Year: 1872

II IA pretty well settled that anything may
be the subject matter of q libel suit. Dead
cats in a bag would not seem to be very
promising foundation for an action at law;
but Childs V. Judd, just decided in the Court
of Queens Bench had suth an origin and no
other. Judd is the publisher OF that dismal
newspaper called Fun; Childs is gardener of
Golden-square, and likewise the beadle thereof
quite a historical character, for he com
menced life as gardener at Newstead Abbey,
in the employment of Lord Byron. 1t appears
that to his functions as the cultivator and
custodian of GOlden-square, the venerable
Childs adds that of cat-killer to the whole
neighborhood. On the 1st of last November
he received from one of the Inhabitants of
the square not less than six cats, with the re-
quest that he would mortally do for them.
He compromised in way which should touch
the heart OF Mr. Bergh--he killed four; he
got good situations for the other two" as he
stated in his evidence; the doomed feline quar-
tette heput into bag, and knocked them on the
head with a spade-handle. 1t was his opinion
that this knocking on the head was far more
humane than poisoning or drowning. He did
not speak without long experience, for he had
killed great numbers Of cats, and sometimes
half. .a-dozen in one sack. Nevertheless, in
spite of his knowledge he had been summoned
by the Society for the Prevention OF Cruelty
to Animals before a magistrate; he had, upon
examination been sentenced to one months
Imprisonment, but, upon appeal, the sentence
was quashed. 1t was then that the funny
writer in Fun fell afoul of him, and being
probably exceedingly hard up for a subject,
"smashed him, just as he had smashed"
the poor cats. Being thus greatly injured in
his good name as a gardener, beadlc, and a
killer of cats, he brought this action for libel,
out of which he made just nothing at all; for
it being in evidence that the eats must have
suffered a good deal, the jury returned YER
dict for the funny man, and the beadle went
back to Golden-square discOnsolate.


Actions for libel, judciously undertaken,
would be of advantage both to society and
journalism but it is curious to notice under
what frivolous pretenses most of them are
commenced Every man who receives notice
which he does not happen to relish. from
newspaper, goes forthwith to q lawyer. If
this attorney happens to be man of sense
and honesty, he advises his client to swallow
his wrath, and to think no more of writs and
damages; but unfortunately the said attorney
does not always chance to be of the self
denying species; the hunger for fees Is
dominant, and the action is brought. The
result thereof depending upon a num-
Der of inexplcable chances, nobody can
predict; there may be nonsuit there may be
numboress continuances, or verdicts, or mo-
tons to set aside. OF appeals upon exceptions
OF new trials; and both parties may be ground
exceedingly small in the mill of law before all
is over. 1t seems to be impossible to make
any general rule for the guidance of those
who think that they have been libelled; each
must decide for himself, but at the same time
endeavor to decide sensibly. A lawsuit at
the best is not pleasant thing to have upon
ones hands; and if man is charged with


nothing worse than cruelty to cats he might
better take the risk of bad reputation among
old ladies'. and even leave the world in gen.
eral to its belief that his affection for animals
| is smaller than common.