The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-08-09 00:00:00

that it had not been proved to be the dividend in respect
the eight hundred shares.

'The Judge .having summed up, the Jury, after a short de.
liberation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages
£3,300.

DEFAM ATZQN

-BROADBENT V. CROMPTO

This was an action (before a special jury) fOr defamation;
Mr. Wortley and Mr.„ Atherton appeared for the-plaintiff ;
__..... ...

Mr. Wilkins,

Mr. Hill, and Mr. COss fur the defendant

Mr. ATHERTON stated the nature of the pleadings
Mr. WonTLEY stated the case. The gentleman who was
the plaintiff in this case was Mr. William Broadbent, and he
brought it before the Jury in order to obtain reparation, 'at
their hands, for a very serious and grave injury done him by
the defendant. Mr. Broadbent came before them to vindi-
cate his character as a man and a trade'sman : he came for
reparation and compensation for a grievous injury which had
been done him. Mr. Broadbent was in the paper trade : he
had been a paper dealer in Manchester, and he had also,
within the last three years, established a paper manufactory
near Bolton. Mr. Compton was a gentleman holding a high
station in the county : he had lately had his name placed in
the commission of the peace for the county, and he was
reputed to be possessed of considerable wealth and posses-
sions. He was a gentleman (therefore, whose assertions
would carry with them very considerable weight. He was
likewise engaged in the paper trade, and was the owner of an
extensive mann actory of paper about three miles distant
from that of the plaintiff. The defendant's manufactory was
an old establishment, and for many years he had enjoyed a
comparative monopoly in that neighbourhood, and, there-
fore, it was but natural that he should view with some jealousy,
and; perhaps, with some disappointment, the establish-
ment of a new manufactory in competition with his own.
It appeared that, from some motive or other, the defendant
had thought himself justified in communicating, in a quarter
where it was most likely to be injurious to the plaintiff, as-
persions upon the plaintiff's character, both as a man and as
a tradesman, which could not but bring upon him immediate
and great inconvenience, and expose him to great loss in his
trade and also in character. All manufacturers of paper
were subject to visits from the Excise, and it was usual for
the officers to mrke periodical visits to the works of persons
engaged in that trade. The Manufacturers were bound to
return to the Excise all the paper they manufactured ; all
the paper was afterwards put into reams; those reams were
stamped by the Excise, and in that form the Excise certified
that the duty had been paid. In the month of January last
the Excise-officer, whose duty it was to call at the defendant's
manufactory, called there as usual for the purpose of exami-
ning and receiving the return. On that occasion he saw the
defendant. No inquiry was made by the officer, and there
was nothing to suggest what was afterwards said by the
' defendant; but, in the course of the interview between the
officer and the defendant, the defendant made use of these
expressions—" There is something wrong in the paper
trade." "Is there ?" said the officer, " what do you
mean ?" Now, if the defendant was actuated by nothing
but public motives, he would have• said so, but he took
a slip of paper and in pencil wrote down three or four
names, and at the head of the list he wrote the name of
the plaintiff. He put his finger upon that name and said,
" That man is selling paper fifteen per cent. under the mar-
ket price ; he is either running into the GazetM, be, is selling
paper at such a price, or he is running. the Excise." " In-
deed," said the officer ; and something more passed, but
these were the important words•which fell from the defend-
ant. It was true that the officer had this in confidence. The
officer behaved as he was perfectly justified in doing : he im-
mediately reported the matter to his superior. That superior
refused, at first, to give credence to the information, but the
officer, whose name was Goodhire, was sent back to make
further inquiry. He then asked the defendant whether he
was sure that the paper he alluded to was manufactured by
Mr. Broadbent : on which the defendant said, " Yes, I
know it : it is a fact : the paper I mentioned was manufac-
tured by Broadbent, and, it is time that something must be
done ; " clearly intimating, that the Excise was cheated, and
that the excise should take some measures against Mr. Broad-
bent for the purpose of ascertaining to what extent they had
been defrauded. The officer reported this to his principals,
and it was their duty not to neglect this information
coming from a gentleman of Mr. Crompton's character and
station in life. A search-warrant was, therefore, issued,
and, in the absence of Mr.,.Broadbent, his warehouse, in
one of the public streets of Manchester , was searched.
The premises of the plaintiff were searched from top to bot-
tom; and all he mentioned this fact for was to tell the jury,
that it turned out that the information so conveyed to the
excise was utterly without foundation. The excise were per-
fectly satisfied : every facility was afforded to them in their
search ; and they found that there was not the shadow ( f
pretence for this very serious imputation. The next time
that Mr. Goodhire saw .Mr. Crompton he repeated to him
what had happened, and said to him, " What would you ex-
pect a man to do when you had given him such informa-
tion ?" " Expect you to do ?" replied the defendant,
" I should expect you to do just. what you have," express-
ing no regret or anything of the sort. The plaintiff had
afterwards considerable difficulty in ascertaining from
whom the excise had; derived this information. The
officers of excise, with great propriety, refused to give
up the party. They were bound to act upon the informas
tion, but not to expose their authority. And it was a
difficulty under which he (Mr. Wortley) should labour
that he should be obliged to call the excise-officers, who
were not always willing to disclose more than what was
absolutely. necessary. Doubtless, however, they would tell
the truth, although they had given no assistance to the
plaintiff ; but, at the same time, he felt confident that the
evidence would support the charge. From other sources
M. Broadbent discovered that there was every reason to
believe the defendant was the party who had made this in-
formation, and proceedings were commenced against him,
the result of which was the present action. One would have
thought that, by this time, Mr. Crompton would have bad
time to reflect, having discovered that the information lie
had given to the Excise was false, and that he would have
expressed himself sorry for what had occurred. If that had
been done, proceedings would have been stopped. But, so
far from this, the defendant, on another day, met a Mr.
Stones on the station of the Bolton and Manchester Railway,
and said, " I have had a writ served upon me by Broadbent."
" What about ?" he was asked. "Because," he replied, " I
gave information to the Excise that he was running the
Excise ;" and, he added, " I would tell Broadbent to his
face, if he were here. Ido not care about him nor about his
writ : they may both be d—d." The jury, then, would judge
of the tendency of such imputations. Now, what was to be
the defence in this action ? The defendant had pleaded that
he was not guilty of making these imputations, but he should
have no difficulty in proving that. But perhaps he might
endeavour to contend, under that plea, that the communica-
tion made to the Excise was, under the circumstances, pro-
tected bylaw, as it was a privileged communication. He (Mr.
Wortley) contended that it would not be held as a privi-
leged communication, inasmuch as it was a purely voluntary
communication of what turned out to be entirely false. The
other two pleas of justification were the most remarkable
that he (Mr. Wortley) had ever seen in a case of this descrip-
tion. In point of law, those pleas were not worth a farthing.
They did not attempt to justify the real gravamen of the
charge : they did not say it was true that the plaintiff was
defrauding the excise. As to that part of the case, there-
fore, the action was undefended, and the only question then
was the damage. What could possibly be the motive of the
defendant? He had been in the enjoyment•of a monopoly
in the neighbourhood; his works were old; they were not
.newly constructed, embracing all the improvements made in
modern times. The plaintiff's works, on the other hand,
had been newly constructed; a large sum of money had been
spent upon them, and that must account for the difference
in the expense of manufacturing paper. The expense of
manufacture depended also upon other circumstances. The
learned counsel concluded by expressing a hope, that, as the
defendant had been lately added to the commission of the
peace, his conduct in this case was not a sample of the way
in which he would deal with the rights of others.
Mr. Richard Goodhire, supervisor of Excie in the Bolton
District and Wigan Collection, proved the expressions uttered
by the defendants on the two occasions described by Mr.
Wortley. In his cross-examination, by Mr. Wilkins, he
admitted, that, subsequently to the information being given,
• the Board of Excise censured him for his conduct in the busi-
ness. The impression upon witness's mind was, that he gave
the information to protect himself in the way of trade and
' the revenue.

Mr. John Stones, paper-manufacturer, of Little Lever,
near Bolton, proved the expressions used by Mr. Crompton
on the Ist of March, whilst they were together at one of the
stations on the Bolton and Manchester Railway. This
witness said, that, in his judgment, the plaintiff's works,
which had beed re-built within the last three years, would
produce more paper in less time than Mr. Crompton's.
Mr. WuxiNs said, that he should be willing to withdraw
a juror, if his learned friend would consent.
The JUDGE, would offer no objection to the withdrawal of
a juror, if it was desired. ' •
Mr. WORTLEY said he had no objection, on condition that
Mr. Crompton would publicly retract the imputation upon
the plaintiff, express his regret for what had occurred, and
indemnify the plaintiff against all expenses.
Mr. WlLKins said Mr. Crompton, who was a gentleman
of high character and respectability, did not care a single
farthing about the amount of the damages, but he did
wish to stand well with his neighbours and friends. He had
not the least objection publicly to withdraw the imputation
upon Mr. Broadbent, but it must be in such a mariner as to
leave no imputation upon himself.
Mr. WORTLEY suggested that Mr. Crompton should pub-
licly state he was perfectly satisfied there was no foundation
for the imputation.

Mr. 'WORTLEY understood Mr. Crompton to be willing to
say this—that, upon further inquiry, he found the imputation
he had made against the plaintiff, as to having defrauded the
Excise, was without foundation, and that he regretted hav-
ing made it ; and that, upon further inquiry, he also found
that he was mistaken in saying that Mr. Broadbent was sell-
ing fifteen per cent. under the market prices, and he re-
gretted having said so.
Mr. WILKINS requested this to be written _clown.. After
some consultation,

Mr. WuxiNs consented to a nominal verdict upon these
conditions. Mr. Crompton, after further inquiry, was sa-
tisfied that the imputation of defrauding the Excise was not
well founded; that, after further inquiry, he was satisfied
that the statement of the plaintiff selling fifteen per cent.
under market price was a mistake; and he regretted that,
though mistaken, he had made the imputation. Mr. Cromp-
ton would not have come into court to defend this action if
he had not been anxious to stand well with his neighbours.
When he made the statement he believed what he was say-
ing : he had since ascertained that his belief was not well
founded, and he regretted having said so. He hoped that
this declaration would cause Mr. Crompton to retain that
good opinion which had always attended him through life.
Mr. WORTLEY, on the part of the plaintiff, was perfectly
satisfied.
A verdict of 40s. was then taken for the plaintiff.
CONTRACT FOR BUILDING A UNION WORKHOUSE.

ORE AND ANOTIIER V. THE GUARDIANS OF CHAPEL-EN-

LE-FRITH

This was an action brought by the assignees of a bankrupt,
named Salford, against the Guardians of the Poor for the
Union of Chapel-en-le-Frith, in Derbyshire, to recover a
sum of money amounting to between £3,000 and £4,600.
The bankrupt had contracted with the guardians to erect
a workhouse for the union, and the building was proceeded
with, but the guardians were not satisfied that it was exe-
cuted according to the plans and specifications. A sum of
the money was paid to Salford, but before the matter in dis-
pute could be settled he failed, and his assignees brought the
present action to recover the balance. As the question in-
volved a great many points connected with the plans, as well
as the execution of the work, the cause and all matters in
difference was, after some consideration, referred,

MARSHALL AND OTHERS V. LAMB

This was an action for the recovery of money had and re-
ceived, brought by the assignees of a bankrupt, named Thorns,
who carried on business in London as a warehouseman, against
Mr. Lamb, an attorney, at Basingstone. It appeared that,
on the 15th August, 1841, Thorns committed an act of bank-
ruptcy by absenting himself with the intention of delaying his
creditors, and on the 25th he paid to the defendant £7OO for
a mortgage which the defendant had on some property in
trust for the benefit of Mrs. Thorns. The £7OO he had
raised by the sale of all the goods he had previously to the
act of bankruptcy.
The learned JUDGE instructed the jury, that the bank-
rupt had paid off the mortgage with £7OO, which was the
property of his creditors, and that it was a fraud upon the
creditor §, not by Mr. Lamb, but by the bankrupt. The
assets of the bankrupt amounted to £3OO, whilst his debts
and liabilities were between £13,000 and £14,000.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs for £717.
The court adjourned at a quarter to six.