Alleged Case of Libel

The Rushden Mystery - Alleged Case of Libel

At the Wellingborough Petty Sessions on Friday last, Emily Cartwright, residing in Duke Street, Rushden, wife of Harry Cartwright, grindery dealer, was charged by Hadyn Packwood, of Colson and Co., boot manufacturers, "with unlawfully and maliciously publishing a certain defamatory libel of and concerning Hadyn Packwood, to wit, a libellous postcard."—Mr. James Heygate, of Wellingborough, appeared on behalf of the prosecution, and Mr. A. Andrews, of Northampton, appeared on behalf of the defendant. Throughout the hearing of this case the Court was crowded, a majority of those present having come from Rushden.

Mr. Heygate said the charge before the Bench was that the Defendant did, on the 23rd March 1886 maliciously publish a defamatory libel of and concerning the prosecutor. The charge was laid under the 5th Sect. 6 and 7 Victoria, chap. 96, which rendered the defendant liable to fine or imprisonment, or both; and in support of this contention, he cited the case of the Queen v. Pardon, vol. 49. He took it that he had simply to satisfy the Bench that the defendant sent a post-card containing the libel complained of.

Mr. Andrews: My defence is a perfect denial that the defendant sent the letter. His friend might, therefore, confine himself to that issue.

Mr. Heygate said that as this was an unusual prosecution, it would be necessary for him to State the law bearing upon the case. He would first have to satisfy the Bench that prima facie the post-card complained of was a libel, and if so evidence for the defence should be left for a jury; and, secondly, was there prima facie evidence to put the defendant upon her trial that she wrote and published it. He then briefly detailed the facts of the case. From February, 1884, up to September last, the prosecutor had in his service a young girl named Emily Smith whom September last, left his service upon her own notice, and upon friendly terms with the prosecutor and his family. There was, he said, no suspicion then as to her condition; the girl made no complaint, and no suspicion was entertained. On the 9th of March of the present year, the girl was confined, and on March 20th she died.

Mr. Andrews objected to these extraneous matters; it was only fair that counsel should open such a case as his friend had prepared, unless he called his witnesses.

Mr. Heygate: I will endeavour to state nothing that I cannot prove in evidence.

Mr. Andrews. Question.

Mr. Heygate said the inuendo, the suggestion, on the post-card was part of the prosecution, that this post-card referred to the girl Emily Smith, and it was for the Bench, and it would be for a jury, to say on trial whether the facts did or did not satisfy them that it was so.

Mr. Andrews said he should object to the course pursued.

Mr. Heygate: I will prove that the defendant herself said that the girl died on the 20th.

Mr. Andrews: That is not evidence of libel.

Mr. Heygate contended that he was entitled to go into this, because he sought to show what was the suggestion to which the post-card referred. On the 23rd March, by the mid-day post, his client received this post-card (produced), which he (Mr. Packwood) took in himself. It read as follows:—"Behold your sins "has" found you out. You will be betrayed as you have betrayed her." The reference applied clearly to some particular person, and that card taken in connection with the fact that the servant died three days before, together with the statement made by the defendant to a witness on the very day that, he believed, this card was written, pointed conclusively to the betrayal and death of the girl. (Interruption in Court, which was at once suppressed) But whether this were so or not, that was certainly a libellous card, for the law read that any publication imputing to another disgraceful conduct, injury to a private character, so as to render a man ridiculous or contemptible in private life, was libellous. Now, the prosecutor was a married man with a family. The libellous suggestion, therefore, was that he seduced some young woman, and the facts also pointed to the unfortunate girl who died on the 20th March. (Murmurings in Court) He acknowledged that it was difficult to bring home guilt to the defendant, because of the anonymous character of the post-card. He would, however, prove that the defendant took an interest in the unfortunate Emily Smith, that the girl stayed with Mr. Cartwright after she left prosecutor's service, and that she saw this girl shortly before her death at her home at Wymington, and that on the very day on which this post-card was posted, the 23rd March, the defendant made a statement to a witness which practically charged Mr. Packwood with being the father of the illegitimate child of the girl Emily Smith. The post-card, he said, was written by a person of imperfect education. The writing on the post-card had been compared by Mr. Inglis, an expert in handwriting, engaged by the Treasury, with undoubted specimens of the defendant's handwriting, and he contended that the resemblance was sufficiently strong to commit the defendant for trial. The prosecutor, he said, denied the imputation placed upon his character.

Mr. Hadyn Packwood was the first witness examined for the prosecution. On his oath he said he was a shoe manufacturer, of Rushden. Until September last he had a girl in his employ as domestic servant named Emily Smith, whose parents lived at Wymington. She gave a month's notice, and left on friendly terms with witness and his wife.

Mr. Andrews said this was no evidence concerning the specific charge against the defendant. His friend should prove that the post-card was a libel, find that the defendant wrote it. The prosecutor might be the father of the child, or he might not.

Mr. Heygate said he should produce prima facie evidence that the defendant wrote the libel. He thought it admissible to connect the defendant with this girl, whom he did not doubt was wronged by someone.

Mr. Andrews said it was manifestly unfair to suggest that because a certain woman died with a child, whom common repute said the prosecutor was the father, the defendant wrote the letter.

Mr. Heygate said the inueudo on the card referred to Emily Smith.

Mr. Andrews objected to this as evidence.

Mr. Packwood, in cross-examination, said he saw the girl Smith nursing a baby near the defendant's house once since she left his service. He received the post-card on Tuesday, 23rd March, by the midday post. On Thursday, 25th, he saw Thomas Tailby, milkman, and had a conversation with him in reference to the post-card. There was, he said, not the slightest foundation for the imputation contained on the post-card. (Mr. Sartoris here retired, and Mr. Sharman took the chair)

Mr. Andrews elicited from the prosecutor that his eldest son was named Hadyn Colson Packwood, and that common report said he was father of the girl's child. Mr. Packwood, he said, had jumped at the conclusion that the report meant him. Except for that report, he had nothing to connect himself with the prosecution. Mr. Andrews then read, "Be'old your sins "has" found you out," and asked, turning to prosecutor, said, "Haven't they?" (Hesitation) "Haven't your sins found you out?"—He had committed sins." You do not come here as an angel?" (Laughter)—He was content to be put on the level of an ordinary human being. It was a very serious affair to him. The postman gave him the postcard into his own hands.—Mr. Andrews: You brought this charge against this poor lady to this Court in order to stop her mouth? (Hesitation) "Did you or did you not?"—He brought it with the advice of Mr. Heygate.—Mr. Andrews: You brought it here to vindicate your character?—Yes.—You don't care about the publicity of the thing?—Yes, he did.—Mr. Andrews: Then why did you bring it into Court? (Laughter) You wanted to tell the whole world that you were the father of this unfortunate girl's child? Why did you choose to proceed criminally against this poor woman, instead of taking an action of law.

Mr. Heygate said he was sorry a jury could not hear this cross-examination.

Mr. Andrews: A jury wouldn't hear it at all. Prosecutor, in cross-examination, admitted that his son, 14 last November, was charged with being the father of this child. His eldest son was known by the name of "Col." He had heard of two other people reported to be the father of this child.—Re-examined: Prosecutor said no claim had ever been made upon him for the support of the child, either before or since the death of Emily Smith.

Mr. Andrews: You have accused other people of being concerned in this libel?—Not in libel.—Mr. Andrews: Haven't you addressed a letter to the Rev. Harbourne?—Yes.—Mr. Andrews: Didn't you write this? "Sir,—Being convinced that the libel we have seen you about is a conspiracy in which we have every reason to believe you have played a part."—Yes.—Is there anyone else whom you would wish to accuse of being concerned?—No.—Will you give your reason for charging the rev. gentleman in this manner.

Mr Heygate (to the Bench): Is this material?

Mr. Andrews: It is material, I want to know; I am in perfect order. Why did he brand someone with conspiracy against him. Why did he make this accusation against this rev. gentleman. He may have charged a dozen other people for aught I know. (To Mr. Packwood): Why did you accuse the Rev. gentleman with conspiracy?—From information he had heard published about the place.—Mr. Andrews: Just so, from what you heard. And from outside information you brought this charge against this poor lady?—He had received some information from his wife's sisters.

Mr. Heygate then called upon his next witness, Thomas Tailby.

Mr. Andrews said the evidence to be given by Tailby would only be relevant in a charge for slander. A statement made by word of mouth was not libel, and, therefore, whatever defendant said to Tailby could not be taken as evidence.

Mr. Heygate contended that the conversation went to prove that the written libel was in effect the statement made to the witness.

The Bench, under the advice of their clerk (Mr. C. H. Burnham), decided that the evidence could be given.

Thomas Tailby, farmer living at Rushden, said he recollected Mr. Packwood coming to him with reference to a conversation which he had with the defendant. This conversation took place on Tuesday evening, March 23rd, outside the defendant's house, at ten o'clock in the morning. She said "Have you heard of Emily's death?" Witness replied, "Yes; she was buried on Sunday, was she not?" Defendant said, "No, she's to be buried to-day. I was there the other day." Witness asked if he saw her, and whether she confessed anything before she died about the child. Defendent said "Yes." Witness said, "Who is the father of the child, and what did she confess?" She replied, "The father of Col. is the father of that." Witness said, ''Is there any likeness ?" and defendant said, "There is no mistake." Mr. Packwood's eldest son is known by the name of "Col." Some weeks afterwards defendant spoke to her on the same subject. She asked him whether he knew she had had a lawyer's letter, and then said "Have you been exposing me." He replied and said, "No; I suppose you made a mistake with reference to Emily's confessing." She said "No; she confessed, but it is in the family."—Cross-examined: The conversations were in quite a casual way. He made no note of what she did say, and he would not pledge himself on oath to say that she said exactly what he had said, word for word. She may have said more. He would not pledge himself that she said "Everybody in the village says the father of the child is the father of Col." He had known the defendant for four or five years. She had been his housekeeper before she was married, and he never knew anything wrong about her.—Re-examined: He told Mr. Packwood two or three days after the conversation. He took very little notice of it. He had not heard of any rumour that prosecutor was the father of Emily Smith's child until the defendant spoke to him.

Charles Rice, shoe agent, living at Wollaston, said on the 27th March last he went to the shop kept by the defendant's husband, and bought a quantity of grindery. Mrs. Cartright made out the bill (produced) in his presence. On April 3rd he went to the shop again and purchased some more grindery, the defendant again making out the bill produced.

George Smith Inglis, living at 8 Red Lion Square, Holborn, said he was an expert in handwriting, and had been employed as such by the Government. He had carefully examined the postcard, and compared it with the two bills, with the result that he believed them all to be in the handwriting of one and the same person. He had no doubt whatever.—Cross-examined: Juries did not always accept his opinion. The handwriting on the card was slightly feigned. It was very difficult sometimes to discover an original handwriting by one party and a feigned handwriting by another. The card is addressed to "Mr. H. C. (monogram) Packwood."

Mr. Andrew paid the letter was addressed to H. C. Packwood, who by common repute was the father of the child. He urged that the cause could go no further, as a statement concerning the son—whether true or false—could not be a libel on the father.

Mr. Andrew, in defence, said they had been charged with a libel which had been addressed to H. C. Packwood, and he contended that this referred to Haydn Colson Packwood, the son of the prosecutor, who lived at the same address.

Mr. Heygate said that if the case was dismissed on this ground they would have to institute another prosecution under the name of H. C. Packwood. He asked anyone to look at the letter and say whether it was addressed to a boy of 14.

Mr. Andrew said such a course would be persecution. He then proceeded to criticise the evidence as to the similarity of the handwriting, and commented on the prosecutor's eagerness to apply to himself a postcard addressed to H. C. Packwood. As to the libel itself, he pointed out that a portion of it was an extract from Scripture, and the word "betray" meant, according to the dictionary, to divulge. He contended that the charge was a most paltry one, and that a case had not been made out.

The Chairman and the Bench considered there was sufficient evidence to go before a jury, and committed the defendant for trial. Bail was accepted in two sureties, one of £20, and another of £10, Harry Cartwright and Jacob Stringer being the sureties.