Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

11 articles on this Page

ACTION FOR LIBEL AGAINST MR…

News
Cite
Share

ACTION FOR LIBEL AGAINST MR W. A. DARBISHIRE. PROCEEDINGS IN THE POLICE COURT. I The application by Mr Sorton-Parry for a criminal information for libel against Mr Darbi- shire was made at the ordinary borough petty sessions on Monday. The small court-room was crowded. Mr Allanson,accompanied by Mr Sorton- crowded. Mr Allanson,accompanied by Mr Sorton- Parry and Mr G. Pugh, his election agent, was the first to arrive, and was soon followed by Mr W. A. D-rbishire, with whom were Mr J Roberts, solici- tor, Bangor, and Mr R. D. Williams, the general bcretary of the Liberal Association. The magis- trates on the bench were the mayor (Alderman Rees), Captain Owen Thomas, Mr Lewis Lewis, and Dr John Williams. Mr Hugh Pugh was also on the bench, but he explained that he took no part in the proceedings, as he might be called as a witness, being one of the deputation which had waited upon Mr Sorton-Parry. The composition the oench was, therefore, equally balanced politically, the mayor and Captain Owen Thomas being Conservatives, whilst Mr Lewis and Dr John WiLiams belong to the opposite school of pol.tics. Mr Allanson said that he appeared to make a merely formal application, which, as a general iule was not made in open court-to ask for the issue of a summons upon a criminal information for libel, which would presently be laid before the bench and be down in writing by their clerk It would be necessary that he should ex- pS'.t the out^ how be made ill open court, anil alter calling attention to the law^bearing upon the « to the bench that the, had no issue the summons. TheaiV1" K iu formation for libel was imde on -ehaU of Mr Robert Sorton-Parry, who W.w he trates for the county of Merioneth, was some time ago the high-sheriff of Carnarvonshire, and was now one of the candidates for the representation in Parliament of the Carnarvon Boroughs. The application, however, had nothing whatever to do with the election, qui the election, but was against Mr W. A. Darbishire for a malicious libel, which they said had been written, published, and circulated, concerning Mr Sorton- Parry and in respect of which it was asked that a summons should be granted upon a criminal in- formation under Victoria 6 and 7, sec. 5. Under the section of that act, it was not open for the defendaut, as laid down by the ruling in The 1 Queen v Carden," to say anything in defence or justification it was only necessary to prove that the libe. had been written and published by ium. The circumstances under which the application came openly before the court were as follow On March 12, Mr Sorton-Parry received a letter written by Mr Darbishire, which contained the following statement:—"I wish to say that what you have stated is an absolute and unmitigated falsehood." That letter was published in exienso, as an avertisement, in a newspaper, and further publicity was given to it by yellow placards, which ¡ were posted all about the town, and which did not I bear the printer's imprint. Mr Sorton-Parry had therefore deemed it his duty—and he did so with c gi-eat deal of regret—to protect his character from the aspersion which had thus been cast upon it, and on the first day after the receipt of Mr Davbisnire's letter he called upon the speaker to ascertain his opinion on the matter. He was from home, attending Portmadoc County Court, but on the following day, accompanied by Mr Sorton- Parry, he appeared before the mayor and la'd the information. The mayor, being the returning officer for the boroughs, acted with wisdom and discretion, and declined to sign the mmmons asked for, thinking it was a matter to come before the court, so that the court and net an individual mtgiptrate might take upon himself the respon- sibility of the summons. He (the mayor), therefore, direct, d that the application should that day be made in open court. No evidehce would be tak-'n, aud all that iiau to be dene that day would be to put in the letter which Mr Sorton-Parry wcu!d say he received from Mr W. A. Daroishire, by whom te believed it to be written, and the j court would then decide whether, in its opinion, there was sufficient in the language of that letter to constitute a libfl. The only question, there- fore, before the court was whether there was a prima facie case that the letter was libellous. Had the words constituting the alleged libel been used by themselves it might have been a less serious matter, but there was sending the letter for publication, and issuing placards containing such a charge against Mr Sorton-Parry, who was an honourable man, but who, if what was trus that was said about him in that letter, was not fit to associate with respectable company, much less to have the honour of a seat in the House of Com- mons, seeing that his reputation and character had been ibjured by the charge that he had been guilty of direct and absolute falsehood. The time might come, loop fter the election bad passed over, when the placaids and letter might fall into the hands of people eisewtu re, and what would be thought of Mr Sorton-Parry if it was not shown that he had at' empted to contradict the statements m;ide therein ? The charge might be raked up against hi n akau and again After quoting sev- eral judgments as to what constituted a malicious libel, Mí Allausof said that the summonsmust issue, but having regard to the gravity of the charge— the information being criminal, and laying the defendant: open to fine and imprisonmolt--he was willing that ev ry opportunity should be given to him to cousult his legal advisers, and that the hearing of the summons should be fixed on a day convenient to Mr Darbishire. He (Mr Allanson) contended that the application could not be mixed up with pontics; it had nothing to do with tole election, but was a personal matter between Mr Darbishire, who had lost his temper and maligned the reputation and character of Mr SarLon. Parry. I He suggested that the summons should be return- able on Thursday, otherwise it must come before the magistrates in ordinary form at the weekly sessions on the following Monday. Mr Sorton- Parry regretted the necessity of taking these pro- ceedings; but why should the letter h^ve beeu advertised and placarded about the town, with the. knowledge that it would be humiliatiug and galling to Mr Sorton-Parry aiid hir; frietids ? When it was found, as it must have been, t) be hurting the feelings of Mr Sorton-Parry and his friends, why were not thoa-3 placards at once torn down, and the mistake which had been made in the. matter set flgb t:- The letter and placards were then put in, the information for libel being baaed upon the following words'—"I feel it my duty therefore to give your statement a most unqualified denial. I with to say that what you have stated is an Absolute and unmitigated falsehood. P.8 — I shall send a copy of this leter for publication." Air John Roberts said that he appeared on be- half of Mr Darbishire, but his mouth was closed, the application fer the summons being made ex- parte, so that be had no locus stzndi at present. If the bench decided upon granting the summons he should like to be h ard as to the day upon which it should be made returnable. The magistrates, after a brief consultation with their clerk (Mr C. A. Jones) said that the summons as asked for would issue. The mayor wished to state that what had ap- peared in two or three newrp^pers as to what occurred when the application for the summons was made to him was not quite correct. It had been said that he refused to grant the summons because he was a Conservative. In justice t) Mr Sorton- Parry, he was bound to say that there was nothing said about his being a Conservative. Mr Sorton-Parry said that he desired to thank his worship for the explanation. A certain section of the press, for some reason Mr J. Roberts (u.teLUptlug) said that Mr Sor- ton-Parry had no right to make any speeches in that court. He applied, now that the summons had been granted, that it should not be made re- turnable until after the election. 1 he matter, notwithstanding what Mr Allanson had stated, it must be obvious to every one's mind, clearly rose out of the election. Mr Darbishire was the presi- dent of the Liberal Association, and he would of course be very much ergaged until the election had c.'ine to an end, and the like remark applied t? himself. If, as Mr Allanson argued, this was merely a personal matter between the parties, there could be no reason whatever why it should be pressed oa at once. Even assuming that upon the hearing of the summons the case went to the length of a committal to the assizes, the case could not come on for hearing until July. If the case was now gone iuto it would only increase the turmoil aud excitement inseparable from an election. Mr Allanson applied that the summons should be returnable on Monday, which was the ordinary day. Why should there be any exception made because Mr Darbishire happened to be the defen- dant? If it suited Mr Darbishire the case might be taken on Thursday. It was after all a very emall matter. Mr J. Robeits said that Mr Allauson spoke with two voices; at one time representing that the charge was exceedingly grave and important, and at another that it was a mere nothing (laughter). The court must see that its process was not in any way abused, and he had never known of a case in which such an objection was raised when the application was made by the defendant. Uere was an election coming on, and they found one can- didate taking out a summons against the chairman of his opponent's committee, which in itself raised the strong presumption and suspicion that this was merely an expedient to bring one of the can- didates into notice and notoriety. If there was no ulterior purpose in view, why force on the matter before the election ? He urged the expediency of deferring the hearing until after the heat of the election l-t it it was desired to bring into notor- iety one of the candidates, and so excite a feeling on his behalf, it was easily understood the why matter should be pressed on Tritu bj much haste. Mr Allanson asked whether it was right that the other aide should be permitted to continue thb libel, and preased that the case should be heard without unnecessary delay. After further discussion, the Mayor announced that the hearing of the summons would come on at the next ordinary petty sessions, on Monday. Mr Allanson remarking that his client reserved all right of prosecuting other persons publishing the libel, Mr J. Roberts said that he was quite welcome to do so, and the p A, ties then left the court, no dis* play of feeling being exhibited by either side. NO ill NATION DAY. The nomination took place on Wednesday, at the Guild Hall, Carnarvon, befoie the mayor. Mr Thomas L"Ve Duncombe Jones-Parry was proposed with three different nomination papers. The first contained the names of William Hughes, solicitor, Conway, and Thomas Bugbiid, Carnar- von, es proposers, and it was signed by the follow- ing gentlemen :—Oweri Edwards, Penlar.- street, Pwllheli; Robert Jones, backer, do.; John Ro- berts. Victoria-square, Nevin William Thomas, Bodlondeb, Morfa Nevin; Williasi Griffith Thomas, The Mooring-1, Carnarvon; n, Bodreiuallt, Conway; Owen Owen Roberts, 1, Thomas-street, Carnarvon, Robert. Jones, 3, Turf-square, do.: John Smith Kirk, Or- chard House, :do. Johu Williams, Glan:Seiont, do. The |t r posers on the second paper were Thomas Finchet Maddocks and George Far^e^, T- -,nai, and it was signed by Lewis Lewis (ex. mayor of Carnarvon), Evan Joues, 4 Castle-square, Carnarvon; John 2, Bridge-street, do. Rd. Griffith, Bangor-street, do. M. Davies, Uxbridge House, do. John R. Piitchard, Bryu Eisteddfod, eto; John Davies, Bodgwyue^d, d, Watkin Williams, Segontium-terrace, do.; O. Davies, 15, Thomas-street,do.; Owen Roberta. liryuhendre,do. The third paper contained the names of Mr Hugh Pugh and John Roberts, Dryn Adda,as noninators, and.it was signed by Morgan Beyigor; John Jones, 2, Bridge-street, Canv-m' -n; Thomas Fiuchet Ua<Jdo( ks, Cae Orwyn, d G.Farien, do. G. B. Thomas, do.; John Jo;,es, 1, New- street, do. John Davies, Bodgwyuedd, do. I Cornelius Davies, Ty Fry, do. W. P. Williams, Turf-square, do. Thomas Hughes, 16, Pool-street, do.; Hugh Pritchard, 1, Rowland-street, do. Mr Robert Sorton-Parry wis proposed with two^nomination papers. In the first he was proposed by Messrs D. Williams, Bluta-road; aiu' H. Owen, 2, Edward street, tailor, and it contained 'the names of Saiauol Dorkins, Car- narvon William Hughes, 22, UX'rid.;e-strect, do. J. Jone^, Û Hcndre-stieet, labourer, do. Jos. Brown, 'Moriah-squije, do., tailor; Wm. Pritchard, 13, Baptist-itreet, do. R. Tritehard, Castle-ditch, do., shueu; iker; Hugh Jones, South Pea'rallt. On the second nomination paper were the names of Messrs Wm. Hugh Owen, auctioneer, and William Mackie, Cnecietb, as proposers, and it w?s signed also by William Jones, baker, 16, Palace-street, Carnaivon; Robert Lee Ellis, Castle Hotel, do. John Foulkes, cleik at the Herald office, 11, Segon tium-terrace, do.; D. T Edwards, Drum Tavern, do.; Owen Jones, 8 Pool street, do.; John Roberts, Bryntirion, C >nstautine-road, do. John W. Owen, 12, Northgdcbtreet, do. Wm. Bodill/, printer, Herald office.

WHO BROUGHT MR Su]ffl )-p…

INNS OF COURT HOTEL, LLUNDAIN,

MR SORTON-FAhRY AND THE CARNARVON…

[No title]

TO T "RVANS CABLtEJfOB, CARNARV…

[CYFIEITHIA'J ]

Maes-y-groes, Bangor,

CARNARVON BOROUGHS ELECTION.

Advertising

MR SORTON-PARRY AND HIS SUPPORTERS-