New-York tribune., 1879-01-06
AN INTERESTING CASE.

THE SON-LABOUCHERE LIBEL SUI
-. ,onyRrsoS's DEALINGS WITH THE WtslMiN-
srrp AQUARIUM COMPANY-A GROSS NoLAlioN
or rRusT-sHREwD DEVICES TO OBTAIN NoNLl
ON SHARES OF STOCK HKLp Bf HIN - -,
sKFTcH OF Mr.. LABoUCHERe-A CoN'hs.
WITS BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND sh"0IA
p.IIASTINF AND THE LATTER Woks'hD'
rvnoN THE REGULAR CORRESPONDENT OF THE th'DoN
LONDON, Dec. 21-Some three weeks aeo "%'
bepun in the Queens Bench DIVISION VI '''
Court of .Instlce. before Lord Cbiet-Jusuce Cock-
~ t.;oI of ON action for libel by Mr. Robert
80 oroi,st Mr. Iabouchere. Just as the plaintlns IS
ooes Ivas concluded Mr.. Sergeant Ballantine' hls
sonior counsel was seized with fit and the nearing
,ros odionrned for ten days. When it should have
come on it was again postponed lor WEN y"
sa,,,+ of the illness of the judge-the
illness which preceded the publication OF
his pamphlet against Lord Penzance. Inc
trial was resumed this week on iuesu'N'
II 1s one of those which, for some reason VI
other excite remarkable degree OF interest Ihe
court is crowded day after day. The proceedings
are reported at great length in the papers. Inc
nublic takes sides vehementlY. / hardly know
why but the fact that all this interest ana
excitement does exist places it fairly in the category
of celebrated causes. have been interested III IL
myself and am going to give some account Vi '
At the same time, it is fair to warn the reader ha'
no great pubhc interest is involved. There IS
drama The actors in 1t have good deal al STAKE.
The way in which it is put on the stage is strlKhg
Some of the actors are persons of great dlstlnc-
ton. shall have something TO say also OF 'ne
professional conduct OF the cause. and of the way
in which different parts have been played. lhese
are the reasons for the rather long story am gong
to tell.
WHEREIN LAY THE LIBEL.
The action is for an alleged libel published in
Truth, Mr.. Labouchere's paper. The libel consists
iu the statement that Mr.. Robertson. who, Ill 1870
was manager of the Westminster Aquarium, had
been dismissed by the Directors for dishonesty
Mr. Labouchere admits that he wrote ana pup
Eshed the statement complained of. AS defence
to this suit he pleads that the statement was true
in substance and in fact. Legally that is complete
defence Whether the statement be true OF false
seems very simple issue. capable of beng brNhy
determined. What is there i'll 1t TO occupy
the Court ten days or moref Well, IN the
present fashion of trying causes, there IS TINS.
There is the whole history of the establishment OF
the Aquarium, of Mr.. Robertson's connection Win
.t of the relations between him and the directors
and between the directors and the company,
not to speak of the private relations be-
tween Mr.. Robertson and Mr.. Labouchere. Yet
The essence of the story be put into paragraph
which the reader who is careless of facts and only
wants Impressions may comfortably skip.
Mr. Robertson was the promoter" Of the Aqua
,um Company He had acquired from the former
,wners of the ground on which the
Aquarium buildings now stand. the right
10 buy it, for $4,000. He made con-
tract with the inchoate company to sell them
his ground for GSOOOO, agreeing to take his profit
If 100000 partly in cash, $1,000, and the rest,
$4,000, in fully paid up shares Of the company AS
she shares were issued at Go each, Mr.. Robertson
a @Io,n fbnsi r
commonly known as promotion shares"
The company was duly organized in 1874. Mr..
Robertson was one of the directors and manager;
Mr.. Labouchere chairman. In the following
rear the Board of Directors passed resolution to
The effect that q rebate of interest at D
per cent should be allowed to those share
holders who had paid for their stock in
ndvance of the regular calls the terms OF issue be-
ing e1 per share application 81 on allotment,
the balance within specified time. Mr.. Robertson
upon this conceived the notion of getting his per
cent-not ON the amount paid Ill advance
of calls on his shares, for there had been no calls
on him and he had paid nothing, but on the 1900
promotion shares above mentioned. He applied to
the company's accountant, Wyde, and Wyde after
some resistance finally agreed to RObertson's pro-
posal and in December, 1875, laid before the
Board of Directors a check for their signature
for E611, payable TO himself Inquired of as
TO the destination of the money, he said 1t was for
interest due under the above resolution, and being
asked why he made the check payable to himself,
explained that it was because the number of per-
sons to whom interest due was so large. and
that the amounts were small that he should have
TO pay them out of the proceeds of this
check in cash. postage stamps or post office orders
Now in fact this sum of c6l1 was composed of the
one amount of 1915 claimed by Robertson, only
the balance of s36 consisting of the numerous small
sums alleged. RobertsOns name was not men
toned to the Board. He himself said nothing about
any part of the check coming to him. None OF the
Board knew of his claim OF of the payment to him.
The real facts were not long after discovered
by an auditor who discovered also n series
of facts relating to Robertsons dealings
with the shares of the company, which
/ will state still more briefly. He made
or professed to make in May, '75, application for
1000 shares, on which he paid no money His ap-
plication was never made known to the board who
alone had power to allOt, and was not entered on
the books till the following September, when 1T was
dated back to May; the object being that he
might sell the shares at a profit If
they rose to premium, be rid of them altogether
if they fell in value He was concerned, moreover,
directly in surreptitious and fraudulent traf-
ticking in shares by other paid officials of the com
pany, equally without the knowledge of the board,
and divided tn profits with them.
When these facts, and others into which need
not enter were made known to the Board, they re-
quired Robertson to return the 1915, to pay the
$1,000 due on his application for 1000 shares and
the remainder within thirty days, and to place bis
resignation both as Director and Manager III their
hands On these conditions and in order to save the
company, just then about TO open Its doors to the
public the scandal of an exposure, they agreed that
the dismissal should be deemed resignation, and