St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1884-12-03

day, aud would have placed both Chief JUS
tice Coleridge and Miss Mildred Coleridge on
the witness stand. he is now resolutely de-
termined to carry the case, on appeal to a
higher court. where be hopes and expects TO
obtain impartial justice, which he could not
obtain in the court below, where an arbitrary
despotie Judge presides, who has no regard
for justice, law, or the the rights of parties
litigant.
The object Of Mr.. Justice Manisty, who is
clearly an unjust and dishonest Judge, was to
pander TO high official, the Chief Justice Of
England, aud to protect his purse from 4
heavy, but just verdict. For this arbitrary
and indefensible act he justly receives the
seorn and indignant condemnation Of the
English public. Neither does Chief Justice
Coleridge escape Just censure for bis unWor-
thy, not to say brutal conduct, in turning his
daughter from his doors, and in changing
his will to disinherit her, and in insiigAfin 2
bis son to write a false, scandalOus, and
slandercus letter against Adams
II a man capable Of such low, malignant,
unmanly prosecuting bitterness, though he
be the exalted Chief Justice of the British
realm, is not like former English Judge
"the greatest, meanest Of mankind" he
certainly is worthy, and only worthy to be
chosen among the meanest-
This case has attracted more attention in
England on the part OF lawyers than any that
has been tried before the Queens Bench.
since the Tichborne case. distinguished
Queens counsel on being interviewed was
very outspoken in his condemnation OF the
judges action. He said: '.The conduct of
Mr.. Justice Manisty is unprecedented He
especially abused his privilege by his fire.
quent interruptions and wraugles owe
points Of law with man who was conduct
inghis own case. The whole affair is dis
grace to the British bench"
To say nothing of the infamy that will
attach TO the comparatively obscure and IN
important despotic, arbitrary judge, Mr..
Justice Manisty, the good name and fame
Of Chief Justice ColeridCe is furnished ire
trieyably by his conduct in this case, and
swift condemnation and just denunciallOn Is
showered upon him, not only by the English
public, and in all English speaking lands,
but in every country where justice is regard
ed and manly action is commended, and the
reverse condemned. Public opinion Is SIT
ting heavily against the Chief Justice and MS
superseryiceable little judge, and as 4 sam
pie OF the popular estimate every where ex-
pressed in regard TO this case and the actors
in it, the following extract is given from an
able editorial in an American journal (the
\. Y. Times reviewing the case.
We believe It would be impossible 10 End a
precedent for this performance. IL Is very com
mon, OF course, for judge 10 direct 8 verdict or
10 take case away from the jury altogether
upon the ground that there is no evidence 10 20
10 the jury. But in this case the anxiety OF the
judge TO save fellow judge, aud at the same
time appearances, took him the length OF allow
ing the jury 20 find verdict with a reservation
that the jury must find . verdict agreeable 10 the
court This is q monstrous mockery OF natural
justice. and II seems 10 be also a defiance OF the
law FOR century the English people have
been especially jealous Of the prerogatiye OF the
jury in cases Of libel and we are much mistaken
il this performance does not excite public in
dignation, against the judge who rendered the
decision and the judge 10 save whose pocket it
was rendered, which they viii find il hard either
70 face or to allay.
Whatever may be the result in this respect
the public Judgment upon the personal character
of the chiefiustice Of England will be the same
lt seems 10 be Ia evidence, and not denied, that
he instigated his son 30 write his daughter a let
ter defsmatory OF her lover. Il Is al al events
not denied that when she took the proper and
natural step OF acquanting her lover with the
charges that her brother mad brought against
him he turned her out OF doors and revoked the
provision made for her in his will The pre-
sumption from the behavior of Mr.. Adams In
promptly bringing suit TO viDdicate his character
ami OF young Coleridge in resorting 10 techni-
cal defense without attempting 10 make good
his charges, is that the charges were false, and
that Lord Coleridge deserved 10 be heavily null
eted for instigating them 10 be brought. That,
at any rate was the opinion Of the jury. IL Lord
Colridge was privy IN the performance Of his son,
he was an accomplish in a blackgusrdly piece OF
business. Even il he was not, his action showed
a cruelty and injustice entirely incompatiable
with the character Of an afectionste parent, a
just judge, or high minded gentleman.