Bury St. Edmund's, Saturd...
(Before Mr. Jitstice GASELEE and a XSecio.Jnru.) 'I'Isis was an action fuir words spokeni. The plaintiff was a faTrie? or veterinary suirgeon, at AMildenhall, in this county Ithe defenid- ant is a suirgeoni residing at the same p lace ; anid the cliarge was, that the defendant hiad said of the plaintiff (unda-r circumnstauces specified,) "1 he" (thec plaintiff) 1 wvas the death of hiis first wife, andl he ou.gh t to hlave gone to Bury for it;"-the inuendlo alleging this as an limputation of murder, or at least manslaughiter, aigainst the plaintiff, Bury being the assize arid gaol town of the libetty. There were other counts, charging the defendlant to have said, oni thle death of the plaintiff's housekceeper, Illary Wing, that the matter ought to be most rigidtly inquiredI into, for that hie (platintiff) hadi murdered his formier wife, or wornan, by giving hier imaproper medicines for a peculiar complaint, whichl c-ausedI her death. Fur- tlier couints stated the mere words to have been used, withiout any inxuendo as to their impurt ;and thiere was a plea of special darmage to the plaintiff in hiis business. The defendant pleadedl the geneiial issuie, withoiut gietting up any justification. Sir. 1-i. Coopyvt, opened the case, as one of thehlgbestimiport- ante to the plain' iff, whnsqe livelihood, as well as hiis mioral character, stood deeply implicated in its resuilt. N~ dxct a-s regardez] damra'ges could( compensate forthe injurywhicl A,~'MZlsintiff's feelings had s 's- tained but the jury mightdo soniet:yThCymaking up the loss whlich hehiad suffefed InIihis calling and co~ijkiuent income, owinig to this conduct of the diefendlant :and at a)revents thecir damages wouild so far restore htim to hiis proper placeo-ind reception in society, as that they would mark the senlse whiiql~1iis cotintrv entertained of the un- merited attack to which hie had,'een subjected. Thec jury had heard, fromn the opening of thie plead!iigs, the nature of the slanider charged against the defendanit; Lthe words usedl were srbil as admitted nei- ther of mrisc-onception nor o-f com-prominie. These words had not been spoken either hastily or in passion ; the dlefedidant had utterect them at two different tiiies to two different Individuals. They wvere wors wichimptedto imeplantif, ot a crime ofordinar( magni.. tudeor nfay, ut atitllythealmst inconiceivable vi lainy of havng oisnedfist is wn ife ad afterwards a womian with who (fr te frt ustcom ou), otbeing married to her, he had cohaite. I wa li, hwevr, hatthejury should know. the cir, cume4tantes under which these accusatios hiad been put forth by M r. Primrose ; and the effects, or at least some of the immediiate ones,with which they had been attendedtso theplaintiff. The first set of words complained of had been spoken to Mr. John Wlayman, agentle- ma.n ,f grea repcability, one of the coroners of the couinty. '1ir. IVaymim it wiould atm;ear. lhad come over to M1ilrdenhall, in the executiont of his office, to' tak'e an inquest uipon the bodty of a chiild whichl hadl lost its life by accident. This had lhappenead abouti thie time-, or oni the same dlay, on which Mlary WVing (Mr. Ford's housekeeper) had dliedl; and the dlefendlant, comiing up to Mr. Way- mian in thie street, had toldI hiim, unsolicited, that the plairntiff ha'd been the decath of hmis formner wife, or miistress (using one of th ese termis oir tile other,th-2 witnesses were nut p,ositive which); that he hiad been the death of his former wife, or mnistress, and that lie deserved to be sent to Bury for it. On a suibsequent occasion, Mrif. Primrose was fondic againi saying to 31r. Gedge, a smirgeon of AMildenhiall, " I think this business (the dleath of Mary XVing) ourht to be miost strictly irnquired inito ;" addllng further, tat the plaintiff hbth nitt- d(bred his former wife, by administering improper medlicines to hier f'or a peculiar coiuiplaint, thie nature of whiich was too loathisomne to be (unles.s upon necessit.y) adverted to. Now, to) these scandalous wordis and allegation;, there was not a jUNtiflcation even pleadedi. The dlefenidant did not dare even to assert that there hind existed tilt slightest foundation for thiem; andc if' they were not suclh worels as de-servedt to diraw upon hiim the indignation of the Court anid the jr,he (M1r. Cooper) did not well knowv whiat slander coulnd eyer prodMce sucit an effct : and ttile operation of these mialicious charges hail beeni as am1ple as tile heart of the defen- dant cov1dm des,ire. Mr. WVayman, in consequence of what was statenI to biun, had felt himiselfi bo.undc t,o holdI isn inquestE en thie body of' Mary W ing. This must hanve been no slight miatter of diatress' to the feelings of ttie plaiintiff-as it were, aiccusing him piublicly in his owni house of having causedI tile deathl of a wo- mall to whom, whatever was tile nature of his ronnexion wvith her, lie had at least for many years been attached. For the result of this inquest, the coroner's juliy had been satisfiedi in a nioment. Tiley liad not oven desired to have the body of the wonlan openied ; buit the effect oftite tlefendant's malevolent insinuations wa-s not yet to be atani end. The coroner hiad left the body,the fuineral arrangements had proceededl in the usual course, atnd tile corpse of thlis unf-rtunate wo- lIein, followcd by the plaintiff and her own relations,h.md been cairiedi up to the chiurch in Tder to its being interred;%Yhen,here apain,owing to the greneralsuspicion which the deferndant's words had raised against tile plaintiff; the clergs,man,,notwitli.standing tIle inquest.had refused to bury the bodyv. Bve ually, it had been carried back to tile house of' the plaintiff, and lain there live daysi longer, betore it was permnitted thle rites of sepimliture. Now there was no affirmation, even by the defendant himself, thiat these things whichi he lhad epoken'were true ; and there was evidelenc in the case to show that, while he spoke therm, he lhad known tiem to be false. Tile defendant bad a5serted that the plaintiff's former wife died in t,onseune of his administering improper medicines to her for a pclacoplaint; would it be believe %that tile dlefendant hliaif bad attended this very woman, as a surgeon, in her last illness? Hlis bill was extant, andI tllrough the whlole of it, there tlid not appear a single medicine wiiltil wouldI have been giv-en to a person labouring untler suchi an ailment as that he alludled to. The fatt was,. that it wvas a scandalous falsehoodl, the having insinuated the existence of such a complaint at all. The plaintiff'Is wife had died of a dropsy, acceleratedi by a general decay of the systenl. The medlical gentle. men who lad attended her, after tile diefendant's attendance on her hlad ceased, wouild prove that the whole story, as to the nature of her complaint, was a calumny of ttile foulest'description, flow this ease was to be met by the defendant, he (the learnied counsel) coultl not very well imagine. He hiad heard suggestions that something was to be done in the way of attack upon the character of time plain- tiff. But if, in answer to such,tharges as were opened in the present cause, the jury were to be toldi " that the plaintiff had co- habited with a womnan to whom he was not married," he hioped such a defence would be treattedi with thte contempt which it dleserved. A COUrse lik-e this wvould amount to notliing more than an aggra- vation of the injury which Mr. Ford hiad dready sustainied. If the plaintiff had committedI a slight act of misconduct, the way to re- form hiim wast not to hunt him out of society-to drive Iitim to despair. The jury would recollect that a greater power than they held did not disdain to pardon the offenderwho resolved tosin no tnOre-tliat there was more joy in lHeaven over one sinner wio re- pentedl than over ninety-nilne rigliteonsK men whio had no need of're- pentance. In conclusion, the learnedi counsel submitted that no choice hiad been, left to ttile plaintiff' but to bring the present action. AAfter euch imputations as, bad been thirown upon hilm, lie could not continue to exist in society, withiout giving his accuser an opportu- nity so prove the trutlh of them (if tliley were true) beFore a jury of Mr. Joh Wayman (the first witness for the plaintiff) said-Ilam one of the coroners for this county. I know the eefendant, AMr. Primrose ; he is a. sturgeon, rcsi(ling at Mildenball. On the 15th of Septemnber last I went to Mlildenhall to take an inquest on the body of a child ; the chiild had died suddenily by breaking a blood-vessel. On that day (the 15th of September) I saw Sir. Primnrose in the streets of Mildenhall ; a womnan named Mary WVing had just died inthe town, sod was no0t yet buried this woman was the plaitntiff'Is housekeeper. The defendant and I had a conversation that diay abu teplanif i e oI. asid, when) lie lost Ole, "1 You hav been over here on an unpleasant busineis"--aliuding to the death of the chlld that I have mtenltioned. I said " Yes, I liave, and I am afraid I must have another before I leave the parish, for I have heaLrd of the death of a womian kept bv a mnan oh the nanme of Ford; and her death was so sudden, that I dilink I must take asi in- quest on iier." Af'ter I said thiis, Mr. Primrose answered me, as nearly -an I can recollect, in these terms :--." I think you are quite right ; for 1 told that roan myself, when hiis former w7ifea died"_(I em nt qute sreliether he said former wife" or 1 trvs")"I oldhimtha li wa th dati of hler; and. hedAgeived to hve oneto ury or t."Bur isthe gaol to thti-liberty. I didaferwrd hod n nqustupo tlebody of Mlary Wing; the veric wa, Did y he istatonofGod." Cros-eamied.I hve now th deenant many years. He is a man ot'great respectability in his prciebut I spoke so him first about taking the inquest on Mlary ig I amn certain that I iirentiotsed it to him before he made anmy obsiervation about it to mye. I spoke of my meaning to take the inquest is consequence of reports which I lad heard since I tame into the towvn. I had heard from some of the persona who sat upon thie jury for the child, ttilat the woman had died under e:itraordinary circuiilstances. She bad been confined (laiti in), and 11ad got apparently quite well ; anti then dieti so suddenly, that there had not been time to call a surgeon in to see her. Mr. CoospER begged to submit that reports like these ouglht not to be received in evidence. Thie plaintiff nmiglit belie-avily prejudicedI by them; and there was 110 jot of proof that they were not entirely without fountlation. Mlr. STOssItS was ready to contend that the reports must be re-. ceived. It was highlyimnportanttsotheadefendant to show that the assertionis he had issade were not matters of his9 own invention. All the authorities were in favour of receiving such repoits in evidestce. Mr. Justice GA8ELEE said, that there were mnany authorities certainly for receiving such evidence; buzt of late they lad comne (upon principle) to he somethijlg doubted. As the case.s stood, he should receive the proof, but his own view went rather agatnst its admissibility. Tile p resent Chiief -Justice of the Common Pleas had recently expressed his doubts upon.this very point, aIltioughi he hiad not chosen to overrulhe the ntuthorities. Cross-examination continued.-.-Before I mnet the defendart on the 15th of September, I had heaerd observations fromnseveral persons reflecting upoll the plaintiff. These were or. to his conduct to thede- ceesed Alary Wiong, and as to geiveral circumstances. attending hier sleatli. Ihir.COOs.sRitubmitted thatth-is eviden!e did not apply to the case. Air. Justice 0ASEr.EE held that it applied to the second eonversa.. ttOl inhichthedefendant had spoken of tlile pilaintiff; though not to ht twhicliba 'pasedwithtils witmess. Witness.-Am I at liberty, my' Lord, to state what- suspicions were entertgaied ? Mr. Ju5tictGASELEn..... thiink we meitst conrine ourselves to re- poirt, in circulation as to the mugnier of this woman's death. Cross.examinat'ion continued..-tveiy person who Mpoke,salld how strange it wvas the woman sihould have died so suddenly. She had miscarried, but was thought to hiave got peifectly well. Thexe re- ports were accompanied hy remarksr, thjat the ~litntiff's .frrnier wife hadi died very suddenly; and a woman, with whom heliaa fdrmeily cohiabited, had also'died suddenly. Mfr. Jutstice GASELEE said, t'hat the last fact wo.q not.sulnissible evidence. Witnce.m-The reports which I heard in this way excited my sus- picionsq, etnd inducedi me to) take an iniquest. After some time,. I communitated the defendant's wordsi to the plaintiff's attorney. 'I didl this upon a threat, that if I did not give up the author 0f the words, I Should be considered the author of them myself, andl an t tion would be brought against me-When I was first asked to give up the author of the words, I hesitated, because I doubted whether r ought to div-alge that whilch had been communicated to mesas coroner. Re.examined....Perhaps I mentioned Mlr. Primroise'g words be- fore I toldi them to the plaintiff's attorney. If I didl, it was to some oneor othier immediatelv atthie timneof t,eir being spoken. limust have done it without reflection, I(10onot know wnen. 1Irecollect, that as Ar. Isaacson, an attorney, wyas withi me about the time whien r spoke with Mr. Primrose; but whiether I saw hinm just before, or just after, or whether lie was present at our conversation, I can- not tell. AMr.Arthur Lloyd Gedlge said-I am' asurgeon, living at id- hall, a-id recollect thle 15th of September, when Mlr. Waymian caime over to hold the inquest on the i'hild. I had a conversation with the defendant, Alr. Primrose, on thatiday. He.said, speaking of the death of AMarv Niringr, " I thinkil the present business oughtto hiave the most rigidI inquiry, for hc- has mutrdered hiis wife" (mneaning Ford) -"ictht is, he gave her improper mnedicines for a certain coniplaint, which wvas the cause of her dIeathi." I attendled Mlary Wing ee rall v. I was going toi the hiouse to see her (on mywy we h died. That bill [a bill wa,% shlowntohewtssisithhad writing of the defenidant. Itis abill o felaeo h litf' late wvife. It contains no medicine ftfrtecmlito hc c fendanit said shie died. This otherhil(seodisyftr'bl, for attending the same party, afterthdenatlfto'atnig her. I cannot say whether mry father attended her to the day of -her death. The last article in the aefendant's hill is charged on the 6th of Marchl the first in my fathter's is on the 15th. rMr. Justice GASgLxE.-The defendant's bill' may be evidence,. sbetto this; remarkc-that it we' possible for the woman to hav~ huati hCis. complaint after he left off attendling her. The bill of the witness's father I do not thiink wouldI he tvidence at all. Air. CooPnit used it merely, to show the malice of the defendant, in making a statement which the items in this bill proved to he untrue. AMr. Justice GASEr.EE:.-You cannot fixc the defendant with knowiledge of those items, Wlitness, cross-examined, said-I amn. on geoo terms iwith the de. fendant. lAletter was showntotlhewitne4sswhichlheadinitted tobe his hantl-vriting, but he repeatedi-Ihave no animosity against Mr. Primrose. Mly conversation with him wasi at the gate of the Bell Tnn. I dio not thiink any third person was present-I will rnot swear. Thiere was a medical man beslJes myself attended the inquest. Thiis was the case on thie part of the plaintiff. Mlr. STrn KtS saitd, that he shiould begn by submitting, in law, to kis Lordship,. that the communication made by the defendant to AiMr. Wayman w;is a privileged communication. It was a communi- cation in which the piiblic, anid Mir. Primrose himself, as an indivi. Campbell's Reports, it was held that an action will not lie againstda,wrinret.Inhecsof"'ugv.Crdg" As for writing a confidenitial letter to B about the conducet of C, as to a matter in whichl thec interests of A and B were concerned, no matter the language in which that letter was cueued Again by the ease of " Dunman v. Bigg," A. being surety foi B to C, . is justified in stating to C his opinion of B's conduct, even although the same shall. be done in intemperate t-rMS. There was a third case, in whichi it hiad been held thus-thie owner of a public-house, A. cannot mnainitain his action against the owner of anothier public-house, B, for giving a bad character of his (A 's) public-house to a person en. qarn , wihave to putchase it, pTOvidd therie is an-y approach to truth in the statement so given. H(r.Sos)cnceived that the present case was one which came distictly within those cage,s which he cited. There couldl be no pretence for alleging mialice against the diefendant ; and the occasion (speaking to tke coroner) ccrtainlv warranitetl all he had said. Mlr. Coos'Ea submitted, that the cases cited by his learned friend hatd no force at all. Thiose cases proceeded upon the princi- ple that parties interested might sometimes be privileged in makinig communica.tions; but here there was no interect between Mir. W'ay- mann and Alr. Primrose. It was clear that Mlr. NWayan h-imself liad not thought this a privileged communication, for he had spoken of it to othiers, and wvas not sure that it hadl not been made to him in the presence of a third person ; and besides, how did this apply, or how could it, (talking ahout MVary WVing), to an assertion by thie de- fendant that the plaintiff hiad miurdered his former wife? Air. Justice GASCLEE was of' opinion that the cases cited by Mir. .S!orks did not apply. He hadl been considering how far the case of the defentiant could be assimilated to that of a man who mnade some dlisclosures to put rthe law in motion-as a communication to a ma- ,zistrate, but thie taeta did not put the defendant in thiat condition. If M1r. Primrose's, comnitinication had( been a mrere application to the Coroiner, stating that in his opinion an inquestoughttobeheld. that minght ha,e been calleda pTivileged commiunication. But it a peared tltat hiis was no application for advice to the Coroner upon wl?at hatd suggested itself to him ; and still less any dlisclosure meanit to put the oflce of the Coroner in action, because the Coroner had spoken of hlis; intention to hold an inquest before the disclosure made by the dlefendant..- Mir. STRKiSs then proceeded to address the Jury on the part of the dlefendanit, andh contende-d that the circumstancest had warranted his clienit in the course which he hand taken. Whatever might be, noinally, the verdict pronouncedl, the Jury would feel that a il ihter case had never been brought inito a court. For the spiecial d amage alleged, there was not an io)ta of evidence about it--that part of the chiarge must he dismissed altogether ; anti, for the reports which the dlefendant was accused of having spread-why, it was dist. tinictly shown that thecy hiad existed in full circulation before lie openedl lia mouth. Mutrder, or any crime approaching to it-take thie defendant's words at their worst-had never been mneant to biiptd; for the assertion was plainly (Rad merely) that the pan iffhd givenl his wife improper medticines, which lied caused he eth. Suppose the falseliood of these chiarges to be adlmitted bytewan tof'aplea of justification put upon the record, still the mleof themwas not admitted, nor had thieplaintiff's counsel been able toshow any thing approachiing to it. To show falsehood, it might be sufficinlttso say that the defendant had not justified the t'acts as true; but to show malice, it mnust be proved that the de- fendant knew them to lie uintrue, towards. whichi not one step had been effected by thec prodluction of the bills put in. It was said, sithe plaintiff'Is wife is said to have died of a peculiar complaint I-" now here are the doctors' bills who at{endesil her, to show ttiat they never adm)inisitered any medicine tolher for such acomplaint. Whly, this was exactly wiiaC the defendant had said. Hfe had said, not thati-medica,l ineR had ever admini,steredsueh medicines tothe womati, but thattsitep laintiff hatddonewohimself,nand administered improper Ones. Lrctthe jury look at the probabilities. INhlat was the plain- tiff's business ? He was a farrier-...a horse-doctor-just the very plan likelytsoimagine that he knew something ,of the icienceofmediciae; wheni,in fact, lie knew onlycisoughitodoatiiseltie withist. Mr. CoopER ruse, and said that he was compelled to object to the line of defence adopt-d by his, learned friend. With no plea of justification on thie recordI surely it could not be competent to the defendant to argue: upon tiec truthi of the statements he had made. M1r. SrToRxs denied that he was attemnpting to prove the truth. Fl a pnthe question of malice, and meant only to showr the lireiho. COE eidta h ieiodcudhrud Mlr. Cou mtideniedE shaid ith waskeryhdifficult b o limtgted ob servaJutioncfte bAr.LA sratidea tht was vrdirreLevat (to wasi gheo. servatiovo the base)Ad breensatdedabothatbwa irreplevniandth defwsen. neanlvt. he icarne)rlcouben stael,howee,h r. Stors)eplerainlyfadh dfno- rigt. Toe lassued (wtoutsl plweading, jstlrcatiork) thed;truth ofany one of the matters hewsagunIn Mlr. STORtXS theicnlddb calling the attention of the jury to the great peuirt ftecrcumnstances under which sthe defendant had spoe.Hrewstewife of' the plaintiff dying in an extraordinary way first ; then this womati (his hoasekeeper),witlt wham he cohabited, dying, from sound health, so suddenly as to prevent even a surgeon from being calledI in. There could be no rea. son in the world to suspect the defendant of malice; the case (if the plaintiff had a verdict) was, certainly one for mere nominal damages. And unless for reasons whiich did niot aeppear, but which were not very credlitable to some parties, lie (Mr. Storks) did ndts believe thamt the action) would ever have been brought into court. Air. Justice GASELE E could by iio means agree in feeling surprise that the case should have been brought into court; and, inideed, did not well see how a man, charged as thec plaintiff was9, could go on at all in the world without making some-effrt to vindicate his charac. tar. WVith respect to wvhat had been Said a bout pr'ivileged commu- nicationsg, there were communications made for tha purpose of put- ting the law into operation, which would be consiiderered as privi- leged;, but even then the diacloser would be bound to show that there hiad been some foutidation for what he asserted. In the pre-sent case, however, te dlefendant (even as regardled lils first communication maet Mr. aymatn) hiad not confined himself to report, buit had made a positive assertion to the plaintiff's prejudice, as a fact within hiis knowledge. For the inuendo thiat, by the words spoken to Air. Wimyman, the defendlant initended to impulte the crime of murder to the plaintiff, the jury would conisider how far that allegation was, sustained by the evidence On the one hnna, it Was assertedI thiat these words oughit to be taken along with those spokeni to Afr. Gedge, in which the explanation wasi said to be. given -that the plaintiff gave im-proper medicines to his wife, and so oc- casioned her dleath. On the other hand, it must be recollectedI that to the first accusation were added the words " he ought to have gone to Bury for it" which, if they meant he ought to have gone to gaol, orbeen tried a the assizes, would go to intimate that he hadI beent gilty of some crime. For the special damiage, it was alleged, but ne~t proved; general damage, however, was always inferred by the law whiere words were utteredi materially dectrimental to the cha- racter of any individual. As there was no plea ofi justification the shot qeston as.hat th wods haredbeen spoken ? of wfiich, tiner he vienc, te Cur cold av no doubt. The charge was lai invarousway, t met te crcustance of' the probable proof in te cse;and he ury if heythoghtfit to give the plainxtiff aL their damages.u onwhacounts ticy found 'Ih uyretired for about half an hour, at the end-of whichl they foud av~errdict for the plaintiff-Damagesl 20i.; finding upon the 8th count only of the declaration., which charged the words spoken BURY ST. EDIMUND'S. SATUnDAY. AUG. 7. DEFASIATlON.-FORD V. PRIIMROSE.