« PreviousContinue »
indeed, desired, but declined to go, and she was not in the room into which he desired to break. There certainly, therefore, would have been justification for removing him by force from the house, but the question is, whether there was a justification for giving him into custody? If you find that he was not only in the house against the will of the landlady making a disturbance, but that he had assaulted her and went up stairs against her will, and was on the landing against her will and the will of the defendant, and close to the defendant's rooms making a disturbance and trying to force his way in (a) and intending to strike Boucicault when he should get at him ; then the plea is substantially proved, and you are bound to find it so and return a verdict for the defendant, otherwise the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict.
The jury found that the plaintiff was unlawfully in the house but had committed no assault.
Verdict for the plaintiff, 251. (6).
liberty for an indefinite time, using no hardship or unnecessary restraint. Id.
Semble, such restraint would amount to imprisonment, and be illegal, and this Court would afford redress, unless the wife make an undue use of her liberty, by going into lewd company, or squandering her husband's estate. Ib.
And a habeas corpus is refused against the wife to force her return. In re Price, 2 F. & F. 263.
(a) Vide ante, p. 610.
(6) The Lord Chief Justice at once stayed the execution, and Karslake moved as against evi-. dence, but took nothing, except a rule to reduce the damages.
(a) It would make no difference that as to the owner of the house, that pose the plaintiff's wife was wrongfully her 1 there, as to his right to be even in him, her rooins against her will so as to four create a disturbance. For though her to a husband may to some extent re- no rea strain his wife's liberty, so as to to app confine her within his own house, herself to prevent her leaving for purposes control of vice, he cannot, when she has or his (especially with his consent) left 8 Dowl his house and is residing in B. C. another, justify attempting to re- The 1 take her, or recover his custody mon law of her by force. His remedy to custody enforce her return to his residence she is un is a suit in the Matrimonial Court. he is en His remedy, if any, to recover her indiscrimi custody, is a writ of habeas corpus, world by which will not be issued unless she and a com is forcibly detained by some one when a else ; and, as she is an adult, the balls, unpr Court will not against her will and without restore her to her husband's custody. The The wife may even obtain a writo habeas corpus against the Thus, where it appeared return made by the low writ of habeas c restraint on the from her own
is the defendant.
ere mention was
libel, as to which, vide
1863. w Court of Queen's Bench, Guildhall, coram Cockburn, C.J. Sittings after Trinity Term.
MORRISON v. BELCHER. In an action LIBEL. The action was by the proprietor and editor for a libel in a newspaper, im- of Zadkiel's Almanack, against Admiral Belcher, for an puting to the plaintiff, the alleged libel on the plaintiff contained in a letter to the proprietor and editor of Zad- Daily Telegraph of the 1st of February last. On the 31st kiel's Almanack, of January there appeared in that paper an article calling that not only was he
attention to the “predictions” in that publication, espenected with that foolish cially with reference to the lamented death of the late publication,
illustrious Prince Consort, and asking, “Who is Zadkiel ?” but that he “gulled” the The defendant then wrote to the editor a letter, which public by means of a appeared next day, and was the libel in question. It ran magic ball of crystal, by thus:which he pre- "Sir, In your impression of this day you ask, “Who is this Zadkiel?' and tended to tell what was going 'Are the
o 'Are there no means of ferreting him out and handing him up to Bow-street on in the other under the statute as a rogue and vagabond ? I will aid you on the scent world, and that by first informing you he stands as a lieutenant on the Navy List, senihe took money
ority 1815 ; next, that he has his admirers about Greenwich Hospital, who fane acts, and fancy him a prophet A l; and that his mischievous propensities are not made a good solely involved in that foolish publication, Zadkiel's Almanack. More; I thing of it: pleas, not
think he gave his name not long since as president of some peculiar guilty, and a society connected with astrology (R. I. Morrison). A friend reminds me
that the author of Zadkiel is the celebrated crystal globe seer, who gulled that the libels were true in
e in many of our nobility about the year 1852. Making use of a boy under substance and fourteen, or a girl under twelve, he pretended, by their looking into the fact. Held, 1. crystal globe, to hold converse with the spirits of the Apostles-even our That within the
scope of Saviour, with all the angels of light as well as darkness, and to tell what fair discussion was going on in any part of the world. Drawings were made of the a public writer objects seen in these visions. One noble lady gave one of these boys 5l. is not liable unless he writes to give her intelligence respecting her boy, who was in the Mediterranean, unreasonably, That boy "peached'-let the cat out of the bag (a). Of course the in
formation was false. He took money, if he be really the same, for and maliciously. 2. That (a) That is, for these, or some of together, probably it meant that he
immunity them : for such acts; that is, for took money for the fraudulent use does not extend beyond the dis, such acts as described ; that is, acts of the crystal ball, and gulled the cussion of the of pretence, and" gulling," and im- public thereby. published writings on
posture. But taking the whole public or undoubted acts of the plaintiff, and does not extend to the gratuitous assertion of matters of fact for which there is no foundation. 3. That the privilege had extended to a denunciation of the Almanack and the use of the ball as an imposture, but that if the libel meant that the plaintiff had made money by a conscious and fraudulent imposture by use of the magic ball, that was beyond the right of fair discussion and required a justification. 4. That the justification required proof that the plaintiff took money for the use of the crystal ball, and used it knowing that it was an imposture.
formation was false.
these profane acts, and made a good thing of it. If it was deemed sufficiently important there can be no doubt that he could be satisfactorily ferreted out. As to his position as a naval officer, excepting in the Coast-Guard, he has not served afloat since 1815.
There was another subsequent letter, in which there was a second count. It was, obviously, in answer to some inquiry from the editor :
“ (Private and Confidential.) “Sir, I am unwilling to have my name mixed up with one of this stamp, but I had reason to be much disgusted with this personage at the period to which I allude. The boy's mother confessed to me the trick he had played.
“Union Club, January 31, 1862.”
The defendant pleaded not guilty, and also that the alleged libels were true in substance and fact (a).
Shee, Serjt., J. O. Griffits and E. Besley, for the plaintiff.
Ballantine, Serjt., and Field, for the defendant.
Shee, Serjt., in opening the case for the plaintiff, laid stress chiefly on the imputation as to the use of the magic ball of crystal, which he contended amounted to an imputation of conscious and corrupt imposture. This, he said, be should disprove in point of fact, that is, the conscious imposture, and he insisted that it would not be enough that the jury should be satisfied it was a delusion; alluded to Aubrey's Miscellanies, 1784, page 217, where mention was made of a “consecrated beryl,” a kind of crystal, which he said he saw. The learned serjeant also alluded to a work of a Dr. Gregory, who stated that in these crystal balls persons saw scenes which were distant, and persons who were absent. The learned serjeant said that the substance of his client's complaint was that he was called in
(a) The effect of this plea would of course depend upon the sense
given to the libel, as to which, vide