EXTRAORDINARY LIBEL CASE.

Press, Volume XLVIII, Issue 7772, 28 January 1891, Page 5

EXTRAORDINARY LIBEL CASE.

"*~B "FINANCIAL NEWS" IN

COURT.

~KO_ OU- COBRESPOWDBXT.) LONDON, December 19.

The Courts have given us much to thinabout of late. We have had an extraordinary divorce case, whioh is not yet over j two remarkable libel suits, one by a gentleman with the aristocratic name of Aubrey de Vere Beauclerk, which has been ' dismissed; the other of a gentleman well- | known in London against an American Company promoter. It is this last, I think, will interest you most. Mr Harry Marks is a gentleman who came jto England from America some seven i years ago, and started the Financial News. He is of the Jewish faith, and his paper j has been the standard financial paper. | He is also a member of tbe London County ' Council, and is the accepted Parliamentary , candidate for au East End constitu- ; ency. His action is agaiust a man j named Butcerfield, ami the alleged libel consists of the publication of extracts from American papers charging Marks with having eobubited with a woman in America and with having stolen her jewellery; also with blackmailing and ; frauds of various descriptions. Sir Charles Russell appeared for tho prosecution, aud Mr Gill for the defendant. The prose- ! cufcor a case was that Butter field came ito England as the promoter of a Company called the Great Homer Goldmining Company, and that in consequence of certain remarks in the Financial News about the Company, he brought an action for libel against Marks, which was dismissed. Then {he published the alleged i libels. For the defence, Mr-Gill summoned Mrs Koppel, who stated Bbc was the widow of Mr Lewis Koppel, the proprietor of the Reformer and- Jewish Times, published at New York, and she bad read the statement in the alleged libel published by defendant. All , the statements contained in the pamphlet were true. Her husband died suddenly in July, 1878. The prosecutor, Mr Marks, was employed on the paper at the time of her husband's death. He was then in very low circumstances as to money. After her husband's death he visited at her house, and she allowed him to have the entire control of the paper. He promised her marriage and under that promise they lived together as husband and wife. At her husband's death she had some valuable jewellery, a gold watoh, and some diamond rings and studs. The prosecutor borrowed thia jawellerv of her to wear at a dinner and he never returned it. After the death of her husband she received a cheque for lOOOdol, which she gave to the prosecutor to get cashed and he kept the money. He told her that he had spent it with other women. A child waa born in 1879, of which Marks was the father, and the child was named Mary Marks. At this time she was very much distressed and sent to Marks for soma money, and he gave hex one dollar. She went to the office and there was a disturbance, and she was given into custody as a lunatic Marks made the charge against her, but upon the evidence of her own doctor the Charge was dismissed. There was not the slightest ground for Marks saying that she waa insane, and the charge was not made until he had obtained all ncr money from her. After she regained her liberty, she went to the office and found that every • article had been , taken away. She instituted civil proceedings against Marks, but was unable to carry them out for want of means. During 1 the proceedings she left het child at the house where the prisoner lived and went to live with her friends and worked to support herself. She signed a good many documents at the request of the prosecutor and his lawyer, but she did not know anything of the contents of these papers. She was severely cross-examined by Sir Charles Russell, but stuck to her statements. Then evidence as to fraud was given relative to a certain Kae mine in the Transvaal. A man named Predrick Smith swore that Marks had employed him to be the vendor of the mine, and gave him -200 for acting as such. A man named Benjamin was supposed to transfer the property'to him, but he' paid no money whatever for it; conld _ot ; remember whether any receipt was given to j him, and he only did what he was asked. On the same day he sold tbe property to the Company, but he did not think Marks was. present, and he did. not know what was the supposed price. He did not know how the J850,000 mentioned in the agreements, for the. formation of the Company was to be arrived at. He was paid'various sums for what he did, but could not state the exact amount. Cheques were brought to him which he endorsed and returned, but he got none of the money. None of the cheques were given him by Marks, and, speaking roughly, the amount ,or the cheques which he endorsed was -20,000. ; Witnesses also were brought to prove that the shares 'in -the mine had been allotted to relatives of Marks, and tbat Marks had persistently. advised the public to buy shares through the Financial News. . The jury found the defendant >" Not guilty." (Loud applause and ;crio3 Of "Hurrah, hurrah," in Court). Th6y found that the alleged libel was true, tbat the plea of justification was made out, and that the publication Wis for the publio benefit. (Loud Cheers and cries of " Bravp " in Court.)-

In the course of a wrangle between counsel which followed, the Recorder said —'1 1 entirely disagree with the verdict. So far as the first point ia concerned, it is absolutely' Without any evidence at all/* Mr GUI—I am softy you* lordship should say that. It is doing away wittrial by jury. ■'• •' ■\ '"£ " The Becbrder—-It is not, because Xam ttofe upsetting the verdict.of the jury. I cannot do that. ' ' 4 - Mr Gill—>Ther_ is one matter upon which there can be no disagreement, and that is thac Mr Marks must pay the coats of th— defence. ... \\ The Reebrder—Yes, UO doubt.