Court Of Common Pleas, Tu...
The Times, 1824-01-28T00:00:00

-. r (lwJpt tsB t2r,- nI I - - ' -" This-vms *an action E"t b-h' y -tbi t T1ai ni r S-of money which They hnd been o bD~edu, pay~ a L r et a Mtr. Sergealt VAUOI1AI notOt MOvedafor a tule in show aUse W'hy the verdict Sholljj4not_ be,set .asde,. pnd.a,.non e.tnteyed. The tede,anid- cited siverit] cases is &sp-port.bf his asgunea, tat s' here' was n6 direct- proof thAt the money patid byi tbe.painiffh as p id t oof ajoint. stock, theyScatshl nsot -recover iin The.(JoirT ereot' pinon, haias the evidietce left it in some doubtwheter te moey. as ot o'a joint fund, the ritle to iihow cause oughit to begrne. HRAILINGS V. ttALL..-STOCK-SOR1119Gi. This was-an action to'tecoire] tEhe amoulnt of a bill of exchange, aczeped. by dhe defenilant. The.defenice set up.on the trial was, that the b211 'was vitiated by the -corzupt andi illegal nature of the transaction out of wrhich it aros, viz., the tettling the difference of an accunt in -certain time-bargais in tie publicefirsids. The-Jury gave a vbidfftg for the plaintiff. -~lf.Sergalrt 'AU GHAN aoW Moved fora zrule to show cause why the verdictilhouldnotbe set asiae suds norsuit entered. The groundsi oflhiHmotion were, theillegalityoif thiearignal tratlsaction,andalso, that oneofthe wimnesseson the trial (tie broker employedilathe trans-. action) had refused to 'answer certain questions whi,ch wvere pult to -hrm, or to prod(uce hlia book. The learned stirgeanit referredt to andl relied woon Sir j1. BlaTrnrd's act (the Stock-jobbing Act), ana the 48th Geo.iil., cap. 47, int both of whiclh it was declared, that a wit. nems-under such circumstances ouladtiorei'use toans.wer the ques.- tions, plut to bim, even thouigh hei should be exposed to a civil suit, in consequencef It' hs answers ; that lie woutld onlY do so when the, was danirer of exposing hiimself thereby to penalty, and lbrfettitre The Lord Clieif Justice GrFFORD said he conisidered thiipaidt'a very nice one, and withouit giving any, decision on the construcLitsti of the acts referred to, wouild grant a rule to showy cause.-Pitl~, granted. - 11WARDS Vt. J3'rL. Thisewan nution b)ouglktiby'th'eplaintiff', atthat-tite minister of a dissenting chaLpel H' f)reat Mtarlow, - in Dulckiii gbaaishire, againist thie dcfeffant5the publisher, and one af'the proprietors of' IPIe Tizieis rewapa-per, for a ilbe l ublislied against him in that papr. Fli wods charge(I as libellous werethesv:-"A serious mis. ssndrstanding has recently taken place anmongst the independent dis. renters of' Great AMarlow atnd their pastor, in consequence.- of slom-e personal invective,, publicly thrown from the~ pulpit by' the latter, aginst a young lady, oft distinguished mierit einil spo'tles reputa~tion. W e understand,ihowever, thait th-e nta'ter is to be taken up serious- ly." Thie words " Buck~ Curounicle" were inserted after the pare- .Uah sAnlil ~e rn whichi it was extacted. Tathis. action' medefendant pleaded, first, the general issue of "not ity" ,anti secondly, a flea of i ustification, that the plaintiff rtt part of lis chapel, usually assigned to him for ;i~achng,uttredand pnblished a p3ersonal invective agvinst a young ladynamd Mrgaet Fair-to wvit, the scandalous words follow- ing ~" I ave ometingto say, which I have thiought ofmentioning for sometime-nam ly,te impToper condluct of one at' the female teachers: her name Asliis Pair. lHer conduct is a had example and disgrace to the school;- and if ally of the children dare ask her to go home, she (uteaning one of the cAildren) shiall be turnetl out of the school, anid never entcer it again. lhliss Fair docs mote hiarm thatn good." These Wvords were alleged to have been uittered to the great. scandal of several present, and to have produced a misunder. ing am no the Iongegation, and between sonice of thlem and their pasto. tIn'these pleas issue was joined, and the case tried last Juily before Mr. Juistice Bisrrough, at Guildhall, when the jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff on the general damages 40s., and for the defendant on the pica of justification. In the courste of last term, Mlr. Sergeant PxE.r.L obtained. a ruile to showcaus whyjudmentshoud no heentered up for, the plaintiff on te wolecase nowitstaningtheverdict for the defendant on the lea fjuriflatio. Te grundon which thle rule visi had bee grnte ws, hattil jsticae~nproved was not a sufficient ~.ih,1rir Sergeant VAuaitA% thisq day showed catise against ithe rutle. Th earned sergeant was9 reciting the plea and the justification, when The COUsRT observed, it ivouild he taken for granited that tile proof of the plea wvould be adimitted. Mr. Sergean)t PELL.-! wvill state, miy L-ords, to my learnied brother the grounds oni which we rest for thie plainitiff. W"e say, that the libel imlports one thiing, and thiat the justification or justiti. catory plea imnports anotlier, and is therefore no answer to the libel. Alr. Sergeant VAUGIIA-.-The quiestion then is, whbether the plea of juistificationi which we have put in is sufficient. I maintain thiat it is ; and I trust yotir l4ordIships, before I sit downi, will he of opiniont with tre, thtthr isno ground w1hetever for supporting Ithis rule. Here is a paragraphi inserted in The Times newspIaper, avowedly copied fromi a country paper-the Bitcks rjhronict- and( tile action is brought as for a libel against the pa icr in London. IThie learned sergeant here readl the paragraph, an~ continued]- WVell, thtis, if a libel, is one of the most nimlk-ar;A.water and dilutedI libels chat was ever broughit into a court ofjusticm WVhat is it whbich is stated in the paraigra I have just read ? It is said that aspersions, or personal invective, had been thirown out against a young lady of' spTotless sreputation,anidthe sting of this, as itapplies totheplaintiff, I take to be, that it is a libel to state any thing Mhich would suppose him capable of such an invective from his pulpit. Now, the instifll cation of the defendant was, that hie ILad inserted such a sta?e.nrent in hil paper, and that it was true. Nowt, the lawv of Englathd, thioughi it held th at truth mlighit be a libel, yet it allowedl a party to protect himself from a civil action, by p roving the truthi oh that whichi lie was charged with haIn uterd The C'OUaRT here intimated thait it was not necessary for tile learned sergeant to argue tIlat question. Alr. Sergeanit VAAX GtlAN continifed.-As there is nio dloubt, tilell, of tire law being as I have stated), thie onlv question on which I am to trouble your Lordships is, whiethier oiurjustificationi goes fuilly' to the trutht of the oiriginal miatter chareged as libel. I am dtilly, iware that a general justttiationi will niot be a sufficient answer to a libel which is even couched in general teriis, but that Vroof of particulars will be required, In the caseof "Hlindsoniv. Strutt, 'wichel yourbord- shtips remensberas that of- theone-eyed circumnavigator," the liboel was conveyed under the general term "'swindliag;" but it was held that no general proof could be a .iurtification, hut that particular and sPecific acts mnust. be pyroved, la'the case of" Holmes end Catesby" the same rule was laitd dtown. It was decided that ithe party' jus5ti- fYing in ani action for libel must go to particuilars. Now- I beg tile attention of the Couirt to the nianner in whiich this has beeni dune in. the present ease. Tnie'article chargedl aslibellous etates, that "1 per. t,onal invective had been publicly thirowni from th-e pulpit by rite Plaintiff' against a yortng ladly ot' spotless repuitation." flow (ioes the justification support that ass~ertion ? It is fully admittedl that Mliss Fair was the ladyalltuded to, anid that she was of spotless reputa- tion; and it is clearly in evidence that the plaintifh'mentioningher naine publicly, stated "thather. conduct wasabad example and a disgrace to the school." Was not this a personal invective? If it was not,I amf atea loss what words are sufificiently strong to constitute pecrsonal invective. To a young wvoman whose character is admitted to he unblemtishedi, I ktz~ of no greater personal invective than the public assertion that her conduct is "a bud example and a disgrace."1 Then the reverend plaintiff-as if his first assertion was not strong enough-is Proved to hiave addled, " and if any of the chiildren dare to ask her leave to go home, they shall be ttitrned our ot the school, never to enter it again:" and to wind tip, he adds, " AMiss Fair does mDore barms than good."1 I ask, i,s tllIslnng-uage which a dissenting clergy. man, or any clergytman, ought to have addrmesse fromn his pilpit con. cerningany one ofhiscongregation,ortowards any party wWose conductt he migt nothave approved? What wilt any man of common sense call this, i he doesi not call it personal inivective, and that, too, of a very, gross kCind ? Am I to argue such a iuestion as this with your Lord- shiPs ? I am certain that your Lor%bipq would onl consider it a wasite of time. It will not-tt cannot be denited : antrfor what then does this Rev. Gentleman, the plaintiflY seek for danliages ? for miy client having publitsbed of him that which cannot he denied by him-- self ? That whichn the plaintili has charged as libel, we say ts true, and we point out the particulars of its truth. MVr. Justice PAITY-11r.hat you have shownr looks very like per- sonal invective certainly. Mr. Sergeant VAtJOHAX..XVell, then, mny Lords, iti the aotier part of the case, is it not true that a serious, misianderstarnding hiad arisen in thise entletnan's congregation ? e proved that, on the trial, by several witniesses, and we proved it to bave arisen from the cauise to which I have already alluded. Here, then, I suibmit, that the lustifieation on both these pioints goes to the full, extelnt of the libe'l. The grounds reliedI upon on the part of the plaintiff arc- that the libel imports ane thing, and the justificatiojl another. I contend, miy Lords, that from whiat I have laid before your Lord& ships, they refer to the same idenitical subject, and that the latter is a lul and explic;t answer to the formner. I - apprehend that your ords'hips will be of the same opinion, atid that therefore the de- fendaait, atu not the plaintifi; will be entitled to judgment. AMr. Sergeant TADi)n followed on the same side, and obser-ved that the present case wits different from other actionsr far scandal. Here 110 mnalielous and wilfls rpeenso of what was said was proved. The, assertion thlat "1personal invective" had been thlrownl out against this younig lady was distitretly and minutely proved. In rue ca,se of"1 Lewis v. Clrments," Bd l3svnewaYl and AldersTn, 702, whlich was a re -ot or a ease out of the Insolvent Debtors' Court, it was admitted t art the report ivas true ; butt thein the case washeadedin thenvewspaper, '15harrethiConduct of anAt.. Itorney," andtheCoancle titera though thereport wascorrcct.yet that, taken with the constrliction which the wordsjuss mientioned gave to *~ it -was libel. Hlere nio such thing hiad been done. A plain state- mient teas-given ofa tisnsartion, and. that statement was in every yoiltsprovedso be correct. Thelerained sergeant then read thealleged ibel, and also the justification, and proceeded to 'contend t hat the words "her con-ductisa bad example and a disgrace to the school," were, as apvlytng to an innocent youing femiale, a personal invective of thie grosaLer kind. The LOan CItIgy JTsrT.cs._Ay and mocre, Brother Taddy, for he addedl, ` Aiss Fair does more iiarm than g_ood."l The learned sergeant then went on to contend that the justific-a. tiOn went fully to sutpport the matter asserted in the alleged libel. It was not necessary that the plea should go to the very letter ; but in thep resent case ithead, he suibritted, Fone even that far. lil. Justice BUaaROUGHl.-.Ahl that is requited-is, that the justi- licatioci shOuld goto the general siense of the nsatter charged as libel. Air. Sergeant PEIL:T replied in support of the rule, First, he wo-uld observe upon one polint touched by his learnedI brother Taddy, HLi leared roter ad ague tht n maice could be nifcrre,d in the defedun.thr n malce as rovd;but he forget that the jury had iveuterictforthe laitif; wih 4s. amtages on ctte ge- neraIssu. Tht vedictwoul be uffiientto infer the malice, ftiicwnsuon he ssmpton hatmalceexisted. But, con- la. He was pleased to say le it (I toted dtown the words at the time), that " this is one of the mortt milk-and- water and. diluted libeLs that was ever brought into a court." TJadoiihtcdly these things, in a diluted or a stronger state, nmght be Imatters of taste amongst -individuals, but for my part, -I must say, thatfor a case where the party libelling attemrted to justify, I think this one of the most.a tignant libels whica one being could lpublish against anothler. With reference to the particular paper in question ( Te Tbnes), it is but justice to.say, that the proprietors only adopted the libel by copying tt from another, and. as far as they aTe-concerned, no personal malice can be attributed to them. They are no farther chargeable with it than, in the legai sense. of the word,- ajs the publishers. -Now, with respect to the libel, and haw far it was answered by the attenpted Justification, I beg to call the attention of vour Lordships to the w6rds of the libeL. The first words are theie-." A serious misun- derstandinghbas recently taken place mtnongst- the independent dis- senters of Great ll1arlow and their pastor!" Illy learned friend, in alludingto iheJustihiation, has forgotten to notice the differcnce be- tween tI1ataezdth6libel inteshisrespece. In the one, itis "a serious nisrunderstanding among the dissenters ;" and in the other, it is " a reriia.zmisunfderstandjngbet-een thens anrd their pastor." Now this rMiade a kreat ditference; fcra serionsmrsunderstanding betweenx thedi~entrs nd hei ps'to wold ead one tGssupppse, that-they haed seen somnethinXg inP his cKotice which terited their rey prehension, and this wvas the meaning which would obviously bsa, p u t u po n i s f rc r n w h a t f ol l a w e d. " i n c o n s e q . ue n c e o f s o mr e personal ipvecti pUlsI* y the bgttcr I nst I yaung I, ay ot aistinguishea eLAt aind p otess tepuiation. ouslj'." Now owevyerthatthelnatter is t6 he'taken tp seri. Awill ask. vhat vould be the first and most naturAi tmpression of any person reading this paragraph ? Would he not thinfk that the " serious misunderstanding" bad arisen from the " per- sonal Invectives," and wvould lie not think that such "personal. in- vectives" were tutaut t conveyimputations upon the moral charac- ter and virtue of this young lady P Undoubtedly, I apprehend that such wvould be the natural construction of it in the mtind of any party who hid not heard the explanation. Now, let us see how does tlhe plea of justification bear olut the justice of the first assertion-of the libel, as I say. It sets forth, that the plaintiff publcly saiid to his congrepatien, " I have somet[inug to say, which I have thought of mcntioning for some time, namely, the improper conduct of one of the female teachers-her name is Miss Fair-her conduct is a bad example and- diagrace to the- school." Theso wosols must learly beaF reference to some'supopsed violation of the scbool disciplinie on the part of Mfiss Fair; and cab- not be cotitstued to beany attack upin ner mpfal chatdcter. This conrtrvctioj1 is rendered still mi6re deat BY *hat foUows:- It any, df the children date ask her to go honne, they shall be tuYned out of the school, anid feve.' enter it again" -still te- ferring to some feal or supposed infraction of u eItions of the school on her part, and as a consequence of it, the chit- dren are cautioned against applying to her in future for leave to go bome. Now, my lords, if tins sbaU he held the true meaning of the words of the plaintiff inserted i the lusiifcaton, (and I humbly submit that, taken iit4reierenceto the situatox of the tvWo partiesjt cah have no other reasonable censtrdction,) I contend tilatlamwhlly borne out in the assertion which I:have made-that the libel import one thing, and-tbc justification another; and there- fore that it is no answer to the action. The learned Sergeant then proceeded-that the words "serious misuindersta ding," and the concludlra passage, " we understand this matter is to be taken up seriouslv,' were left altogether unanswered.bythe justification; tbat in these respects, also, it did not bear out the chatte and therefore thatjudginent inust be given t6 plaintib. Mr. Sergeant.PEAK E followed onthe sanle side, rnd contended at some. leth -tfiat the words of the libel must be understood as applying to the moral character of Miss Fair, while the words of the justification could' only be constred to attach to her for some neglect of her duties as a teacher in the school, and not to her moral character. Lord Chief Justice GIFFORD, after stating the nature of the action, and reading the plea of the defendant, observed-,' Itlun- doubtedly appears to me that tbe whole force of the libel, as laid by the plaintiff; consists in this-that he, a Christian pastor was repre- sented to have used that place, fom which it was his ducy to utter only -sentiments of morality to his cdngregaVtIo, in giving ;lttetaned to certain calumnics against a young lady of spotless reputation, and groindlessly attacking her character. This, I agree with my brother Pell,- is the sense in which the libel would be taken on a first reading, and without fartlhcr explanation. The defendant justifies hlis conduct, by entering a plea, in which lie represents the plaintiff' as sas ing to hi8 congregation-( Here bis Lordship read the words as givenin thetcommnencement of the case.) Thepleatben, continued his Lordship, wenton In aver, that these wordsof theplaintift'gavegeat oftence, and was the cause of a serious misuinderstanding between him and some of his congregation. As to the first objectioni, that this was in his sermon, it does not appear to me that it wvs so, but it makes no diff'erence. It i 'clear, at all events, that the words were uttered from the pulpit. Then comes the consideration-were the words of the plea such as would answer the charge in the libel of 'personal invectives ?' I eonfess, tor mny owni part, I cannot see how they can be othenrise interpreted, or they could well be stronger. Here the children in the school were not only warned against asking this young lady foe leave to go home on pain of being turne= out of the school, but her conduct was held tip to theni as a bad cxamnple aTnd disgrace' and it w:s added, ' Miss Fair da6s more I1arm thain goid' These words were fully proved, and reall I think they were fully calculatedl to produce an inpression tliat they were meant to apply to the gene. raal character of the votnng lady. But another obljection i.-that the words ' serious misurderstanding betwveen the Dissenters and their pastor,' have not been met by the justification. As I have already said, I think die gist ot the libel is in the assertion that thie words were uttered, but I think there is evidence to bear out those words. As to the objectidn that these werds, Iwe under- stand the matter is to be taken up seriously,' meant to show the conduct of the plaintiff in a worse liglit, c Cannot see it in that meaning. 't'aking the vhole cadsetegethei, i:apoeat-A to ine clearlv, that the justification is a snfficient answer to the libel charged, anid that thejudgment must be enteredl for the defendant." iir. Justice PARK, after reading the libel, and the words of the plaintiff inserted in the justification, said, " I wouldl ask whether any tlling can be more like ' personal invectives' than these words? Mly own opinion is, that they are personal invectives and.very strong ones, too. The objection, arising from the supposet difference between thje words ' a misunderstanding among the Dissenters,' and 'a misunderstanding betiveen them and their pastof,' is, I think, met bv the justification. The clergyman of Dissentets isl I presume, a Dissenter also; and if he had any misunderstanding with nis congregation, or part of them, it could not be said that it was not a misunderstanding among Dissenters. The third objection, founded on the words ' we underst3nd the matter is to be taken up seriously.' has nothing in it. Those words are not a libel. I agree with my Lord Chief Jtustice,judgment must be for the defendant." Alr. Justice BuRtouGn.-" I was of opinion, at the time of the trial, that the matter clharged was libellous, asid I think so sti but I thought that the justification proved in evidence was a sufficient aiiswer to it, and the jury concttrred, by their verdict, in this opi- nion. Is it to be endured, that a dissenting clergyman, or any cler- gymaii, shall make his pulpit the vehicle of personal invective on aiiy account ? I say the original paragraph contained a libPl; but tie;jUstification, taken together, meamt completely to remove the Ii. bellous part. Judgment must be for defendant." COURT OF COMJMON TLEAS. TUECDAVn iA1 'Y7 3XAY AN1D HOLbIjWOn'V. BiAV_ -- .