The sun., 1873-07-12
An Irish LiheI Snit.

A paragraph recently appeared In the
FrCcmdH's Journal, one of the leading
newspapers OF Dublin, which was gene
rally supposed to refer to Sir ARTHUR
GUINNESS, a very wealthy and influential
citizen, the son of the famous brewer OF
that name. The paragraph was headed
Reported Social Scandal" and was in
these words:
"A rumor was prevalent yesterday and was
repeated with something like corrohoration. in
more than one club room, that our city would
shortly be startled by the revelations Of a domcs-
tic scandal of a most serious and sadly painful
character, We do not, OF course, mean TO repro
duce the particulars Of the affair as they have
reac he'd us. but We may mention that should the
details unfortunately prove correct the com
as shocked and as dismaycd as II " IN be grieyed
and pained, rs the principal character has hith-
erto been considered model Of propriety aud
decorum, Of whom the city, without distinction
Of class or creed were proud. Last night IL was
stated that the gentleman, who is parsonage
Of marked dlstinetion Ia many ways, felt
Obliged t. leave the country-to, In fact, seek
refuge from charge Of bignmous nature with
which he was Threatened. aud which l. likely 10
became public before many days eIapse IL Is
aided that the wife uf the gentiomnn, q lady re-
markahe for many e. Srvil"nces becoming
aware Of the position " her husband, quilted
h- protection u few days since aud has rejoned
her family
Sin ARrIU'R GuiNNESs was i'm London at
the time attending Parliament, Of which
he is Il member. He heard the paragraph
associated with his name as very terri
blr disclosure in the lobby Of che House
of Commons and elsewhere. 1t was after
ward copied into some other Irish ..,ws-
papers, rs well as into those oi Livcrpool
and Manchester. ne instituted criminal
prosecute before the magistrates of the
N".,ncm Police Court in Dublin, the place
Of the original publication. against Sir
JoHS GRAY, NJ. T.. proprietor OF the Free
mans journal, for this article. which was
designated by his counsel a. "black H.
night and false as hell"
Sir AR1UuH GUINNEss testified that there
was not the shadow of foundation for
the statement made; that he was married
To his present wife, the daughter of the
Earl OF BANTRY, In February. 1871; and
that prior to that OF at any other time he
had never gone through any form of mar
riagc or what purported to I've any form of
marriage with any other woman in Scot
land or anywhere else.
Mr.. RYAS, Queens Counsel. on behalf OF
Sir JoHS GRAY rendered an apology. Sir
JoHN knewnothing personally OF the para
graph, and had read ii FOR the first time i'm
railway carriage. There was not IA man
in the city who hnd read it with a greater
/ feeling of annoyance and disgust than Sir
/ JoHN had done. Sir ARTuCR decided not
to accept the apology. 4 large number Of
/ witnesses then swore that they understood
/ the paragraph 10 refer TO him.
At the next hearing Sir JoHN GRAY ac-
! kuowledgcd the proprietorship, and his
/ counsel admitted that there was a prima
| facc case of technical liability on his part
as publisher. The formal rule was then
pronounced requiring the defendant to
enter into his own recoguizance in 1900 TO
appear for trial at the oyer and Termner
in August; bat the prosecution was then
/ Withdrawn, absolutely and uncondition-
ally, and without asking for any further
redress. This announcement was greeted
with loud applause.
The Dublin correspondent of the Lon
don Times says that although public
sympathy had been strongly OH the side
Of the complainant, Yet If the proceed
ngs had been carried further, there
| would have been n reaction in favor Of the
defendant. II appears that the publication
of the article was directly contrary to the
tenor OF the Instructions given 10y Sir
JoHN GRAY to his employees. The story is
not new, however, and has been following
! Sir Arthur GUINNESS for some time The
writer in the Times says;
at seems mockcry to boast about the liber-
| ~ Of the press, and the fair and generous spirit
of our Constitution, when a newspaper prOprie-
tor h. liable not only To he mulctcd In exemplary
damages In ciyil action, bur To he placed In the
dock on criminal charge for an offence which
he has not personally committed, but which has
/ bDpu committed without his knoNlpdup q
sanction, or even contrary 10 his express d,rcc-
tiuns. II proceeded agalnst In a civil action he
can plead that the publication complained Of,
though uniouuded, VIA. Inserted without actual
malice or gross negligence, and a jury may hold
when his liberty is involved he has no cOmmcn-
suratc right hut may he visited with imprsun-
urnt Tor the uncnceS ul another. II Is hardly
hc''1HMS 10 vnHtTN' lhhl unequal ana oIpres-
sye laws defeat their own object by exciting
popular sympathy for the accused, (which renders
i dihicult 10 obtain convictions, or deprives
them OF their moral effect
II would seem that Sir ARTHUR did well
10 Withdraw when he could do so with
flying rolors. II is extremely likely that
"A jury would have taken into consdem-
tion the fact that SIR JoHN GRAY, though
acknowledgements, was not 50 morally,
aud would have given verdict for the
defendant.
For our part we have no sympathy with
the publication or circulation Of social
scandal about private individuals. Unless
a man occupies public post, or the expo
sure of his vices or crimes is for the general
veal, ii is not the business of u newspaper
TO tear aside the veil. But whenever and
wherever men take advantage of official
station to rob and defraud the public,
either by direct theft or by accepting
bribes, we hold it as the duty OF the press,
in the interest Of all honest and law