Libel on a Publican.

Hastings Standard, Issue 91, 11 August 1896, Page 4

Libel on a Publican.

The following is from an English paper of a recent date : "At the Queen's Bench Division, before Mr .Justice Lawrence and a jury, Alfred Bellinger, a licensed victualler, sought to recover damages for an alleged libel contained in a letter written by the defendant, David Smith, to his landlords, a firm of brewers.

Counsel, in opening the case for the plaintiff, said it was one quite out of the ordinary class of libel actions. The plaintiff was the occupier of a tied beer-house, known as the Elephant's Head, situated in the Lower Claptonroad, under a lease granted to him by the Camden Brewery Company. The plaintiff was a member of one or two athletic clubs. He soon got several clubs to make his house their rendezvous, and they met in the club-room and occasionally held social evenings there. At some of these concerts were given, and it was in respect of these musical evenings that the defendant, who lived in a semi-detached house immediately opposite the Elephant's Head, had thought proper to write to the brewery company and complain. The letter which contained the alleged libel was dated July 18, 1895, and was as follows:

" I must draw your attention to the disgraceful concerts or " sing-songs " which takes place at the Elephant's Head sevsiaX times a week, and which are a curse to the neighborhood as well as to the house. It it quite bad enough to have our garden made into a public convenience to accommodate your disgusting beerhouse—a rendezvous for drunken boys and girls—without having our brains split from nine p.m. until 12.80 a.m., and frequently two a.m., with a lot of drunken yelling brutes. Unless this nuisance is stopped, and that at once, I must advise my neighbors to take drastic measures to put down this annoyance and disgrace."

The brewery company at once communicated the contents of this letter to the plaintiff, which was the first intimation he received from the defendant that he disapproved of the way in which he carried on his business. In further correspondence the defendant refused to retract his statements, and complained that he was also disturbed by the noise of the beer-engine in the bar, and desired that the windows should be kept closed. After hearing evidence the jury found that the letter had been written with the view of injuring the plaintiff, and assessed the damages at £l5O. Judgment for the plaintiff accordingly.