O'Connell, in Error v Mansfield

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 17 May 1846
• Date: 17 May 1846
• Court: Court of Exchequer Chamber (Ireland)

Exch. Cham.

O'CONNELL, in Error

and

MANSFIELD.

Symmons v. SpinosaENR 3 Dyer, 357, b, pl. 45.

Long v. Barrett 8 Ir. Law Rep. 331.

Rex v. SuttonENR 8 B. & C. 417.

Rex v. DespardUNK 2 M. & R. 406.

Rex v. SullivanENR 8 Ad. & El. 830.

Gregory v. Duke of BrunswickUNK 6 Scott, N. R. 809.

Mountney v. WattonENR 2 B. & Ad. 670.

Holmes v. CatesbyENR 1 Taunt. 543.

Hickinbotham v. LeachENR 10 M. & W. 363.

J' Anson v. StuartUNK 1 Term Rep. 768.

Lane v. HowmanENR 1 Price, 16.

Hick v. KeatsENR 4 B. & C. 69.

Clement v. LewisENR 10 Price, 181.

Broom v. Nice 2 Stra. 872.

Rex v. GriffinENR 1 Keb. 740.

Rex v. JohnsonENR 2 Str. 1000.

Rex v. BurridgeENR 1 Str. 593.

Morrison v. HarmerENR 3 Bing. N. C. 766.

Edwards v. BellENR 1 Bing. 403.

Clarke v. TaylorENR 2 Bing. N. C. 654.

E. T. 1846. Exch. Chant. ertinquer ebandiev. O'CONNELL, in Error, v. MANSFIELD: May 17. ACTION on the case, for libel.-The declaration stated, by way of A Town-coun- inducement, that before the committing of the grievances complained cillor of the borough of of, a charge of felony had been made by the plaintiff against one Dublin is ex- apitifiaedn d froiras- Daniel Stack, Esq., in having stolen a book belonging to him, before eT the magistrates of the College-street Police-office ; that upon the serving on a special jury investigation in the said Police-office, it was stated, by the plaintiff, summoned that one Christopher Rooney, M. D., was to be a witness against the - within the bo rough ; and said Stack ; that several letters had been written by the said Stack, one of the spe- in which he had challenged the plaintiff to fight a duel ; and several cial - jurorshav ing been chal letters by the plaintiff to the said Stack, in which he was charged by lenged at the tri on the the plaintiff with having stolen several books, the property of the gral ound ofbeing plaintiff; that the said Stack was a Protestant, and the plaintiff a a member of own T the - Roman Catholic ; and that the said Stack had been on a visit at the council, for the house of the Rev. J. O'Connor, a Roman Catholic clergyman, in time being,of company with the plaintiff. The declaration then, after the usual Dublin, the opposite party put in a counterplea, alleging that the jury was a special jury, " and that at the time of the striking of the jury aforesaid, and the arranging of the said panel, the said juror was a Town-councillor of the borough of Dublin, and that the same was well known to the said defendant at the time of the striking of the said jury, and arranging of said panel." Held, that the challenge was a good challenge, and that the counter-plea was not a sufficient answer to it. [Dissentiente, RICHARDS, B.] A libel, which, by the inuendo to the heading of it, was alleged to be conversant about a false charge of felony, made through feelings of religious bigotry, by the plaintiff, against one D. S., went on to allege, that the plaintiff was aided in making the said charge by one C. ff., who were stated to "have been for some time back employing every means to win the confidence of this young gentleman, their intended victim (meaning thereby that the said plaintiff, and the said C. R., bad been contrivÂing some plan to assail the character, and destroy the reputation, of the said D. S.), as taking him on country visits, and inviting him to the Continent, with the hope, it is alleged, of getting him altogether to themselves, and destroying his prospects the more easily, by some foul charge, which he could not find means of contradicting, there being to be no one else of the company. They had met with a direct refusal, it seems, to their invitation to the Continent, and therefore, rather prematurely opened their present plot (meaning the said charge of felony). Affidavits are, we understand, shortly to be laid before the law officers of the Crown, charging the above facts, together with certain conversations between the pair of Romanists, who have trained this ingenious manoeuvre (meaning the charge of felony aforesaid)." Held, that the said libel did not amount to a charge of conspiracy, though in the introductory part of the declaration the plaintiff alleged, that the object of the defendant was to injure him, &c., by causing it "to he suspected, and believed, that he, the said plaintiff, was guilty of conspiracy, calumny, and fabrication of false charges ;" and that, thereÂfore, it was not necessary that the defendant should have justified such a charge. [Dissentientibus,, JACKSON, J., RICHARDS, B., CRAMPTON, J.] averments of the previous good character of the plaintiff; and the contrivances of the defendant to injure him in his good name, &c., " and to cause it to be suspected, and believed, that he, the said plainÂ" tiff; was guilty of conspiracy, calumny, and fabrication, of a false " charge, and of other offences," &c., averred, that the defendant published in the Evening Packet newspaper, the following libel:._._ "Popish Persecution (meaning thereby that the said plaintiff was " instigated by feelings of religious bigotry, to make a false charge " against the said Daniel Stack).-We (meaning the defendant) "have seen some documents connected with a recent investigation "at the College-street Police-office, which, however extraordinary, "in no way surprises us, as, at the first blush, it amounted to " little more than this-one gentleman (meaning thereby the said " Daniel Stack) challenges, and finally sends a posting circular "to another (meaning the plaintiff), terming him a coward, &c., " in consequence of an alleged calumny (meaning the said charge "of felony)-the challenged party retorts, by charging his adverÂ" sary with a felony, committed before the challenge had been "sent. The magistrates investigate the case, and refuse to "countenance the charge, naturally considering it an after-thought " of the party challenged, who, with the aid of a certain medical "gentleman, having charge of one of our public prisons (meaning " the said Christopher Rooney), persists in forcing the case on the "Bench. The more important feature of the case is, that the party so "proceeded against is a college student, of high character, by whose " advice and instigation, several members of his 'family, a highly " respectable one, renounced the errors of Popery a short time back; "whilst the Doctor, and his associates in the charge, are Romanists, "anxious for the supremacy of their Church, and filled with hatred of " those who would diminish its power. It appears that these two "sedulous sons of Mother Church have been for some time back "employing every means to win the confidence of this young gentleÂ" man, their intended victim (meaning thereby that the said plaintiff "and the said Rooney had been contriving some plan to assail the "character, and destroy the reputation, of the said Stack), as taking " him on country visits (meaning the said visit to the Rev. J. " O'Connor), and inviting him to the Continent, with the hope, it is "alleged, of getting him altogether to themselves, and destroying his "prospects the more easily by some foul charge, which he could not " find means of contradicting, there being to be none else of the "company. They had met with a direct refusal, it seems, to their " invitation to the Continent, and therefore, rather prematurely, " opened their present plot (meaninc, the said charge of felony). " Affidavits are, we understand, shortly to be laid before the Law E. T. 1846. " Officers of the Crown, charging the above facts, together with _Exch. Chant. "certain conversations between the pair of Romanists, who have O'CONNELL "trained this ingenious manoeuvre (meaning the charge of felony v. "aforesaid). We must stop at present, but we shall afford time to MANSFIELD. " keep our eye on them, until the thing ripens." There were two other counts, varying the charge. To this declaration, the defendant pleaded the general issue ; and to the first count a plea of justification, to the effect following :- Actio non, because that before, &c., the plaintiff, being a Roman Catholic, and instigated by feelings of religious bigotry against the said Daniel Stack, being a Protestant, followed the course of perseÂcution against him, in the libel called "Popish Persecution ;" and, in furtherance thereof, falsely, maliciously, and without probable cause, preferred the said charge of felony before the magistrates, who, on trial and investigation of the same, refused to entertain it, stating, that it looked like, or was, an afterthought of the plaintiff. The defendant further averred, that the plaintiff persisted in enforcing the said pretended charge on the Bench, and gave out, and pretended, that he was, and would be, aided in such his persistence by a certain medical gentleman, the said C. Rooney, and that it was believed by the said Stack, and the defendant, that the said Rooney did aid the plaintiff in enforcing said case on the Bench, and which belief was raised by the statements and conduct of the plaintiff in that behalf. The plaintiff further averred, the high character, &c., of the said Stack, and the conversions from the Roman Catholic religion of certain members of his family, by his means, and that the said Rooney and the plaintiff were Roman Catholics ; and that the plaintiff gave out, that the said Rooney was an associate with him in making and supporting said charge, and which representation was believed by the defendant and Stack ; and that the plaintiff was, and still is, a person anxious for the supremacy of that church, and filled with hatred of those who would diminish her power ; and that being an intolerant and bigoted member of that church, had been, for some time past, employing every means to win the confidence of the said Stack, whom the said plaintiff intended to make the victim of a false and malicious charge, and had taken him on the said visit to the country ; and that he and Rooney had, on divers...