The sun., 1873-05-02


Not liIcliaus.
Nh. George Ods,r some time since
brought an action FOR l9el against Mr.
Mortimer, the publisher OF the Figpro
newspaper n London. MIR. Odgcr is the
noted English democrat who amuses him
self with making violent specchcs and
melting the public against tho Government
Ia London. The trial of this suit came on before
Mr. Justice Brett az Guildhall. when the Jury
returned a verdict for the pubiishcr. 4 motion
was made by Mr.. Sergeant Simon on the l6h -
April, before the fun bench 81 the Common
Pleas, for new trial, the ground that the YER
diet against the weight of evidence Ii ap-
reared that in the alleged IIhcI the pIantir had
been called "a political cheap Jack and that II
was stated that he had any quantity Of bottled
up abuse and treason.' which he WIS ready to
dispose oftor permanent place OF $3.50 year.
The Lord Chief Justce-The jury thought
probably that the whole matter was n humorous.
ridiculous thing, not worthy ~ serious notice.
Mr.. Sergeant simon II was SAID that the
plaintiff had any amount Of "bottled-up abuse
aud treason
The Lord Chief Justice But could that be
read with n serious 'acey
=. Sergeant simon said that It was not only the
ground of complaint for his eli, M had been at
tackled week after woek In this paper. and all
sorts ~ imputations were made npnn him, lie
then read several subsequent articles 90 prove
the animus Of the paper, one of which com
menced as follows; The Bishop of Natal
"t''' - -" VI SiiN bNl''I lhllNl nave llbtllcu
Odgcr, then there can be- no difficulty In belicv-
Ing in any mirncIe'" This implied that Nr
Ddger's character was 50 bad he could not he
lhecd. In conclusion Sergeant simon suhmit-
ted that Mr.. Odgcr's character had been serious
" impugned and that he ought to he allowed To
go before another jury to yindicate IL.
The LORD chief Justice, in denying the mo.
upn. said that IL was only where the court could
see that the Jury We're clearly in the wrong that
they would or ought To Interfere 1t was for the
Jury 10 say what was the nature and character
ot the attack and in constituting the alleged IL
bels, they would take into consideration the ma
ture of the publication, the doctrines that Mr.
Odger had advanced, and his conduct at various
pubic meetings at which he had been engaged.
An editor whose business II was to comment
upon public affairs would have perfect right
To comment upon Mr.. Odger's conduct, and to
meet him in the strongest possible way, No
doubt rldicule might be n most effective mode
OF combating such doctrines, but II such rid-
cue were fairly and properly done and did not
exceed the fair limits Of comment and criticism
then the law said the occasion was one where
thc presumption Of malice was rehutted. The
language OF the Figaro was such that IL was
haTuly possible Tor those who werO In court To
IeIiress q laugh as the passages were read and
indeed IL was very difficult for the Judges upon
ihe bcnch to restrain themselves, and even the
learned sergeant himself had not been able 10
preserve grave cOuntensnce while he read
them IN court. lie (the Lord chief Justicel
hhd earlier IN tho case suggested that MIR. Odger
would do well 20 consult some experienced ner-
son AS To the probable result Of the case He
had then a strong impression that the Jury
would take the view which they had now taken
ana aiter the trial II was impossible To say the
Iury were wrong.