A MORAL SCAVENGER.

Evening Star, Issue 11511, 30 March 1901, Page 7

A MORAL SCAVENGER.

an imh:oj:xt übki. action. ~ , [Fkom Qur Speciai. Correspondent.] ; LONDON', February 15. One ,of the most impudent libel ,cayea eyer brought into court was tried last yyeek end in the King's Bench, Divisrom i %tchhumbug, ex-priest, arid ex-convict ',Victor Michael Ruthven ahaa Riordan sued Father Emil De Bom,' a Sobiau .pathblic 'priest' of Shaiihlim in'the Isle of; Wight,'to recover damages .for libel and slander. ' , ; Rutliven, KW been, pilloried in ‘ Truth ’. for'yehrs past as ; a'peripatetic purveyor o£ platform filth,, and d’man,yb°pi,no decent pergpn shoidd countenance, but. the fellbw has' . nsver had' the courage’ to/ tackle “, Eabby.” J&fher j)e Bom very. rightly tried, to put'a stop tolluthven’s lecturing crusado in'.the. Isle of Wight,/ arid in . the course of his efforts wrote to a friend :. “.May I," as a friend, a<L you to,shun the unhealthy! lectureij .which are now allbwed to take place at.a public halt of .this, town. Any person who has any self-respect will refrain from lowering him , or.,herself by listening . to ; . the, attacks, of this,. stranger to the town apt! pseudo-reformer.. The. enclosed, leaflet will give an idea,,of.the/tirue worth of the man who call? himself Father Ruthven." . In the leaflet which, was enclosed, arid which was headed ' The History of. “ ExPriest ” Ruthven,’ a number- of Matemnnts. about -the plaintiff were, piaffe. It was shidthat: Ruthven or Riordan was; born iri .I,reland, When,, a young man he entered a Jesuit, school. at Dublin ,as a theological student. Me was partly educated, for. the priesthood, . and- got far enough to be tonsured, when dm was; expelled frem the school for “drunkenness and disreputable practices.”., Further, it ; .was.;stated,'.his wife was soon obliged to separate from, him on account of his drunkenness and extreme cruelty; .:. . He was expdiod.from. the Baptist Church, and published as a fraud.” It was also said that at one time plaintiff was an inmate of the Keeley Liquor Institute, from which he was discharged, as cured, and that he had served a year ip the Erie County Penitentiary for obtaining money under false pretences. • Ruthven, who told the Court ho was a “ moral scavenger,” conducted his.own' case, but refused to go into the witness box; Mr Kemp, who appeared for the defence, said that in his anti-Romanith lectures Ruthven made use of isolated piu-fiages taken from a book printed in Latin and issued to Roman Catholic priests; which was in its nature as innocent as the issue of a medical paper or a scientific work, but out of which Ruthven contrived to make ‘■•polluting tilth.” He called witnesses to prove this,- and the nature of their testimony was such that the Judge ordered all women and youths out of couit, and no newspaper even attempted to indicate its purport. Then, Mr Kemp produced *the' Rev/ John. Gibson' Baton, •(he well-known Presbyterian missioner, who showed that Ruthven was an unprincipled scoundrel, who was convicted and sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment in America in 1895 for attempting to collect money in Mr, Patou’s name for the New Hebrides Mission. Ruthven cross-examined Mr Patou in a jauntily/ inrpertinent, stylo, and came into "conflict/with tnc Judge,, who'at length told the plaintiff tlpal he wii| only questioning the witness to his own drill ment. , . . /

. Ruthveu called .several witnesses tipi.prove that his lectures were not indecent, but one of them, a newspaper editor named Needley, apparently found Ruthvena little too “ racy,” .for reporting purposes. Finally the jury found a verdict for the defendant on the first libel (the letter),’ for' the plaintiff on the second (the circular).. As Father De .Bom had only proved the American conviction, and had not attempted to prove the other allegations in the leaflet, the jury were, I suppose, bound to.,give Iluthven the verdict in this part of the case, but they showed their opinion of the plaintiff by awarding him only 40s .damages.. The Judge showed his appreciation of Iluthven when the question of costs came to be considered.

Judge" Ridley said it was true .that the plaintiff had succeeded with regard to the second libel, but he failed with regard to the first charge, the ground of the main fight of (ho case. In his judgment, the costs should be the costs of the defendant except on the point on which , the. plaintiff had succeeded. "

The plaintiff inquired what.would be done about the 40s which the jury had given him.

The Judge said that the plaintiff would have his 40s. The general costs of (he action would he the defendant’s. /

Plaintiff asked the Judge to return him certain books which he had handed up in the course of the hearing, but added“lf your Lordship desires it you can have those books.” To which the Judge replied hotly; “No, sir. I would not take anything from ypu if.l could help it.” Ruthven may very- probably find the English climate a little’too chilly for' hitn' after this exposure, and as he seems to be rather too well known,in America to make that free country altogether attractive, it is very probable ha will make a descent on your shores. He."will,.come, of course, in the guise of an anti-Rumish lecturer. If he does, set foot in your country I sincerely hope that he will get a very warm welcome. You know the sort of welcome that I mean.