Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

23 articles on this Page

L MISCELLANEOUS.

^B^ITGBANTNLLE'S "MESSAGE…

THE BRITISH CASE.

THE ARMY ESTIMATES.

THE EDUCATIONAL POLICY OF…

[No title]

THE ALLEGED LIBEL ON COLONEL"…

WILLS AND BEQUESTS. > ::

[No title]

THE "TRANSLATION OF SIR R.…

PROCEEDINGS FOR LIBEL AGAINST…

News
Cite
Share

PROCEEDINGS FOR LIBEL AGAINST THE PALL MALL GAZETTE." Vice-Chancellor Wickens gave judgment on Saturday morning in the case of Dixon v. Enoch. The plaintiff, Mr. William Hepworth Dixon, is the author of "Free Russia," and other works, and the defendant; Mr. Frederick Enoch, is the printer and publisher of the Pall Mall Gazette and the Fall Mall Budget. The plaintiff filed a bill for the purpose of compelling the defendant to discover the names and addresses of the persons who on the dates on which certain articles were published were the proprietors of the Pall Mall Gazette and the Pall Mall Budget, to enable him to bring an action against them for damages alleged to be sus- tained by reason of libellous matter contained in the said articles. The articles were published on the 18th of May, 1870, and the 7th and 9th of August, 1871, and in the number of the Pall Mall Budget published on tho 12th of August, 1871. On the 23rd of October Mr. Dixon instructed his solicitors to write to Mr. George Smith to inform him that he intended to commence an action for libel against the proprietors of tho papers, and inquiring whether ho was at the before-mentioned dates and still was the proprietor of the papers. The letter was forwarded to Mr. Smith's solicitor, who said the publisher was Mr. Enoch, and that it was usual and proper in cases of alleged libel to sue not tho proprietor but the publisher. He requested, on Mr. Enoch's behalf, to be informed what articles were complained of. In reply, Mr. Dixon's soli- citor furnished a list of the articles, and again inquired whether Sir. Smith was the proprietor. The name of tho proprietor not being furnished, the plaintiff's bill was filed. The case came before the court in December on a general demurrer, when Mr. Davey, on behalf of the defendant, contended that he could not be compelled to give the name of the proprietor, and that if such a bill were allowed to bo filed a bill might be filed against anybody who a plaintiff thought might be a witness in his case. Mr. Greene and Mr. Jolliffe supported the bill, and judgment was reserved. The Vice-Chancellor now said that this was a general demurrer to a bill of discovery purporting to be filed under the provisions of the Act 6 and 7 William IV., cap. 76, sec. 19, or more accurately under the provisions of the 32 and 33 Vict., cap. 24, which repealed and re-enacted the clause in question. He had come not without considerable hesitation to the conclusion that there was a sufficient allegation in the bill to save it from a general demurrer. The Aot seemed to assume that the bill to be authorized by it would be demurrable if not protected by enactment, and the very object of it must have been to enable the plaintiff to extract from the defendant tho name or names of some person or persons other than himself, who might be sued at law. The court, therefore, overruled the demurrer, but allowed a month to the defen- dant to answer the bilL W

[No title]

Advertising

THE MERTHYR POST OFFICE I

-NLOCAL RAILWAY TIME TABLES.

-GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY.

____GREAT "WESTERN RAILWAY.—Milford…

VALE OF NEATH RAIL WAY.

TAFF VALE RAILWAY.

BRECON AND MERTHYK RAILWAY

LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY

KHYMNEY RAILWAY.

WESTERN VALLEYS RAILWAY.