LIBEL BY A THOUGHT-READER £10,000 DAMAGES.

Timaru Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 3264, 13 March 1885, Page 3

LIBEL BY A THOUGHT-READER £10,000 DAMAGES.

At the Middlesex Sheriffs' Court on Jan. 15th, the case Maskelyne v. Bishop was heard before Mr Under-Sheriff Burchell and a jury. This was an action for the recovery of compensation for alleged libel, and waa remitted from the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice for the assessment of damages, the defendant having allowed judgment to go by default. The damages claimed were £10,000. The case seemed to excite considerable interest, as the court was crowded, among those present being several well-known members of Parliament. Mr Murphy, Q.C. (with him Mr Le Breton), said that m this case he appeared for the plaintiff, Mr John Neville Maakelyne, to complain of the defendant, Mr Washington Irving Bishop, that the latter had printed, published, and circulated a false and malicious libel concerning him and reflecting upon his personal and professional conduct and character. The Under- Sheriff. -Is the defendant represented by counsel 1 Mr Murphy. — I believe not. The Usher of the Court then called Mr Bishop m the usual way, but there was no response. Mr Murphy, m continuation of his opening statement, said he was sorry that Mr Bishop or somebody on hi 3 behalf was not present to make some kind of an explanation for his outrageous and raoßt unjustifiable proceeding. He was not, however, much surprised at bis absence, considering the nature of the malevolent and malicious attack he had made upon the plaintiff and the groundlessness of the accusations contained therein. As probably many of the gentlemen of the jury were aware, Mr Maskelyne, aiong with Mr Cooke, had for many years conducted a well-known and much-apprecia-ted entertainment at the Egyptian Hall, but at the same time he never professed to be anything more than a mere mechanical illusionist, if he might bo describe it, or, m other words, a professor of legerdemain. Inthe course of 1882 or 1883 the defendant, Mr Washington Irving Bishop, appeared m this country from the United States of America and claimed to be able to perform certain wondrous feats, such as the discovery of a pin, no matter where hidden or how distant, the disclosure of the numbers on a secreted bank note, and other deeds of a similar kind. Be first attracted attention at Liverpool, where he undertook to perform the r operation of the discovery of a pin 0 secreted m one of the streets of that city j ( by a merchant of Liverpool, named Mr c William Ladyman. Some time after j, Mr Henry Labouchere, M.P., who j, was apparently incredulous as to B the genuine and bona fide nature c of these marvellous feats, offered to bet £1000 with Mr Bishop, but m order to prevent imposition insisted on certain conditions ; but these latter were declined by Mr Bishop, although he was willing to accept the bet. Notwithstanding his apparent discomfiture by Mr Labouchere, j he held a meeting afterwards to show that ] he was able to carry out his promise. In June of the same year, 1883, the defendant issued a pamphlet, which he entitled "The Truth," and got up as a fac- fi simile of Truth (the well-known weekly c journal of which Mr Labouchere is the v editor and proprietor), and m it pub- b lished an article containing the libel now a complained of. It was m these words : — y "In London this dastard plot, which t will ' for ever cover John Neville r Maskelyne and Henry Laboucbere with 8 infamy, was being hatched with the slow s yet sure precision of the automaton Zoe. The plot waa as simple as its villainy ; to { bring the well-known and highly respected d gentleman Mr William Ladyman, to \ t whom I am deeply grateful and for whose <, blameless life I have the utmost admira- f tion, to ruin. The scheme was worthy of t the gigantic brains of Jagoo, the plate- t spinner (meaning the plaintiff), the wax- c workman, and the delirious vagabond, c who no doubt began to entertain t visions of unlimited gratuitous re- j freshment. It was simply to bribe ( Mr William Ladyman with a sum of money as small as the juggler's brains or ( morality to declare that he had been j guilty of a fraud. Now, then, let John t Neville Maskelyne, whom I unqualifiedly £ stigmatise as a man devoid of honorable j instincts, bring forth .this proof to which , he alludes m his letter with the gorgeous crest. Let him bring it before any Court ] of British justice, with Jagoo waddling , m his train, and I will make them groan for the day they meddled mmy affairs. , By the best advice procurable at the ] highest bar I am assured that the proofs { of infamy m my possession can hold c John Neville Maskelyne criminally liable, { and make justice punish him heavily for t his villainous conduct. On the odium of c public opinion do I crucify this villainous \ brace of scoundrels." ( The learned counsel said that there was not the least ground or pretence for say- , ing or insinuating that there wsb any ', conspiracy or collusion between his client | or Mr Labouchere, or anybody else, to ruin or injure this very sensitive American gentleman, who was 'cute enough (to use a term prevalent and well understood m the States) to decline the conditions of - Mr Labouchere's test proposition when these conditions seemed somewhat unfavorable to himself. Thousands and < thousands of copies of this scurrilous pamphlet, or rather bogus newspaper (for they would see it was a close fac-aimile and reproduction of Truth, even to the very outside cover), had been circulated m London and the provinces and whereever Mr Maakelyne and his partner gave their entertainment. The plaintiff now claimed at their hands a substantial and exemplary solatium for the very gross and unwarranted attack which had been made upon him by the defendant, who thought proper not to come forward to offer any excuse or palliation for his conduct. The plaintiff, Mr John Neville Maskelyne, was then called and examined by Mr Le Breton. He said that m conjunction with Mr Cooke he had conducted Maskelyne and Cooke's entertainment at the Egyptian Hall for many years past. He had never seen Mr Washington Irving Bishop's performance, but he had seen him at the Egyptian Hall; at least ha had been pointed out to him. He never had any communication with the defendant, and there was not the slightest pretence for saying that witness entered into a conspiracy with Mr Henry Labouchere or anybody else to ruin or injure the defendant m his business. Mr Murphy then called Mr John Cooke, manager of Messrs Folkard and Co., general printers, Devonshire street, who deposed, that their firm had, m compliance with an order given by tho defendant, printed 10,000 copies of a publication or pamphlet called Tlie Truth, m the form of a newspaper, and these copies were given to Mr Bishop. The Under-Sheriff then briefly summed up, and said that m the absence of the defendant, who had entered no plea of justification or otherwise on the record, the question for the jury was the amount of damages to which the plaintiff was entitled. After a brief consultation the jury assessed the damages at £10,000, for which amount a verdiot waß entered for t I the plaintiff.