The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-11-10 00:00:00

HEARNE, CLERK, V. STOWELL, CLERK

This was an action of libel preferred by the plaintiff, a
clergyman of the Roman Catholic church, against the defend-
ant, the Rev. Hugh Stowell, a clergyman of the established
church. The cause was tried before Al r. 'Baron Rolfe at the
last Liverpool assizes, and the alleged libel was a statement
made by the defendant at a public meeting at Manchester.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 40s.
Mr. CRESSWELL now moved for a rule nisi to set the ver-
dict aside on the ground of misdirection. It appeared that
in the course of last year, when the estimates were before the
House of Commons, a question was raised whether the annual
grant to Maynooth College should be continued. The de-
fendant, who officiated as a clergyman at Manchester,
presided at a public meeting, and in the course of a speech,
in which he represented that the practices of the Roman
Catholic church, not only in the darkness of past times, but
even in the light of the present, were quite unworthy of being
supported by any grant of the public money to the College of
Maynooth, he supported his arguments by reading from a
paper, which was signed by three police-officers, a case which
had occurred in the streets of Manchester, to the following
effect :—" A person had been seen on several mornings
crawling on his hands and knees, and when he was asked
why he did so, he said he was doing penance for his sins.
He was asked whether it was necessary to do it by way of
penance ; he replied it was, and that if he did not do penance
his priest would not admit him to the sacrament. He was
then asked who his priest was, and he said, Mr. Hearne.'
The second count of the declaration charged the uttering the
words as a slander, and on that count the verdict passed for
the defendant. It was contended on the part of the defend-
ant that the first count must also be in his favour, as the
mere statement of the circumstance at a public meeting could
not be construed into the publication of libellous matter.
The paper did not reflect on the character of the plaintiff, but
merely on the practices of the Roman Catholic church. There
was clearly no malice proved, and, therefore, the action
could not be sustained. The learned judge, however, was of
opinion that the defendant was not justified in making such
a statement. In the case of " The King v. Creevy, M.P.,"
where the defendant had made an alleged libellous speech in
the House of Commons, Mr. Justice Le Blanc, who tried the
cause, left the jury to say whether such publication was, under
all the circumstances of the case, to be considered as malicious.
There was no doubt such was the proper course to pursue,
and such as the learned baron ought to have adopted on this
occasion. His lordship, however, declined to leave the
question to the jury whether it was a libel or not, but gave
his opinion that it was, and then said (according to the report
published in the newspapers, but not the notes of thecounsel,)
and, if you agree with me, you will find a verdict for the
plaintiff." The jury returned a verdict accordingly.

The court took-tiine to consult Mr. Baron Rolfe

Mr. CnEsswELL then applied for a rule nisi in arrest of
judgment, on the ground that the statement contained no
imputation on the character of the plaintiff.
The court granted the rule.