The Warwickshire Herald. — 1889-11-14 (Birmingham, West Midlands, England)

LORD SALI4OY. . , . ~ I In the Queen% :Desch IMeision, seilfridnyi before lJnothieir Field 'anidillf.lififiitY,Ahs. heasink ef • the 1 -.maid* fiit ii iiYtV itTiil WE' the'liti,g; Isionghtrby *rig ttliel, L Mr!, yrothnovit ,144.,,, - tilKillaVidant ' M recover , 4 ' r, ...v./a/1006W' Air. ; tOl'i Q.P., i, j :0•44:1:' ,r.' tAiiiii , and XT. APdertimxviptarlt4 tliatP,trig Lt.: Lord •SnlifsiagY wail! 1'019,16014 4/) .o°ol4___. , General, Mr. AnibrollevQ•Co.lik-VOlteigwel"E" ' 'Lord R.. Cecil,. Mr. Bigluini 'tmennmknlsie'apeiteh on behalf of the. Plaintiff. mad ogoarlo.llTachnir of Mr. , 031;680 /*peach, pontenratigi , t.it aid not incite .to murder or ontrage, bit mutely advocated boycotting.—The Solicitor-General, on behalf of Lord Salisbury, contended that in the ,ffrilt place ' there was no misdirection hi jeaving to the jury the 1 question as to the truth of the libel, and as to its 1 being fair comment. He agreed with his learned friend that the question was, what was the fair and reasonable meaning of the words which were sued upon in the ordinary signification whit* would be attached .to . them :by- the persons to whom they were need; but Inch:tanned friend asked their lordships toast aside this verdict because the learned judge did not at every point in his sundmnpup repeat that somewhat clumsy form of words. One matter of evidence had not been mentioned, and that was the Correspondence preceding the action, which was put in by the plaintiff. Mr. O'Brien's solicitors complained that Lord Safishury had misquoted Mr. O'Brien, end interpreted. his own misquotation in such a way as to impute to Mr. O'Brien a serious criminal offence. Lord Salisbury's soliciton replied that it was clear that the laat part of the passage was not, and did not. Fairport to be a quotation from Mr. O'Brien's speech. In dealing with Mr. O'Brien's language, their lordahips were asked to consider his meaning, but when they came to Lord Salisbury's speech they said be could not escape from the logical consequences of his words. In cross-examinaticm Mr. O'Brien himself said that speeches should be judged by different standards in England and Ireland, as the circumetanees were entirely different. Lord Salisbury did not put into Mx. O'Brien's mouth words which he did not use, but expressly told his hearers that the words which he was using were not vrords which Mr. O'Brien had used, as he said that Mr. O'Brien• had spoken in words not so erude as he ' bad used, but in terms perfectly distinot. That description the jury thought was one which any fair and reasonable man was entitled to make, having such language as Mr. O'Brien had used before him. There were three parts in Mr. Q'Brien's speech. The first part recommended something whieh,Mr. O'Brien dared not mention and this was the part of the speech which Lord Salisbury had before them. As to the second part of the speech, which dealt with boycotting, he could not accept Mr. O'Brien's gloss of it, and did not think English Trades Unions or Primrose 4 wawa deserved to be quoted by that gentleman. The ultimate sanction of boycotting was murder, and .the evidence went ' to show that wherever boycotting was unsuccessful, boycotting and mutilation of cattle followed. Having ceased to deal with boycotting, Mr. O'Brien again reverted to the combative spirit, and said these landgrabbers were to be driven like vermin out of that fertile land. These were the passages ,Lord Sallie. bury had before him, .and although 163,013rien denounced crime, his standard of crime was different to that which sherwere aecuseemed to accept.—The further heating of the case was adjourned. On Saturday, Mr. Ambrose, Q.C., following the Solicitor-General on behalf of deienden‘ . contended that as a ,matter of law there had i been no misdirection on the part of the learned judge. Mr. Gully. replying on behalf of the plainUff, denied that they had adopted , different Standards in judging Mr. O'Brien's and Lord Salisbury's language, but said they judged , them by the same- sule,e.ins, what was the fair 1 meaning of words to those who listened to them. ; He submitted ttrat the verdict inflieted the grossest injustice upon Mr. O'Brien, and could not be reasonably arrived' at by 12 impartial men, mid ought • not to stand.—Their lordships reserved judgment.