The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1912-04-06
L|BEL0US HOME RULE
ARTICLE IS COSTLY
Bishop of Cloyne and Six Priests
Get Verdict in Suit Against
Dundee Courier.
Action Based on Imputation That
Clergy Used Religious Infiu-
ence in Politics.
In the Absence of Proof the Jury
Quickly Returns Verdict for
the Plaintiffs.

the Plaintiffs.
Some time ago Right Reverend DR..
Browne, Bishop Of Cloyne, and six
dee Courier to compel the proprietors
OF that journal to make amends for
a libelous article which they published
last August. The case was concluded
at Edinburg on March "a.
The defendants were D. c. Thomson
G. Co., publishers and proprietors of
the Dundee Courier, and the slander
alleged was contained in the issue of
the paper Of August Is, in an article
headed "Sinister Sidelights on Home
Rule The Bishop sued for $4,000,
and the clergy, who are as follows
Rev. Father Madigan, P. p, Castle
! townroche; Rev. Father Corbett,
Adm, Newmarket; Rev. Denis O'Con-
nor, C. c., Queenstown; Rev. John
| O'Donoghue, c. c., Queenstown, and
David Kent, c. c., Queenstown. and
| the Rev. William f. Browne, c. c.,
Queenstown-for $4,000 each.
The evidence on both sides having
been concluded, counsel on both sides
addressed the jury. The judge, in
summing up, said that if the jury
thought that the proper reading of the
article was that the persons referred
to were the plaintiffs, and that it.
would not be safe without any assist
ance from the defense to reach any
other conclusion than that which
great many respectable and promi-
nent citizens had told them they
reached, they would find accordingly.
Evidence All One Way.
Upon that matter, SO far as the evi-
dence was concerned, it, was all one
way. They would then consider the
question as to whether the article was
defamatory. No one had suggested
that the instructions We're other than
most obnoxious. Those examined in
the box represented clergymen, busi
ness men, journalists end members of
Parliament, all men CT position, and
all of them gave evidence of the fact
that they interpreted the article as
imputing to the plaintiffs the obnox-
ious use of religious influence, and an
influence which had resulted in the
ruin of this shopkeeper.
Mr.. Murray said that the intention
of the article was political; but so
far as the law was concerned, politics
were no excuse for slander, and it
would be a very unfortunate thing in
deed for the public life of the country
if either the individual or a news
paper was entitled with impunity to
make derogatory and slanderous
statements against the private char
acter of an individual.
They should administer the law,
knowing nothing of politics and moth
ing of religion. If the jury drew the
innuendo alleged, then they should
hold that the article was defamatory.
There was no attempt on the part Of
defendants to prove the truth of the
statements, and the jury should take
them to be false; and if they assumed
them to be false they would further
assume that the innuendo was fair
innuendo put upon the language used.
He did not think that the jury could
possibly say other than that the al.
legation with reference to minister
of any form of religion that he used
his religious influence over laymen to
bring about the ruin of people en-.
gagged in lawful pursuits was a most
odious one.
These were questions of the great,
est Importance in the case. The other
| question was the question of dam.
! ages. That was one eminently for the
: jury No one had suggested on the
} part of the plaintiffs that they should
, award large sum in consequence
of pecuniary loss sustained. He should
however, instruct them that the law
| recognized that there might be loss
which justified the award of sub.
stantial damages apart altogether
from the question of loss of money
: The jury was not only entitled, but
he thought bound, to give substantial
damages.
d z ~ f. rs .. f f B. s