Court Of King's Bench, We...
The Times, 1824-07-16T00:00:00

Fore Lord CHief Justice Aiirn-T ginA 7,.,, _ - - , - . .. ..r esy ' or?ugnr Dy tne plaintit; w"ho is the owner and occupier of i he White Hart public-house, White liart-row, Gray's-inn-lane, against the defendant, who is a collector of the parish of St. AMary, Isington. The defendant pleaded that he .sad entered plain tiff's house as collector of rates for the parish of St. Mary, Islington ; to this theplaintiffreplied. that his house wasnot in tfie parish of St. Alary, lslington, but in that of St. Pancras. Upon this issue was joined. A vast number of witnesses were called on both side.% Those for the plaintiffstated that the house in question had been rated to the rates of St. Pancras ?or many years,-that soldiers were billeted on the house, and the licences were granted to it as belonging to St. Phancras, and not to St. Mary, Islington. For the defence several witnesses were called who stated, that in "w walking the boundaries of St. Alary's parish, they always understoed the IWhite Hart' to belong to that parishi." The Jury without a moment's hesitation gave a verdict for the plaiutiff, thcreby deciding that the house is in St. Pancras narsh. LIBEL.-WARBUIRTON V. - MIITFORD, ESQ., AND WILLIAM' BENlOW. This was an action for a libel alleged to have been written bv the defendant Milr. Mitford, and published by the other defendant Ben- bow, bookseller, of Castlc-street, Leicester.square. Mr. TINDALL opened thecase. The defendant 41r. Mlitford had, 'he observed, suffered judgment to go by default. Mr. Benbow pleaded the general issue. Before the case was stated to the Jury, an affidavit was handed in on the part of the defendant Benbow, who did not appear by coun- seL The affidavit was not read in court; but we understood it to set forth that Benbow was at present a prisoner for debt in the Bemch, and that though he had pleaded to the action, he was not able to de- fend it by counsel. Mir. BROUGHAM now addressed the jury for the plaintiff They had, he observed, already heardi the nature of the case stated hv his learned friend, and as it vwas not defended by counsel, he would oc- cupy as small a portion of theirtimeas possible in detailing it to them. Never, he believed, had there been brought before any court of jus- tice a case of more wranton and reckless attack upon the character of a respectable individual, or one which, as far as motives could be discovered, had arisen from motives more base and sordid than this. To let the jury into a knowledge of the atrocious enormity of the charges contained iH the libel, it would not be necessary to go thr.ugh It aU. He would confine himself to the reading of a very few extracts, and from them the jury would see at once the wickedness of the libel, and his reasougs br not going into a minute detail of tle whole. The plaintiff is a physician, and the-owner of one or more establishments, set up for the treatment of persons la- bouring under that most melancholy of aU visitations-madness. He had studied and practised the treatment of that dreadful malady for many years early in life, under a gentleman of extraordinary skill m ni profession, and for the last 44 years he had establish- ments such as he had described under his own management, aided by most skilful assistants. Dr. Warburton was a man who stood -eservedrv high in the estimation of all those gentlemen of the pro. fession who knew him, saw his establishments, and were acquainted with the great skill and humanity with which lie treated his patients. Among those who particularly honoured him with their friendship and esteem, lie would name one, the very mention of whom would be sufficient to ensure respect-ke meant the late Dr. W'illis. That gentleman up to tbe end of his life entertained for the plai;tiff the roost sincereregard, and took every opportunityof bearing testimony to his preat sklll and success in the treatment of those persons who were commited to his care. The jury wvould perhaps find it diffl- cult to guess what motive could induce any man wholad a knowledge ofthe interior of AIr. Warburton's establislhments, (and one of the defendants had once been in a situation wh:ch gave him an oppor- tunity of seeing the interior ofone ofthem ) /p publish such a tissue of outrageous caluinnies as were containedin iYepamphlets which formed the eubject of the present action. lie would, however-indeed the thing would be apparent when lie read a few of the extracts-assert, that such a tissue of wicked falsehoods could have been produced only by the most distempered imagination, or the most' infernal maice. The work in which the libeis were contained was thus en- titled-A Description of the Crimeq and Ilos rors of Warblurton's Mad-hioz se, at Rorton; and it wsas dedicated to two noblemen who bad the misfortune of having each a relative confined in that esta- blishitent thus, in addition to the injury done to the plaintiff rnost needlessly wounding the feelings of those highly respectable no' blemen by publishing the names of theirafihictedI relatives to theworld. In the commeneement of the work was this paragraph_." It is a rule in that house"(meaning WVhitmoye-house at lHoxton), 'I'and was fre- quently repeated in mv hearing," (viz. that of the defendant, Air. D ltford,) "by- l avis, one of, the keepers-it is a rule that if a man comes here niad, we will keep him so; but if he has his senses wvhen he comes here, we will soOII make him mad." This libel was written by one of the defendants, Air. Mitford, who was himself for some time under Ar. Warburton's care, and who left the establith. ament apparently recovered. Itwas published by the otherdefendant, Blenbow.In another paragraph itwas stated that"the visitingphyaiciars are not to blame if theymake a re or, that the persons confi ned in this -establishment are wpl treated, for they themselves are deceived. A little before the pljySician comes they are better treated, the place is kept clean, a-; rn0iny (meaning Mr. lVarburton) comes and dines with the: atients himself, in ortler to make it appear that they are comfortabli 'e Now (continued MVIr. Brougham), this was most grossly ale-t j the visiting physicians did not visit at stated times. Their visits are. 1their own discretion, and always without notice to the parties. If the defendants; had put a plea of justification on the record, then the plaintiff would have had an opportunity of poving to the jury by the most irrefragable testimonv, that all and every staLement of the pamphlet were calumniles. He could have brought before them cloudsof witnesses, who were in the daily habit of seeing the interior of the establishment, and who knew the manner in which its inmates were treated. They could have produced a host of the trade'smen who supplied the house. the physicians who visited it, and of many others who had frequent ac- cess to it; all of whom would have sworn that the statements irk -the pamphlet were utterly false. lMfr. Warburton would have wished that such an op portunity, could have been given to hiim. HeI was now yrevented from doing so;but the falshoed of the charge proved itsel, and it otas further proved, by the fact tlat neitheroof the defendants had dared to enter upon therecorn a plea that any part of it was true. He (Ar. Ilrougham) felt hinself placed in a very painful sitUation on this occasion. The L,pamphlet conitained the real names (and these were the only' p rss of its contents which wvere true) of several unfortunate indlividuals who were in Mr. WVarburton's establishment, who were colinecteti wsith some most respectable famfilies. The circumstanxces of those individuals were mentioned, and most gross caluannies asserted re- tgecting their alle ged treatment. It wsas from motives of delicacy to e friends and comiexions ofthos e persons, that AIr.Warburtou de.. lnyed bringing tnis action sooner. He had gone to the father's and friends of some of his patients to obtain their permission to bring thle Publishers of such calumnjies to justice, which could not well be done unless the names of the payfies al.. lud6d to were mentioned. It was not however, until after the libels had been republished antd piacarcled all1 over the town, that he hadl determined upon his presezit course, Ile mighit have procceeded against the parties by indictment, butt it would (as the defendants wouild not be allowed to prove tile truth of slit alleged libel) be thien said, that it was t vi b h truth that he preferred that mode. Ilet navreoitd theapOfofth0eo whic-h gave to the defendants the fullest scfowe in prt ovthe iltoie could, the truth of' every one ot' their Pmet iiPoing b it thiey h not made any attempt of the linit. Tht learned gentleman then proceeded to read other extracAs MMa the pamphlet, -in which the writer details what he describes to be the cruel, brutal, andI inde.. cent treatment of some ladies and gentlemen In his establtishment at Hioxton. The names end those of the families Of thle unfortunate persons thus alludled to, were give t length in the pamphlet, but the learned gentlemnan...t bv,a*e sald, wounding tilt feelings of those respectableindividiuals aInd to defeat One Object of the puib- licaiiori of the book-suppressedthle names as he read the exti-cts. For the samne reason we shall exclude those Pastages taltoge- ther. It will be sufficient to saY that Mr. W1arburton and ils assistants were clharged with the most wanton and cruel treatment of certain respectable parties, male and fernale, com- mitted to their caye. After hiaving read those passages, the learned gentleman said that he would go no farther, but would ask -what must he the feelings of the mnonster who could have published such a tissue of falschoods? He could have no malice the pardes whose friends were thus held up before the publtc.-the higher and mote respectable the better, forthecuriosityofthepublic rnight therebybe more excited-.all that was cared for was, that the publication should bring money to the pocket of the publisher. Ithad been stated by the defendant, MYr. Alitford himself that his name had been put tosomeparts of this statement without li knowledge. 7t would be proved, that when the defendant, Benbow, was served with a notice of the present action, he said, " That's the very thing I want. It will be as good as 5001. in my pocket. I have another publication ready, which will he ton times as bad." How it could possibly be so, the jury would say from what they had already heard. le would not..grespass further on their time. It was known to them that Air. Alitford had suffer- edjudgmenttogobydefault; so that with respect to Iiinthev would have only to tax and asseqs the damages. The jury woulil liear perhaps from the other defendant that he was a poor man, and that he got his bread by publishing. Would they allow such a plea tobe an excuse for the publication of such a libel as that before themn ? Bow long was such a horrible abuse to last, which, after the publication of an atrocious attack upon a respectable individual, would thrust a pauper, a man of straw, between the real slanderer and public justice. lere they had before them a man, who, it would be proved by his own statement published this libel, and courted the present action for the sake of profit. Thejury would, lie trusted, mnakehim feel, by thelr ver- dict, the consequences of such conduct. The learned gentleman concluded by expressing a hope that the Court wouli, if possible, allow the extracts from the pamphlet to be read, without having the names of individuals mentioned in them made public. He then proceeded to cail witnesses. Dr. Hime examined bv M r. T1nD,AL..-I am a physician. I have repeatedly visited Whitmore-house. It belongs to Mr. War- burton. It is under the care of a gentleman appointed by him. I have visited it under the act of Parliament from September, 1820, to September, I822. (A licence was here handed to witness.) This licence is signed' by me. It is dated the 19th of October, 1821. I know and have visited another establishment belonging to Mr. War- burton, at White-house, Bethnal-green. This witness was notcross-examined. Neither of the defendants appeared in court, nor any person on their behalf. George Brand._I went last year to the defendant Benbow's house, in Castle-street. I purchased two pamphiets. (He handed them in.) I purchased tlem from Benbow himself, and paid him for them. I saw Benbow on another occasion, when I served the writ for this action. I asked him if his name wM William Benbow ? He said " Yes." I told him I had a copv of a writ to serve upon him. He said he was glad of it. He did not think Warburton would have gone on, but as he had, he thought it would be a g4od day's work for him (Benbow), as he lived by selling books * and he addedl " it would be a good job for him, as he would make 500!. by it." i askedl him if he intended to publish another pamphlet ? He said he would_a short one, and that it would make the hair of my head stand on end. He then gave me this placard (producing one). The placard was not read. John Dunstan.-I am a medical man, and have attended this esta. b'ishment for 22 years. T'he names mentioned in tlis pamphlet are of two persons who were confined in the establishment of dir. War- burton at Hoxton. The attention of witness was then called to the names of other parties mentioned in the libel, which lie said were the names of individuals also confined in the establishment at Whitmore-house. Tbe pamphlet was here put in, and the libellous passages were read by the officer of the Court, but without the names of the several persons whose cases they purported to state.-This was the plain. tiff's case. For the defendants nothing was offered to the jury. The Loup CerrEP JUSTICE, after summing up the evidence, stated, that in his opinion a grosser charge could not have been made against any individual than this libel contained. No at- tenipt was made by either of the defendants to enter inito any jus- tification of such afoul charge as they publishetd agahist the plain- tiff'. With respect to the (lefendant Benbow, lie hatl to inform them that an affidavit had been handed to him in the beginning of the ease, setting forth that he was now confined in the prison of the court for debt and whatever might have been his circumstances in former times, he was now reduced to a state of poverty. That, cer~ tainly, was no answer to this action. It was clearly proved that he had published the pamphlet; and it was also proved that he hid done it for the sake of the profit he might make by it. The jury, taking the whole of the case into their consideration, wouldl give such damages as they thought the case called for. The Jury, after consulting together for a few moments, returned a verdict for the plaintiff-Damages, 5001. b?URT OF KING'S BENCR \ XT.- It -CHANDLER V. HUGHES.