mr. Thesiger) to approach him. He wished that
his Learned Friend had stepped into the regions of fact, then
he should have had some chance of contending with him, for
in the regions of fancy, he (Mr. Sergeant Talfourd) reigned
supreme. He would ask why it was that this case had been
brought to that Court, when it might have been tried in the
neighbourhood, where all the case was known, and where both
parties were living, and were known to all the neighbourhood ?
Would it not have been more to his interest, if he had been so much
injured, to have had the action tried there, where so much was
In his favour, and where there were two Radical papers to one
unhappy Conservative ? Ills Learned Friend had told them
that the plaintiff was not of the Established Church, but was a
Methodist ? Was there any proof of this ?
Mr. Sergeant TALFOean.-1 was net at liberty to prove it.
Mr. THESIGEB.--His Learned Friend was not at liberty to
prove it, and he would tell him then that if he was not at
liberty to prove it he ought not to have stated it. There was
no proof of Mr. Wigley being one of
.that highly respectable
body, and of that body, he (Mr. Thesiger) should be sorry to
say the smallest word of disparagement. He had the highest re-
gard and opinion for them. With respect to this libel, he
would ask them to take up any journal in London and see if
they would not find language quite as strong as that used
against the plaintiff? The parties were bitterly opposed to each
other in politics, and was it to be wondered at that the
Tarty should call the other by names their cool judgments
would not warrant ? He had known his Learned Friend to use
expressions against his political opponents, which persons who
knew his amiable character in private life would not believe
as mining from him. The parties in this case were hot in
politics, and opposed to each other. It had not been stated that the
plaintiff had sustained any damage by this libel, or that he had
lost a single customer by it. It was in evidence that a large dinner
had been given in his house to the Member for the town, Mr.
Ricardo, a gentleman who would shrink from countenancing
anything like Socialism. N. or was there the slightest intention
to descend to the private life of the plaintiff. He was a public
inan—he had made himself a public man, and, therefore, he
was a a subject for the opposing party to attack. They all knew
the virulence of politics of the present day, nor could they be sur-
prised at the alleged libel,.considering.the circum.stances. It was
not proved that the plaintiff had sustained a shilling damage ;
he had done so, he would have been entitled to ask for it. He
had come 200 miles to bring his action before a Jury who were
totally ignorant of the circumstances, when he might have
gone before a Jury of his neigwerehbourwells, and who knew all
thepar
-
ties in the case, and who acquainted with
circumstances, and knew the feelings of the parties concerned.
He came, then, before them unknown, to ask them to retrieve his
character, although they were ig of him and
the circumstances of the case. entirel
He try ustednorant they would take
this view of the case, and remember, that although the law
compelled them to return a verdict for the plaintiff, yet it did
not compel them to give any amount beyond nominal damages,
and therefore he hoped that, under all these circumstances.
they would consider that the damages the plaintiff was entitled
to receive would not exceed one farthing or a shilling.
The Learned SECONDARY, having briefly summed up the
evidence, the Jary, after a short consultation, returned a ver-
dict for the plaintiff—Darnages 40s.

COURT OF REVIEW, Jan. 24.
Ex'PlurE witicitT IN RE BIDDULPH.
This was the petition of John Wright, a bankrupt, and
three others, who became legatees under the will of the
late John Biddulph, a gentleman of independent fortune,
of the county of Sussex. The object of the petit ion was
threefold—the petitioners prayingddthur John Wright,
as executor of the late John might be at
liberty to prove a debt of 285/., the balance
account, against the joint estate of the",,bacnel(t)f a running
that the petitioners, or such of them
e
as res ; ibotdul Yet. Court
might appoint, should be at liberty to rove a d
6,300/. against tho estate of JohnWrig t, who w •
debted to the testator in a sum of 13,000 t, but base Iran-
ill8i(!t0h0e1 epe hist
i -
lag a legate under the will for 7,0001.
debt to the estate was reduced to 6,300/,
might be at liberty to prove,
tioners prayed that they
tinder the flat of bankruptcy, a, sum of 2,046/. against
the separate estates of Anthony Georp giddalph (who
became a partner of
at the time of the testator's death
Ike bankrupt firm of Wright and Co.) P. 0.1 John Wript i

' snd of this property the assignees had possessed them-
selves. The petitioners sought further, that they might
make such proofs without prejudice to a cause which they
had, now pending in the Court of Chancery relative to
the ownership. of this last-mentioned property, which
consisted principally of plate, furniture, &c. It appeared
that the testator died in August, 1835, and that shortly
after this prOperty, of the value of 2,046 L, came into
the, possession of the bankrupt Biddulph, with
the privity of John Wright, and was in his posses-
sion at the time of the issuing of the fiat in bank-
ruptcy ; and the assignees alleged that they were the
property of the bankrupt Biddulph, overlooking
the claim of the annuitants under the will, who filed a
bill of complaint against them and against John Wright.
The assignees appeared to this bill, and filed a bill of de-
murrer in the Vice-Chancellor's Court, which was over-
ruled by his Honour, who decided in favour of the annul-
"tants. _ _ _ _ _ _ _

---
The petition was opposed by Mr. DIXON.
His HONOUR, was of opinion that the petitioners were
entitled to prove the debt of 6,3001., and that the bank-
ruptcy estate was indebted to the testator's estate in the
sum of 2851. ; and, after a lengthened discussion, with
reference to the other claim of 2,0461., it was ordered
that the sum should be paid into the hands of the Ac-
countant-General of the Court of Review to account of the
executors, and to abide the further orders of the Court ;

the petitioners to pay the costs out of the testator's estate.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Jan. 25.
IN RE EDWARD NIGHTINGALE.

• The insolvent in this case was opposed by Mr. Wood-
roffe, on behalf of Messrs. Gas and Sons, jewellers, of
Regent-street.
David Gass, jun. (one of the firm), said that the in-
solvent came to their shop in company with a lady, and
stated that he had been deputed to pay a small account
due by Lady Nightingale, after which he selected a
quantity of jewellery for himself and his female compa-
nion, and then ordered some plate to be sent to his house.
All this property was pawned almost immediately after
delivery. Every exertion was made to find him out, but
in vain, and several letters having been addressed to
him, he wrote the most insulting answers in return. (The
witness here handed in a number of letters to the Court.
from which the following are a few extracts
" I will prevent my mother (Lady Nightingale)
from paying your usurious demands."—" You hoary-
headed old pauper, what do you want ? You have been
hunting after me at my Chambers in Half-Moon Cres-
cent, with some long-legged rascal to arrest me."
Directed to " Old Gass, mosaic jeweller, Regent-street."
The reading of these letters was followed by roars of
laughter.) The insolvent was subsequently taken to
Hatton-garden police-court, on a charge of assault, when
Duke, the officer, got the duplicates of the jewellery and
plate, and subsequently. handed them over to witness.
The Counsel for the insolvent endeavoured to rest his
defence upon insanity, but the Commissioner, seeing no
grounds for the plea, ordered him to be remanded for
eight months.