The Sun. — 1855-02-23 (London, England)

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. PEARCY V. DUCE-SLANDER. This was an action brought to recover compensation in damages for certain slanderous words used by the defendant of aad concerning the plaintiff. Defendant pleaded not guilty, aid justification. Mr. Serjeant Shea and Mr. Carrington appeared for the plaintiff ; Mr. M. Chambers, Mr. E. James, and Mr. Ball represented the defendant. It appeared from the statement of the plaintiff that be was the master of the workhouse of East Illtonehouse, Devonshire, and afterwards became master of the workhouse at Lambeth, where there were from 900 to 1,200 paupers, and generally 250 a day sick. Previous to August, 1854, there were straw mattresses in the workhouse, t.nd there were then a great many cholera cases. When the inmates were taken ill they were placed in flock beds, but the practice was attended with such inconvenience that it became necessary to burn the beds, and the stench in doing so was so offensive that it became dangerous. The plaintiff asked the officers what would be a good substitute, and in o3nsequence of their advice straw beds, different to mattresses were introduced. Such beds were used at the workhouse at Norwood aid at ICast Stonehouse without inconvenience and with the consent of the Poor-law Commissioners. There was a good supply of blankets for the use of the paupers. The defendant was the medical officer at the workhouse, and in August he only attended eight or nine times. The plaintiff entreated him to attend more frequently, but still Mr. Diane, the defendant's assistant, continued to attend for him. The defendant gave no orders for beds before the 22d of August, and on that day he came and shook hands with the plaintiff. He then went to the women's side of the house, and returned greatly excited, saying, "Are those straw beds ordered by the guardians The plaintiff answered they were not, but introduced by himself. The defendant then said if they were not immediatly removed he would bring in a body of police, and have them removed, and he would bring the case before the guardian,. The plaintiff replied he wished he would do so. The defendant then went down the passage and cried out "You are murder. ing these people ; you are a brute and a monster, and not fit to be a master, and I will do all I can to get you turned out." The plaintiff entreated him not to use such language in the hearing of the inmates, and went back to the office, where the defendant followed him, and where there were several guardians. The defendant repeated the words several times in their hearing. From forty to fifty inmates died during the day. They had come in in a deplorable condition. The defendant was called from the office to a patient who was seated on a chair, and was ordered to the cholera ward. The plaintiff asked him his name, and requested the defendant to attend him. The defendant ordered the man to be removed immediately, but the plaintiff asked him to wait until the ticket could be made out that would let the relations know where he was. The defendant then shook the chair on which the man was, and on the plaintiff requesting him not to de so he ran towards the bed-room door. After the plaintiff had taken the particulars of the siek man, he went up to the defendant, who, at the plaintiff's request, saw the patient, and ordered him to be taken to the cholera ward. The defendant then said, " You will murder that man as you have the others." The defendant never made any complaint that day, and this action had been brought to remove the imputations cast upon the plaintiff by the defendant. Several witnesses having been examined on behalf of the plaintiff, Mr. M. Chambers, for the defendant, submitted there war, no ease on the part of the plaintiff. It was the duty of the defendant to attend the siek, and having cause for complaint, he expressed himself in language that was privileged. Lord Campbell said the case had better go to a jury. Mr. Chambers then addressed the jury for the de. fondant. Several witnesses having been called on the part of the defendant, Mr. Chambers summed up the defendant's evidence. Mr. Serjeant Ghee then replied. Lord Campbell, in summing up, said that the words were not justified, but he thought very small damages would answer the justice of the case. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 40s