A Remarkable Libel.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 11, 13 January 1914, Page 5

A Remarkable Libel.

CURATE’S SLANDER CASE.

DAMAGES AND AN INJUNCTION.

[By Electric Telegraph—Copyright] (United Press association.! (Received 10.45 a.m.) London, January 12. The leading figures in this remarkable suit were:—

The Plaintiff, the Rev, Thomas Ghent, curate of St. Andrew’s, Stockwell Green, who claimed damages for slander from

The Defendant, Police-Sergeant Arthur Fitzgerald, who, in the vestry of St. Barnabas Church, Kensington, accused Mr Ghent of misconduct with Mrs Fitzgerald. Air Fitzgerald’s defence was that the words wore true.

Mrs Fitzgerald (defendant’s wife) was stated to have written an extraordinary letter to Mr Ghent. Counsel, for the plaintiff, Mr McCall, K.C.; for defendant Mr Lewis Thomas, K.C. Sergeant Fitzgerald asked for an adjournment in the libel action on the ground that lie was without means and was unable, like the Rev. Ghent, to appeal to the public for subscriptions.

The judge refused the adjournment, and pointed out that if the defendant was without means the law provided the machinery.

Besides damages, the Rev. Ghent obtained an injunction against a repetition of the slander.

A Verdict for £IOOO.

(Received 10.55 a.m.) London, January 12

In the Ghent-Fitzgerald libel action, the jury awarded plaintiff £IOO9 damages.

Tiie first case in November Lasted for ten days, when the jury, after retiring three times were unable to agree, and were discharged.

Evidence cf Former Poplar Curate.

Evidence was given by the Rev. Alexander Langhorn, who said early in 1898 he was in sole charge of Christ Church Mission, Poplar. In the course of his duties he visited, Mrs Fitzgerald, and in consequence of what took place he consulted the Bishop of Loudon, then Bishop of Stepney.

“Did Mr Fitzgerald make any charge to you about your relations witn his wife?” asked Mr McCall. “He did,” witness replied. “Ho accused me of having been guilty of committing adultery with his wife.' Mr Langhorn added that an inquiry was held by the present Bishop of London and two other clergymen, who announced their findings to him. Said Counsel; “Are these (holding up the two photos) photographs of \ourself which you gave to Mrs Fitzgerald?”—“Yes, no doubt 1 gave them to her if she has them.”

Did she give you hers?”— “jN'o.”

Air Langhorn was about to leave the box when bis Lordship observed that there was not much in the, last questions. “There, are few of us who have not given our photo to a lady friend.” (Laughter.) “But,” Mr Thomas observed, “few of us want the privilege of being cross-examined about it.” The Lord Chief Justice then observed: “It is painful to Mr Langhorn to come here and face the publicity of this court to deal with matters which happened 15 years ago, and 1 think Mr Thomas and the jury will agree with me that it should lie made perfectly clear that the result of tlic inquiry in 1898 was that Mr Langhorn's conduct was absolutely blameless.”

The jury and Air Thomas unanimously expressed their acquiescence with the Lord Chief Justice’s observations. The Judge's Summing Up. The Lord Chief Justice, in summing up, said the case was one of grave importance to clergymen, doctors and all who, by their calling, were brought into communication with women whom they, sometimes, had to see alone. As to the issues involved, he said: I do not agree that any differenttest is to he applied with regard to gentlemen so engaged from that which you woidd apply to any ordinary human being. Be he business man or professional man, the test must be the same.

His Lordship proceeded: Either the charges are a wicked, malicious fabrication of the woman assisted by her husband, and, to some extent, by her sons, or they are the result of hallucinations on the part of the woman—vhe product of a diseased imagination, of a neurotic woman at a. period of life when, having regard to her physical condition, she might most easily

fall into hallucination. On the other hand, if the defendant is right, the plaintiff is a wicked, hypocritical liar of the worst description. Ho would lie that in any case if the defendant is right, hut the condemnation must he much more severe having regard to the position he occupies.

With regard to Mr Client, throughout the whole of bis life there was not a single circumstance which reflected on him. He bad lived a happy married life, and his moral conduct could not be impeached. Sergeant Fitzgerald had been a. policeman for twenty-five years. Ho had risen in the force, and had just as much right to claim that his record was absolutely clean as had the

plaintiff. There is another person who plays an important part in the case. Ex-

jcept in so far as is necessary, I desire to say little about rs Fitzgerald. What kind of a woman she is, -nw far you would impute moral blame to j her, must depend to a very large extent, if not entirely, upon the conelusion you form as to whether she was suffering from hallucinations. Reviewing the evidence, his Lordship said that the issues of blackmail and conspiracy did not exist in the case.

The charges against, the plaintiff arose from the allegation that he laid seige to this woman of forty-eight, and eventually prevailed upon her to commit misconduct.