[law reporting, flamboyant - libel - slander - bond, action on]

Gellibrand v. Ross

Attorney General v. Abbott

Murray v. Murray

Mason v. Lascelles

Supreme Court of Van Diemen's Land

10-11 December 1835

Source: True Colonist, 15 December 1835[1]

The Sittings of the Court commenced on Tuesday, for the trial of civil causes. On the two first days, it was occupied with cases of no public importance. On Thursday, the Court was crowded to hear the case of

Gellibrand v. Ross

for libel, arising out of a most contemptible and malicious attack, made by the Government Printer, in his Journal, the Courier, on Mr. Gellibrand, because he had joined the Association of the Colonists, formed for the reform of abuses, and redress of grievances. The Attorney General and Mr. Horne were for the plaintiff, and the defendant conducted his own case, assisted by Mr. Rowlands and Mr. C. B. Lyons. The defendant’s address to the Jury, was so long and so like the Courier, that the Lawyers and all the audience who could find seats fell asleep; it consisted principally of a tirade of senseless abuse against the Association - unfounded boasting of the pretended extensive circulation of the Courier - and the reading of several paid puffs of himself, sent from hence ready made, and inserted in the Atlas; with a declaration that he would give all his children, to the man he had slandered, rather than pay any money out of his five thousand a-year - a sentiment, quite worthy of the wicked Courier. The whole speech was a miserable specimen of the talents or common sense of an L L D., but very worthy of an A S S to which last addition, the speaker not only asserted, but proved his claim. The Jury gave a verdict of forty shillings - and quite enough - for no man could for a moment believe that any libel of the Courier - however malicious or scurrilous, could injure Mr. Gellibrand, or any man of far inferior standing, to the value of one fortieth part of a farthing. Yet Mr. Gellibrand did right in bringing the action - for this slanderer of the whole Press of the Colony, as licentious and libellous, is now the only Editor in the Colony who is convicted of a false and malicious libel. We are convicted and punished for telling the truth - and this impudent slanderer has the assurance, in his last paper, after his miserable exposure of himself in the presence of hundreds in the Supreme Court, to call all the Conductors of the Press, in this Colony, weak-minded!! and illiterate. We pity the Egotistical A. S. S.

On Friday, the case of the Attorney General v. Abbott, was decided in favour of the defendant, by one of Mr. Stephen’s new fangled Juries of four. This was an action for three hundred pounds, as surety on a forfeited bond into which Mr. Abbott had entered with Mr. John Risely, as sureties for the fulfilment of a contract by one John Martin, four years ago. Martin was released, and made a witness against his surety. It was proved that the name of Mr. Risely had been erased, both in the signature and in the body of the grant - yet Mr. Abbott offered to pay half the money before going into Court, so frightened was he at the ruinous expense of defending a lawsuit here, particularly against the Crown, which never pays costs on losing an action.

Murray v. Murray was bundled out of Court in double quick time; and the Judge, in a most outrageous passion, declared that he would rather be dragged out of Court, and turned out of office, and torn to pieces, than try this case, because the defendant, who drew his own pleas, had inserted the word "Humbug" in them. His Honor appeared to consider the introduction of this obnoxious word as personal insult, and the defendant bolted out of Court for fear of being committed for a contempt! Our "Little Particular" says that His Honor had that morning breakfasted on a "little Trumpeter," which ie could not digest. Hence arose his violent fit of cholic.

Mason v.Lascelles, was an action for slander. The plaintiff’s declaration contained four counts, as follows: - First, that defendant had said to plaintiff, "You have been guilty of wilful and corrupt perjury; second, that defendant said, "He (plaintiff) is, and I will prove him a perjurer:" third, "Mr. Mason has committed wilful and corrupt perjury;" fourth, "Mr. Mason perjured himself in Greenwood’s case." Mr. Mason laid his damages at £500. The defendant pleaded the general issues, "Not Guilty" on all the counts, and also filed two pleas of justification. In the first plea, urging that Mr. Mason did commit perjury in prosecuting Mr. Robertson, for an alleged libel, arising out of Greenwood’s case. The second plea set forth, that the defendant had been informed by Dr. Ross, that Dr. Turnbull, the Private Secretary, said that Mr. Mason had perjured himself, and that at the several times in the three last counts, set forth the defendant in making the charge stated from whom he heard it. The Jury found for the plaintiff on the first three counts; on the plea of the general issues - Damages, One Farthing!! thereby establishing that Mr. Lascelles had accused Mr. Mason of perjury, as in the three counts alleged. On the fourth count, they found for the defendant, on the general issue, the words not being proved. On the first plea of justification they found for the defendant, thereby establishing that Mr. Mason did commit perjury. On the other plea of justification, they found for the plaintiff, the defendant not proving what he averred. Mr. Mason will of course resign, and we will have no more to say to him. The day of retribution is come. Greenwood’s blood cries from the grave!

10 December 1835

Source: Hobart Town Courier, 11 December 1835

Gellibrand v. Ross

In this action, a verdict was given for the defendant on the first count, and for the plaintiff on the second. Damages, 40 shillings.

11 December 1835

Source: Hobart Town Courier, 18 December 1835

Sitting after Term. -- Dec. 11.

Murray v. Murray.

In this case, which was an action brought by Mr Alexander Murray against Mr Robert Lathorp Murray for libel, the Chief Justice discharged the jury on account of the pleas of the defendant containing matter which His Honor thought would be improper to place amongst the records of the court. These pleas did not bear the signature of any member of the profession.

Attorney-general v. Abbott & anr.

This was an action upon a bond given by Mr Edward Abbott, as security to the Government for the due performance of a meat contract. The bond was given nearly five years ago, and there appeared to be some irregularities attached to it, it having been executed by one only out of two proposed sureties, the other name having been erased from the bond. A verdict was given for the defendants.

Mason v. Lascelles.

Dec. 12 -- This was an action brought by Thomas Mason, esquire, the Police Magistrate of New Norfolk, against Thomas Allen Lascelles, esquire, also a magistrate, for slander. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff on the first, second, and third counts. -- Damages one fathering. On the second plea for the defendant; and for the plaintiff on the third plea -- these were pleas of justification. …

Mason v. Lascelles. -- We are authorised to a state that it is the intention of the plaintiff to cause a motion to be on the first day of next term for a new trial in this case.

Notes

[1] See also R v. Greenwould, 1834. These are published to show how far the True Colonist had deteriorated in law reporting by this time. There was a long, rambling report of Murray v. Murray in the Tasmanian, 18 December 1835. On Mason v. Lascelles, see also Cornwall Chronicle, 19 December 1835; and on Gellibrand v. Ross, Hobart Town Courier, 11 December 1835.