The Express. — 1868-06-20 (London, England)

JOHN TONE AND MENUS. . . . . _  This was an action for libel against the Standard newspaper. The defendants pleaded that the words complained of were inserted without actual malice ; secondly, an apology, and payment of 20s. into court. Mr. Baker Greene, Mr. Butler Rigby, and Mr. Macrae Moir were counsel for plaintiff ; Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, Mr. Archibald, and Mr. Allan for tho dcfmidants.  This action arose out of the trial of Risk Allah, at Brussels, for the murder of his ward, Charles Readley, and also for forgery and fraud. The facts, from the notoriety which the cause acquired from the Brussels trial, and the more recent action this week against the Daily Telegraph, so fully reported from day to day, must be so fresh in the minds of the public as to render it unnecessary to again publish them. Mr. Baker Greene, in stating the case to the jury, said that the issue in this case was different to that in the case of the Daily Telegraph, the onus of proof being thrown on the defendants. The defendants were the proprietore of the Morning and Evening Standard and the Morning Ilerald, and although the plaintiff had a right to bring three separate actions for what appeared in each of those papers, he bad felt he would not be justified in taking such harrassing proceedings against the defendants, and he had therefore contented himself with but bringing one action in order to justify his chtuacMr. The articles complained of dealt principally with the charge of murder, and in the course of these observations, the writer stated that "giving the accused the benefit of his acquittal we cannot help wishing that the exculpatory evidence had been more direct," that there was blood upon the pillow and blanket—that Risk Allah's associates were of an equivocal character, one being a convicted forger—that he ostentatiously predicted that the boy would commit suicide, and he placed a loaded fowling-piece within his reach—that Risk Allah appeared nervous and excited that morning. Rxception was also taken to these parts of the article referring to the evidence of the experts as to suicide or murder, observing that the matter had not been cleared up, and the mystery still remained secret. The plaintiff principally complained of the statement that the jury had accorded to Risk Allah the benefit of a doubt; that being no doubt based on the retirement of the jury to consider their verdict, a formality required by the Belgian laws. The second article complained of was inserted in the Evening Standard, and that was also complained of as containing misstatements of facts, other inaccuracies, and contradictions of what had been previously stated. The learned counsel having read the articles in extenso, and commented upon the objectionable parts, and the adverse tone of the articles generally, said that when these articles appeared Risk Allah instructed his solicitor to apply to the defendants for an interview, for the purpose of correcting these statements. An interview took place between the attornies, and an apology was drawn up and sent to the defendants. The plaintiff demanded as a right that the apology should contain a correct version of the dreamdance, and in order to do that it was necessary to go over the same ground the defendants had traversed, and to reply to the charges seriatim and explain them. That apology was accompanied with a letter stating that if it contained anything objectionable the plaintiff's attorney would be ready to confer with the defendants, with a view to a mutual arrangement. On let January following, the plaintiff's solicitor received a letter informing him that a statement was in course of preparation, which it was hoped would be satisfactory, and the plaintiff's solicitor replied that he hoped it would be framed in the same spirit as the apology he had drawn up. Plaintiff then issued his writ. On the 2nd of March the defendants published an article upon Risk Allah, copied from the Pall-mall Gazette, adopted from the Lerant Courier, of a very offensive character, which said Risk Allah was known as an hospital dresser in the Crimea, and not the distinguished person he represented himself to be, and that he was trading on his reputation, and further, that he would not have brought an action in his own country, where he was well known. Plaintiff did not issue a second writ against the Standard for its insertion, as he might have done, and also against the Pall-mall Gazette but he had preferred to wait until the conclusion of the Daily T ggrapsl trial. That had been concluded to Risk Allah's ea ••daction, and he had now no intention of proceeding further; and even now he was ready to accept a withdrawal, in the fullest manner, of all the clarges alleged against him in the defendant's newspers. The Lord Chief Justice—May I here step in as mediator  Mr. Coleridge—We have already apologised in the most ample manner. The plaintiff's counsel was not bound to read the apology, but it should be remembered that the correspondence he had read was written without prejudice. [The case was proceeding when our report left.]