Slander/Appleby Law/Slater v Reisbeck, Sept 10, 1821 - Cumberland and Westmorland Newspaper Transcriptions

Slander/Appleby Law/Slater v Reisbeck, Sept 10, 1821

APPLEBY (WESTMORLAND), THURSDAY, SEPT. 6

Both the Judges arrived here yesterday evening, and opened the commission. After having attended divine service this morning in the parish church, they proceeded to their respective courts.

There were but three prisoners, one of whom was admitted to give evidence for the Crown against a man of the name of JOHN ROURKE, aged 34, for uttering forged Craven notes.

Another partner in the trade, known by the names and titles of SIR JOHN SINCLAIR, alias SIR JOHN BIRKBECK, was lately committed to York-castle.

The evidence of the accomplice not having been confirmed, the prisoner was acquitted, but is to be conveyed to Lancaster for trial under a fresh charge.

The third prisoner, JOHN SOWERBY, aged 17, was convicted of obtaining three guineas under false pretences, and received sentence of transportation for seven years.

NISI PRIUS.

There are seven causes entered, and all are disposed of but one respecting a right of fishery. The only important case was an action brought by one surgeon against another for

APPLEBY LAW / SLATER V. REISBECK..... Part I / SLANDER

(Special Jury: SIR PHILIP MUSGRAVE, Foreman)

MESSRS SCARLETT and ARMSTRONG were counsel for the plaintiff; MESSRS. SERGEANT CROSS and WILLIAMS for the defendant.

MR. SCARLETT - The plaintiff was a surgeon in Appleby, who had received the best education, and had come to this place with the best recommendation for his profession:   but if he deserved the imputation cast upon him by the slander for which this action was brought, he was unworthy of being any longer employed in his profession. The honour and delicacy of a professional gentleman attending the female sex could not be raised too high.

MR. REISBECK, the defendant, he was sorry to say, was of the same profession. Whence he had formed the scheme of slandering the plaintiff they would probably learn, when he told them that the plaintiff had lent him money on mortgage security, and further advanced money to assist the defendant, who had been in distress.

At length the time came when MR. SLATER could no longer delay realizing the securities which he held, and carrying to sale a field of the defendant's, the sum of 174 l. was thus obtained; less, however, than
was due to the plaintiff.

From that moment, all friendship, attention, and good understanding from MR. REISBECK was entirely changed, and the result was the business which they had to try here.

The transaction had not long preceded the slanderous report by the defendant, that the plaintiff had told him that he (the plaintiff) had had connexion with all the married ladies in Appleby, and particularly with MR. COTTY.

She had left Appleby, and the defendant had taken advantage of that occasion to spread this report, particularly respecting her.

The object of such slanders is generally the last who hears them, but MR. SLATER heard of it; and he heard at the same time that MR. REISBECK gave MR. SLATER himself for his author. MR. SLATER applied to MR. REISBECK.

MR. REISBECK denied it, and said MR. SLATER had said nothing of the kind. He offered to go before a magistrate and make a deposition that MR. SLATER had never said any thing of the kind. He did go before a magistrate and offered to make oath, but the magistrate said, "No, I cannot take it."

Well, MR. SLATER thought the report malicious; but to his astonishment he found the same reports repeated, and MR. REISBECK given as the author.

MRS. COTTY was said to have gone away with child to MR. SLATER. When he found such reports prevailing openly, and spread by this man, he found it necessary to bring this action.

If the defendant had thought proper to enter a justification, he might have done so. MR. REISBECK had said that MR. SLATER would be obliged to go away, for that every respectable person was leaving him off. If he had indeed been capable of doing or saying what was imputed to him, he ought to be dismissed from Appleby, and from every respectable society.

If the jury thought him slandered, he (MR. SCARLETT) put it to them to give whatever sum could by their verdict be adequate damages for such a slander; not that the plaintiff had any expectation that any sum would be paid, but their sense of the slander would be measured by the amount of damages.

He put it to them, therefore, to give what the case required, because upon that depended the restitution of the plaintiff to society.

He hoped the discretion of his learned friend would not call any evidence; but if any should be given, the witness would be dealt with according to character and credit, and he (MR. SCARLETT) would again address them.

RICHARD BATEMAN.    I live in Appleby. On the 8th of January last I was in company with the defendant in the King's Head inn. MR. REISBECK said of MR. SLATER........"DR. SLATER is a liar, a thief, and a scoundrel, and the biggest rascal upon earth, for he has told me, he had had connexion with most of the married women in Appleby, and with MRS. COTTY among the rest, for any thing that I know."JOHN ATKINSON, of the Old Brewhouse was present,   MR. ATKINSON the attorney,   MR. HERD, the landlord, and MR. WILLIAM RUSHTON.

Cross-examined by MR. SERGEANT CROSS.......There had been previous conversation. It was a subject of another nature which led to this. There had been something said respecting MR. SLATER. There had been a suit in the Spiritual Court, respecting MR. REISBECK's daughter. MR. SLATER was the man who was the foundation of the action.

MR. SCARLETT objected to the evidence.

MR. JUSTICE BAYLEY.......Were they talking of that suit ?.......Yes.

Cross-examination continued.....Was the suit against you ? ...............Yes.
The ground of action was, that I said that there had been improper intercourse between MR. SLATER and MR. REISBECK's daughter. I dare say she was then 17. The subject of conversation was the improper connexion with the daughter of MR. REISBECK. I suppose that must have been ground of resentment and passion to the father. I had said so. I had told that to MR. REISBECK before. I did not then say from whom I heard it.

But you shall now; had you not heard it from MR. SLATER ? ................ No, I had not. I named it to him; I cannot say what feelings it excited in his mind.

You have heard him boast of his success among the ladies ? ......Never to my recollection.   I am married.

Did you find fault yourself ? ......For what ?

For his attention to MRS. BATEMAN ?......I had never had cause.

No, no, you had not, but MR. SLATER always behaved well to her ? .....I don't know that he was ever otherwise than civil.

Too civil perhaps ? ...... I don't know that he was.

But, you heard ? ...... No.

He is rather too much that way ? .......I don't pretend to judge.

But you don't pretend to say that he was not so ? .... No.

You don't think the worse of him for what MR. REISBECK said ? ..... No. I don't think I did laugh when he said it. He was in a towering passion. I did not say to him "How can you say so, of so chaste and modest a person"" I might name it at home. I did not believe what MR. REISBECK said, that MR. SLATER had either said or done the thing. I never did complain of his conduct to MRS. BATEMAN. I am not particularly intimate with him, no more than other people. I don't know that I told it particularly to himself. At the time, I begged gentlemen to take notice of what MR. REISBECK said. I did not ask him to explain himself.

MR. JUSTICE BAYLEY. You say you mentioned to MR. SLATER what you said of him and MR. REISBECK's daughter ? ...... Not to DR. SLATER, but to DR. REISBECK. I mentioned to him that DR. SLATER had had connexion with his daughter.

JOHN ATKINSON. a partner in the Old Brewery, heard MR. REISBECK say of MR. SLATER that he was a vagabond and a scoundrel, and had told him that he had had connexion with most of the married women in Appleby, most particularly with MRS. COTTY.

ROBERT BLENCARN met with DR. REISBECK in his own house in December or January last. He asked me if I heard any thing concerning my friend. I said, "What friend ?" He said, MR. SLATER; that MRS. COTTY had been in France bearing a child to him. He said he believed it to be true as it came from the "Knobs" of the town. He said he must leave the town now. I saw MR. REISBECK a gay bit afterwards at my house; he then said of MR. SLATER, he was a rascal, a scoundrel, a Bewcastler (Bewcastle is in Yorkshire), and wished that we would not employ him at our house. He said, if he could find the bastard child, it would help him on his trial very much. He said the first time he saw MR. HEELES in the Castle, he would ask him about his sister, MRS. COTTY. He said that MR. SLATER had said, that he had had connexion with all the women in Appleby but two or three.

Cross-examined by MR. WILLIAMS. ... I went to another doctor, and before this finger was cut. It is not my finger, it is my hand. I have very good health. I saw MR. SLATER just before I came into court, but not a word about the hand. DR. THWAITES is our doctor now. MR. SLATER and I are often in company. My hand was cut about a fortnight since. I have been in company with MR. SLATER since, but not a word about the hand. I have been five or six times in his company since, drinking together. I never take up a glass with that hand, but always with the right hand. My wife and myself were advised to go to DR. THWAITES, not by MR. SLATER. I am the same thing with DR. SLATER, but on the point of doctrine (doctoring?).

Re-examined. ... A little boy of ours was ill, when I sent for MR. THWAITES to attend.

By MR. JUSTICE BAYLEY ... Before MR. REISBECK had said this, I heard a report of MR. REISBECK's daughter and MR. SLATER having had connexion together. She was not with child. MR. SLATER is married. The girl is about 14, or 15, or 16, I don't know how old.

MR. SERGEANT CROSS suggested a question as to MRS. COTTY's being with child.

MR. JUSTICE BAYLEY. ... No, it is my duty to protect her character from suffering incidentally.

MR. SERGEANT CROSS. ... Whether the witness has not heard SLATER say so ?

Witness. ... No, never.

JOHN RICHARDSON, clerk to MESSRS. HEELES and CO., said, he was acquainted with MR. SLATER for 7 or 8 years. MR. SLATER is a married man, and has a wife and children. On the 24th of March, MR. SLATER asked MR. REISBECK, in my presence, if he (MR. SLATER) had ever said a single word to him of MRS. COTTY or any other woman in town. MR. REISBECK said he never had, and that he would sign any paper to set aside the report. Next morning MR. SLATER and I went to him, and then he would not sign it; he said he would have nothing to do with it. MR. HEELES in the Castle is one of the magistrates. MR. REISBECK said to me that the report did not come from MR. SLATER himself, but from a certain woman in the town, whom he did not name, as he was going to breakfast with her. I have many times heard MR. REISBECK speak of MR. SLATER before there was any quarrel, but I recollect nothing particular that he said.

By MR. SERGEANT CROSS. ... I had heard nothing to that effect before. The two parties were talking amicably on the 24th, when MR. REISBECK said he had heard MR. SLATER say nothing of MRS. COTTY. I left them together drinking.

Re-examined. ... they drank when making it up. MR. SLATER had asked me to go with him. MR. SLATER said he must bring an action, as MR. REISBECK would not sign the paper.

THE REV. JOSEPH MILNER. ... I am the vicar of Appleby, and a magistrate. I remember MR. REISBECK coming before me to make a deposition. I wrote that deposition. The substance of it was given by MR. REISBECK. It was about the 22d or 23d of March. I stated then that the magistrates were to meet on Saturday the 24th, and desired him to come then. I then thought it was not a proper subject for an oath. In the first conversation he said he was willing to make that deposition. On Saturday he wished that his arm might be cut off if he ever heard MR. SLATER use any such language respecting MRS. COTTY or any other lady. I have employed MR. SLATER since.:

"The deposition of WILLIAM REISBECK before us. I, WILLIAM REISBECK, swear that I never in my life heard MR. SLATER make any reflection on MRS. COTTY, and that the reports in Appleby are wholly without foundation."

JAMES FOTHERGILL. ... I recollect MR. REISBECK saying of MR. SLATER in June last, that the first time he saw MR. HEELES, he would ask where that bastard child was, which MR. SLATER had with MRS. COTTY.

Cross-examined. ... The suit was going on then.

MR. GEORGE THOMPSON affirmed that he was a banker in Appleby; and recollected a field, the property of MRS. REISBECK, being sold; the money was paid on the 28th of April 1820. It was 170 l. paid to MR. SLATER; I believe that sum was a compromise. I knew of MR. SLATER lending MR. REISBECK 100 l. on 18th June, 1816; it was then the mortgage was given.

Cross-exmained. ... MR. SLATER I believe to be a man of good property.

MRS. MOSES gave her evidence from the bench. She is a married lady in Appleby. MR. SLATER had attended their family about five years. She did not continue to employ him. She ceased in February or March, from the unpleasant reports respecting him, the reports of the nature of the cause of the action. They were reports which MR. SLATER himself was said to have circulated.

By the COURT. ... She had never heard any thing improper respecting MISS REISBECK. She believed MR. REISBECK had but one daughter. The reports related to the married person in town. She since employed DR. THWAITES. She was sorry at leaving MR. SLATER. She had heard others left him.

Several persons were called to show the age of MISS REISBECK, but they were not in attendance. This part of the case came by surprise upon the plaintiff's counsel.

BATEMAN re-called. ... I did tell MR. REISBECK respecting his daughter, with intent he should believe it. It was not generally known. There was much irritation, a quarrel between MR. REISBECK and me, and I threw this in his teeth. I was not the founder of the story.

MR. SERGEANT CROSS addressed the Jury. As the subject was a conversation between the plaintiff and defendant, it was obviously impossible to explain whether the conversation did take place, whether there had been a conversation having that tendency, or whether the defendant had misunderstood something said by the plaintiff. But he could not help regretting that the peace had not been made up between the parties in the temperate manner it had been once expected.
There had been great irritation on the part of the defendant, supposing that he had suffered as great an injury as any human being could. The plaintiff had obtained considerable control and influence over the defendant's family, as was generally the case with lenders and borrowers. The defendant was told that he had suffered the deepest injury, and that the plaintiff had inflicted upon him the deepest wound -- that he had debauched his daughter, his only daughter of the tender age of 14; and there was BATEMAN to his face, ready to say it was fact.
( The learned Sergeant entered then into a minute criticism upon the circumstances of the conversation ) "He is a liar."   "Yes, for I don't believe that he has debauched the women of the town. I suppose one of his boasts too is, that he debauched my daughter."    The defendant, in cooler moments, wished to make up matters.   "Well, I was angry, let us forget and forgive."
            But MR. SLATER would not be satisfied without a signature, knowing that such a trial as this would not be complete without a signature. But litera scripta monel, and MR. REISBECK did not choose that he should in after times be exhibited by such a document as an infamous slanderer. Well, the damage sustained by the plaintiff was the want of the signature. With that he would have been satisfied, and that was a pretty good estimate of what he thought his damage.
        There was, besides, the witness with the sore hand, drinking ale with him whom they were to believe he had turned off. The defendant, therefore, was entitled to their verdict; but if it should be otherwise, the lowest damages would be adequate to the injury sustained.

MR. JUSTICE BAYLEY.

    It had been argued that there was no malice; but they were not to look into motives. If there was injury from the words spoken, and if they were calculated to injure, the defendant was responsible.
    Would it not destroy the practice of the plaintiff as attending ladies, and particularly married ladies, if he boasted in terms imputed by the defendant ?
    If the defendant heard imputations respecting his daughter, his feelings as a father would naturally be roused, and he would be put off his guard.
    This effect of irritation he ought at some future period to have endeavoured to correct. The imputation on the plaintiff was a very strong imputation, and if false, a very foul imputation.

The bringing of this action was a challenge to the defendant to prove it. He (MR. JUSTICE BAYLEY) should be happy if the effect should be to remove from every mind the impression which the slander was calculated to make, and if the plaintiff should be employed as before, if his general conduct was correct.   Yet cautious delicate ladies might naturally shrink from employing him, for fear the busy voice of Scandal might touch their fame.

MR. SLATER had done all that a man could do. In estimating damages, they would not entirely overlook the situation of the defendant, but they would look at the situation of the plaintiff.

Damages, 50 l.