[libel – chemist, libel of]

Bates v. Goodwin

Supreme Court of Van Diemen’s Land

Pedder C.J., 2 January 1840

Source: Launceston Advertiser, 9 January 1840[1]

SUPREME COURT, LAUNCESTON

Civil Sittings

Tuesday 2nd January

            The Sittings in this town commenced this morning, before his Honor the Chief Justice. The cases were tried by special juries of four.

* * * *

            This was an action of libel, brought by Mr. Bates, the chemist, of this town, against the printer and publisher of the Cornwall Chronicle. The matter complained of appeared in that paper on the 27th of July last, in the form of a letter signed N. N. The substance of it was that some person had nearly lost his life at Patterson’s Plains, in consequence of poison having been sent instead of medicine out of the shop of a medical man in this town, and that such occurrences had taken place before. Then followed these words “All particulars Mr. Bates can inform you of.” It was contended on the part of the plaintiff, that the meaning of these words, taken in connection with articles in subsequent papers, was that he was the party who had sent out the poison. The counsel for the defendant urged that it was only intended to quote Mr. Bates as an authority.

            The counsel for defendant having stated that it was not intended for the plaintiff, who was well known as a highly respectable and careful chemist, an amicable arrangement was proposed by the Chief Justice; but the question of costs interfering, the case went to the jury who found a verdict for the defendant.

Source: Tasmanian, 17 January 1840

            We consider it an act of justice to the Defendant in the last libel case, tried at Launceston, to aid, in giving every publicity to his sentiments, on the subject. The Plaintiff must now, surely see the folly of having gone into Court, and the value of the friends who introduced him there:-

Bates v Goodwin. - This ridiculous case was reported in our last. The motives which actuated the getters-up of it are so generally understood, and so fairly appreciated, as to render any effort on our part to expose them, and to contemn them, an act of supererogation. The same honest gentleman who has been for some years past so prominent in the crusade directed against the Cornwall Chronicle and its hapless Editor and Proprietor, is entitled to all the credit accruing from the last most contemptible, most vindictive, and most vexatious law suit; we desire not to deprive him of a moiety - not one single fibre of one single leaf of the laurels he has so fairly earned to himself - he has won them - let him enjoy all the honor of wearing them.

The case being disposed of, we consider we are at liberty to make a few observations upon it, which we trust we may do without affording pretext for any pettifogger to charge us with assailing the private character of whomsoever we may think proper to allude to. First then, we distinctly and seriously affirm that, we never in the most indirect sense intended, throughout the notice we were compelled to take of Mr. Bates, to convey the slightest imputation upon his professional reputation. We know of no chemist and druggist in this town whom we would consult professionally, with so much confidence in his ability and care, as Mr. Michael Bates. As it regards that gentleman’s private character, we never heard a syllable spoken of it, other than in praise, and we are quite sure that our knowledge of him has never afforded us reason to suppose that the high estimation he enjoys, was, or is, undeserved. It is not likely therefore that we could have been actuated by any desire, in inserting the letter signed N. N., to injure the reputation or to disturb the quiet of Mr. Michael Bates - we distinctly disavow such intention.

The writer of the letter, or the gentleman by whose authority it was written (Dr. De Dassel) states that Mr. Bates told him of the occurrence that formed the subject of the letter. Was it at all irrational or inconsistent that he should have referred the Editor, to whom he addressed the letter, to Mr. Bates for confirmation of his statement? We think that the reference was perfectly consistent, and that it is scarcely possible to believe that any person possessed of common sense could have construed the mere reference to Mr. Bates for a confirmation of his previous statement into a charge of having made up the medicines said to be deleterious. We are not responsible for the motives of Dr. De Dassel for referring to Mr. Bates; but, we are at present unable to believe that they were other than such as they appeared to be, and the most proper to put the Editor in possession of the facts of the case alluded to.

If the object aimed at in bringing the action was to clear the reputation of Mr. Bates, which has never been assailed, why was not the writer of the letter N. N. made the defendant? It has been no secret since the letter appeared that it was Dr. De Dassel, that gentleman made no secret of it, he admitted the authorship of it, and attempted no disguise in the matter, for he requested us to publish for him, and we did publish for him, a letter in the number of the 14th September, in which he stated most candidly every particular of the conversation said to have taken place about the alleged accident - certainly then, Dr. De Dassel was the responsible person to whom Mr. Bates should have looked for reparation for any supposed or imaginary injury!

But Mr. Bates has been mischievously advised in appealing to the Supreme Court at all. Had he taken the advice of the respectable solicitor he first applied to he would not now have to regret the mortification and loss resulting from his course of conduct, and we are quite sure that his mortification will not be the less, for our assurance of the most perfect esteem for him, and our denial of the slightest intention to disturb his equilibrium of temper or to lessen one iota, his well-merited professional reputation. Exceedingly do we regret his falling into the hands of those “good natured friends” who have advised him to adopt a course of conduct, so much, we are quite certain, in opposition to the dictates of his judgment - a course of conduct that was evidently pursued even to the termination of the trial; for when His Honor recommended the arrangement of the case without proceeding with the trial, and we consented instanter to withdraw a Juror, Mr. Bates insisted on no terms short of the “defendant paying all costs, and making an apology in his next paper.” We feared not the result of the action. The Jury could not avoid being aware of the motives which had caused it, they were men of sense, and could not ascribe to the writing the construction attempted to be put upon it, and we are quite satisfied that they would not inflict upon us a punishment which we did not deserve. We did not therefore consent to relieve the Jury from the task of carrying their responsible duty to the usual close because we feared their verdict, it was because we were not vindictive, and desired not to be so considered, and we would rather have paid our costs of the action than that Mr. Bates should have permitted the display of an opposite feeling to that which actuated us.

Yet, the modesty of the proposed terms of Mr. Bates is worthy of observation. - “To pay all costs.” The costs, it may reasonably be expected to have been incurred, from the number of witnesses subpoened from the vicinity of Norfolk Plains and elsewhere, will amount to a very decent sum, which we are very fortunately exonerated from the payment of. Then, “an apology in the next paper.” How extremely modest! An apology! Mr. Bates should rather have our two arms and our legs into the bargain. No! we never intended injury, we have nothing to apologise for.