NEWSPAPER LIBEL.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 524, 1 July 1869, Page 2

NEWSPAPER LIBEL.

In an action at the Leeds Assizes on April 5 it was contended by Mr. Price, Q.C, that to charge a man with having anything to do with an agapemone was libellous. The action was brought by Mr Isaac Ironside, ot' Sheffield, a gentleman well known in connection with Mr David Tlrquhart and the " Foreign Affairs Committees." The editor of the Sheffield Independent bad inserted an article in his paper commenting upon some correspondence which had passed between the board of guardians and Mr Ironside. Mr Ironside wanted the guardians to let him a piece of land, which they refused to do, and the editor complained that the correspondence was not produced at a meeting of the guardians when the reporters were present. In his article the editor asked, " Was it talked about as if it was a nice family party, and was anything mentioned as to the possibility of the land being vanted for an agapemone ?" The counsel for the plaintiff referred to a judgment of Lord Justice Kuight Bruce, in the case of a person named Thomas, the keeper of an agapemone, in which a bill had been filed for the custody of an infant; and it was decided that Thomas was an unfit person to have the custody of the infant. The judge : —" Is au agapemone always the same ?" Mr Price: " Always ; they are unchangeable and unchanged. They are in the state they will remain in for ever and ever, and they have arrived at a state so perfect that they require no alterations of bliss." In this case (counsel added) the inuendo was that Mr Ironside wauted the land for the purpose of founding and forming au institution which would be noxious and displeasing to society. The jury could only judge of the opinion conveyed by the words of the libel by considering what was tho opinion generally entertained with regard to such establishments, and whether it was not a sentiment of disgust. The judge : " The word, I believe, is not in the dictionary?" Mr Overend: " Oh, yes, my lord. It means ' The abode of love—harmony and love.'" Mr Overend, for the defendant, contended that the plaintiff had thoroughly misconstrued the language in question, and that no one for a moment seriously supposed that he intended opening an agapemone. Tho jury returned a verdict for the defendant.