The Cotton Factory Times. — 1903-06-26 (Manchester, Greater Manchester, England)

LLBEL ACTION AGAINST A MANCHESTER NEWSPAPER.  In the King's Bench Division, on Thursday, before the Lord Chief Justice and a special jury, in the case v. Pope and Others v. Taylor and Others, the plaintiffs were the directors of lee Denaby Main and Cadeby Collieries Company, and that company itself and they claimed to recover from the proprietors of the "Manchester Evening News" damages for libel. The defendants admitted that the words published in their paper were of a defamatory nature, but pleaded an apology. Mr. M. Lush, K.C. and Mr. H. S. Cantley were counsel for the plaintiff; while the defendante were represented by Mr. Rufus Isaacs, K.C., and Mr. Vaughan Williams. Mr. Lush, having detailed certain circumstances connected with the dispute, went on to say thet the libel was published on January 24th, 1903, and was to the effect that in the midst of the inclement weather of the previous few weeks the plaintiffs had turned 800 families, or about 2,000 persons, into the street. A Labour member for the dietrict, worth his salt, would, it was said, have made the country ring with the recital of the inhumanities of the Denaby evictions. The final blame of all the inhumanity and social danger caused by the eviction, it was said, rested with the directorate and shareholders of the Denaby Main Colliery Co. They possessed a giant's power, and had used it like a brutish giant. After taking et, "analogy from the States," the article went on .o say that the mine owners, both of the States and of Depaby, though not legally, were yet morally guilty of murder. Mr. Rufus Isaacs said he was glad to say that the Judge and jury would not be troubled to tey the case, as a settlement had been arrived at. The defendants the proprietors of "The Manchester Evening News," had no knowledge whatever of this libel being inserted until their attention was called to it by the plaintiffs. They had published in their paper in very conspicuous type an apology. with a leader calling attention to it. The apology was to the effect that defendants desired to express their very sincere regret for the imputations made upon the plaintiffs, and to state without any :e-serve of any description that they were convinced for there was no foundation for any of the statements reflecting upon them which appeared in the article; and expressed their willingness to insert a similar apology or statement in other newspapers, to do anything further plaintiffs desired and to pay costs between solicitor and client. The plaintiffs did not think it right to accept that apology, and he did not complain of them for nret. doing so, as they had a right to have publicity given to the vindication of their characters, especially in view of the agitation which had taten place about the Denaby strike. The libel *veld never have appeared but for the temporary absence if the editor of the piper. The defendants did eserything they could to repair the wrong, and they had paid a sum into Court, which he did not suggest was an adequate amount as damages. That sum, however, his learned friend had agreed to accept in satisfaction of the claim on account of the apology which had been published, and which re repeated without Espy reserve whatever. Under these circumstances a juror would be withdrawn. Mr. Lush said the action was not brought to recover money, and the plaintiffs, having obtained the public apology and the indemnity, considered that justice was satisfied. The Lord Chief Justice expressed satisfactiee at the course which had been taken, and observed that if those who wrote this kind of article would only reflect on the mischief they did before writing, instead of afterwards, society would get on much better in many respects. A juror was then withdrawn.