The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-20 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

(Before the Loan CHIEF BARON.)
LIBEL.—THOMAS WAHLEY, ESQ., M.P., V. HEALEY AND WETHERS.
His Lordship took his seat on the bench soon after nine o'clock.
The jury having been sworn,
Mr. BRANNELL opened the case, and said this was a complaint
for a public libel. The defendants had not pleaded but suffered
judgment to go by default.
Mr. Jsavre, Q.C., said he appeared as Counsel for Mr. Wakley,
who complained of a libel disgraceful and serious in its character.
Mr. Wakley was Coroner for the county of Middlesex, a high
and important office. He was also Member for the borough of
Finsbury. It was unnecessary to allude to his politics, which
were well known ; but it was well known that in this country po.
Mica were never allowed to intrude into a court of justice. Mr.
Wakley was also well known as the proprietor of the Lancet pub.
lication. He was sorry to say that one of the defendants, Mr.
Healey was a barrister, and Mr. Wethers, the other, a surgeon.
They were the proprietors of the Medical Times newspaper, a paper
of considereble circulation. The libel was published in• a letter
which appeared in the Medical Times of the 25th of January last,
and was printed in large type. The Learned Counsel then read
the letter. It is of great length, and is headed, " A Proposal for
Mr. Wakley's Trial by a Jury of Gentlemen ;" and, among other
statements, charges him with ruining the London College of Medi-
cine, the British Medical Association, and the Medical Protection
Association, by taking them under his protection. The following
extract will give the reader some idea of the libel :
" Three National Associations sunk helpless under his aid!
Three hostile Colleges flourishing by his opposition! Himself con-
temned here, spurned there, suspected everywhere! Such is the
terrible result of a whole life's ceaseless action; such the awful
shipwreck of a fortune steered by the helm infamy I—What a spell,
mystic and divinely misguiding, in a ruined repute! Fate will not
even have good by such an instrument!"
The Learned Counsel continued—There were some parts of this
letter as vulgar as they were unintelligible, but, on the whole, it
was highly calculated to damage the character of any man. What
he chiefly complained of was that the malignant charges made in
the letter were of so general a nature that there was no such thing
as answering them. If there were 500 charges, however grave
they might have been, he would have engaged to reply to them,
but no man could reply to those sweeping and general accusations,
pointing to no one act, and mentioning no one fact. The letter
raised suspicions of a thousand times more heinous in their
character than any direct change could set forth, and this was the
reason this vague mode of writing was selected. If the letter was
not dictated by personal malice, it could only have been got up for
the still more selfish purpose of pushing a paper into circulation.
He was instructed to say that Mr. Wakley felt more poignantly the
course taken by the defendants. They did not even condescend to
explain the charges they had made, so that even when damages
were awarded the public would still say something remains hidden
which has not been explained—there is a stain upon Mr. Wakley
which has not been obliterated. Mr. Wakley, as much as any man,
admitted the right of a public journalist to canvass his public conduct
in the fullest manner, but tl.ere was not a single paragraph in this in.

famous letter which did not reflect upon his character as a man.
The Learned Counsel concluded by calling on the jury to give such
amount of damages as would mark their sense of the atrocity of
the libel.
Proofs were then handed in of the ownership of the publication,

whereupon
Mr. Healey one of the defendants (a barrister), said he rose under
great disadvantages to reply to the accusations of the Learned
Counsel. He could assure the jury that the letter referred to was
written with no such motives as those which had been assigned.
He disclaimed entirely any of those feelings of enmity towards Mr.
Wakley which the Learned Counsel had attributed. He was in-
fluenced by no such feelings. He thought the whole question was
whether the letter affected Mr. Wakley In his public character or
not ; for if it did they would return only nominal damages, as the
custom of commenting on public characters, as such,
was too well established and recognised as to admit
of its being longer questioned or disputed. Had the
letter one personal allusion had it a single remark
on his private character—was it any way calculatedito disturb his
fireside, or in any way affect his domestic relations ? No such thing.
Mr. Wakley was a public man—had rendered himself very
prominent as such—and it was in this light, and this light
only, the letter applied. The Learned Counsel went on to corn.
went on the paragraphs in the letter, and went on to say that
nothing could be more injurious to the publication itself than to
publish merely defamatory matter, for its readers comprised a
jury who would, as Mr. Wakley well knew, be the most ready to
punish, by the instant withdrawal of their countenance
and support, any breach of social order, any merely
malicious attack upon an individual. The Learned Counsel,
who quoted a variety of instances' where great freedom
had been used by editors of newspapers in their re-
marks upon public men, concluded by calling on the jury to
respect the liberty of the press, put a liberal construction on the
letter, and return a farthing damages. The letter got into the paper
I by an accident, rather than anything else, and the object of the
plaintiff was to ruin a rival publication.

Mr. Wethers, the other defendant, then rose to reply, but sal
down again without doing so. . .

The CHIEF Bettorr said the publication was one which the
plaintiff had a right to complain of. If the defendants stood
upon their right as public journalists, they should not
have pleaded guilty, but as they had not done so, the only question
for the jury was the amount of damages. The liberty of the press
should, if exercised with freedom, be at least exercised with fair..
ness, but there was no right, on the part of the public press, to
assail with wanton and malignant abuse, or from worse motives,
any public men. By the Act respecting libel, passed in Augu,t,
184'2., a defendant might, in mitigation of damages, offer an apology
before the commencement of the action, or as soon after as he had
an opportunity. He might plead that it was inserted without
malice, and that at the eariest opportunity an apology was in-
serted, or that it was published from gross neglect. Again, the
defendant might plead the truth of the libel, or he might
pay a sum of money into Court, which the plaintiff might
accept or not, and forego or persevere in the action, as he
pleased. None of these courses had been pursued by the defend-
ants, who had suffered judgment to go by default. If this letter
were not a libel it would be difficult to say what was. His Lord.
ship then read the paragraphs of the letter seriatim, commenting
upon each as he went along. The letter was written with a con-
siderable share of a certain kind of ability, and the plain meaning
of it was, Mr. Wakley is a very bad character; he damages every
cause with which he is mixed up, and we call for inquiry; and
these opinions enforced with phrases of considerable power. The
jury would give damages commensurate with the injury done to
his reputation, and to his wounded feelings, and none could so pro--
perly determine that amount as a jury. The conduct of the de-
fendants in the present case had not been to aggravate the libel,
but they must award such damage as the circumstances of the case
arid the nature of the libel demanded. The damages ought to be
fair and satisfactory, and of such a nature as to mark the just sense
which they entertaiced of the value of character.
The jury retired, and after the lapse of two hours, returned into
Court with a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 1501.