The New York herald., 1879-01-06
TRUTH IS MIGHTY"
Ex-DIREcroR RoBEnTsoN's SUIT AGAINST La
. BoUcHERE FOR LIBEL.

4. DOUCHERE FOR LIBEL
From the London Standard.]
After protracted and painful investigation the
action brought by Mr. wybrow Robertson. of the
Westminster Aquarium, against Dir. Henry Labou-
chere proprietor and avowcdly editor of the weekly
paper known Tl1sG, has resulted in verdict for
the defendant. The circumstances of the dis
pute interesting at any rate, if not ex-
actly edifying; and, however destitute they
may be of any other moral. they yet, beyond all
question, let considerable light the more
unfavorable side of human nature 1t may be remem-
bered that some few years ago certain public i'm
provements which being at the timo effected
brought into the market large plot of land lying in
the angle between the Westminster Hospital and the
Westminster Palace Hotel 1t occurred to Mr.. Wy
brow Robertson-who. although he had for some
time held valuable appointment in the public SER
vice. was vet an active and enterprising member Of
that peculiar clique by which theatres, music
halls skating Kinks and other such places
Of public amusement and resort pro-
jected, financed and carried on-that this
waste ground aquarium might be erected.
with great advantage to the public and with consider
able profit to the promoters of the undertaking. The
idea was carried out. 1t has borne fruit No one of
course, preends that the Westminster Aquarium is
In any way scientific establishment 1t is sort of
compromise between q travelling menagerie and
either watch the octopus in his tank
sec the young female acrobat shot out of the
non. Be its attractions, however, what they
may the Aquarium has LATELY been popular, and Mr..
Robertson, its protector, founder and promoter
had beyond all question right to expect some re-
it is that to the point upon which the action
yesterday concluded hinges and depends Mr.
Robertson, founder and promoter OF the Aquarium
was of course. member Of its original board Mr.
Henry Labouchere was another OF the directors.
FORCED TO TRIAL.
fes which were at the time n
tcliigibe the public to the shareholders of the
society. 1t known that Mr. Labouchere and Mr..
Robertson were qunrrclling, bat nobody understood
anything of the merits of the controversy of the
issues actually involved in it, Mr. Labouchcre, how
there should be no doubt about the matter
Week after week he published in his paper a
series of persistent attacks upon Mr.. Rob-
ertson charging him, in effect, with having been
dismissed from his post as managing director
of the Aquarium. for conduct going beyond mere ir
regularity and amounting to downright dishonesty
Mr. Iabouchere to do him Justice. did not mincc his
phrases. He knew what he meant to say; he said it
openly, and he challenged Mr.. Robertson to try
conclusions with him in a court of law
The matter was not perhaps in itself one of
any great public importance London could get
on very well without any Westminster Aquarium ut
ALL and the personal aniInositics which suggested
by the viruence of the dispute but the
parties themselves Mr. Robertson. however, had
unwiilngly he wss Obliged to bring his action and
to stand BY its resmlts Whether It generous of
his opponent thus to goad MIN into the held may be
matter OF opinion. Mr.. Robertson elected to stand
or fall by public inquiry. and there is course
open 70 him but to accept the result.
THE CHARGE.
. The charge preferred by Mr.. Labouchere against
Mr.. Robertson in the columns of Truth was in brief.
that, being director or the Aquarium, he had been
dismissed by his brother directors for dishonesty.
The accusation simple, and the facts
Robertson was no doubt fairly entitled to
make certain reasonable profit out of
undertaking largely, if not wholly, due to his
own energy ana enterprise. Legitimate profits,
however, do not seem to have been enough Cor him.
AS part OF what may. in no improper acccIsarion of
the term, be called his promotion money, IL received
certain number OF fully paid up shares. To share
holders who paid up their shares IN full the company
allowed interest. and to such interest Mr. RobertsoR
evidently thought himself entitled. Instead,
of openly e. sending m gs.d in wi.so; his clam
directors. by smuggling through the agcnao a
check for large sum, ono item in which, his own
claim for interest was consequently passed without
company's shares and to have contived to get
1900 of them allotted him without paying the
necessary deposit He gave some sort of security.
IL is true; but he Stood upon the whole, to gain by
the transaction the shares not at all likely
TO fall and Il they went up i was open to him to
having paid any bona fde deposit. II IA sufficient to
saythat for his conduct in the two matters which
Robertson guilty Of dishonorable conduct Had tho
thing been done openly there would have
been dispute about it. but Mr. Robertson evidently
made or his position ana influence to up
the true nature OF his dealings and to conceal from
the OF the Board the real character of his private
speculations I'm the company's stock. AS to such
conduct but opinion is possible. These facts
being brought the notice of the directors hegotia
tions followed of by means amicablc character
Their result in effect was that compromise
rived at. Mr.. Robertson resigned his position in the
company aud disgorgcd his gains.
LADoUCHHRE's REVENGE. .
The jury after long and most patient hearing
have come TO the conclusion that however uukind,
and indeed, malicious In the ordinary acceptation Of
the term, may have been the attacks upon Mr.. Rob-
ertson in Trn they are yet capable of justification
on the simple ground or their accuracy. They have
found distinctly that q charge Of dishonesty
of making. that is to say illicit and secret profits
in underhand manner-was preferred against
Mr. Robertson by his brother dirccors that it was,
matter Of fact proved to be true, and that he
was, in consequen dismissed from Office. More
than this Mr.. Labouchere had never said, and al
though q technical point has been reserved which
may lead to considerable argument upon the more
obscure ncetics of She Law OF libel. there is prac-
tcay end TO the case. Mr.. Robertson has taken
his course, and he must abide the result.