ILLINOIS
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
Production Note
Project Unica
Rare Book & Manuscript Library University of Illinois Library at Urbana-Champaign 2015




A LETTER
IN REFERENCE TO THE RECENT TRIAL
<3F
MURRAY t>. KELLY AND SHEW.
“ Good name in mari or woman, dear my Lord,
Is the immediate jewel of them souls :
Who steals my purse steals trash ; ’tis something, nothing-’Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands ; But he that filches from me my good name,
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes’me poor indeed.”
Shakspere.
1854.A LETTER.
Sir,
Upon two occasions during the last week, the Editor of the Saunders Newspaper has lent himself to make charges and insinuations against me, and to permit the appearance of an untrue and coloured report of law proceedings in which I was engaged; and has precluded me from any refutation, however moderate ; systematically suppressing my letters and repeating the insinuations, as if he were ignorant that he was actually in possession of my letters refuting them.
This unfair course of proceeding will be appreciated when I state that the sub-Editor of the Saunders was one of the counsel purposely retained against me; and I leave it to you to “ estimate the motive and objects ” he has had in lending his paper to subserve the bad cause of his client, irrespective of every consideration of justice.
May.I therefore trespass upon your attention while I briefly vindicate myself, and dispose of this case in all its bearings.
The imputation made in the Saunders wTas, that an erroneous report of the trial had been furnished to their office surreptitiously, after midnight; and that if the party could be discovered, his name would be made public.
The instant that paragraph came to my notice, I sent a letter to the Editor of the paper, stating that he need not be uneasy on
B4
•
the subject, that it was I who furnished the report, and that instead of its being erroneous, it was true in every particular. At the same time I sent a letter for publication, avowing the report, and establishing its accuracy. In this letter I stated that the report was a condensed one, to suit the practice of the paper, but truly and fairly gave the character and bearing of the case; and that I had not stooped to any trick or subterfuge to procure its insertion. I had only arrived in Dublin at eleven o’clock on the night in question; I was occupied an hour in copying the report from my notes; and the moment it was ready, I sent it with this message—that it was a report of a trial that occurred that day in Nenagh, in which one of the editors of the Saunders, Mr. Lover, was engaged.
With this private and public avowal of the MS., and this simple explanation of the facts connected with it, in the Editor’s possession, I demanded that the imputations be withdrawn. But after an interval of a week, instead of retracting them, they are repeated, in a manner the most offensive, and calculated to inj ure me with those to whom I am unknown; and still my letters, and all reference to them, are suppressed. I appeal to any gentleman if thus to open the paper to the insinuations and falsehoods of my opponents, and to close it systematically against my refutations, is not a course indicative of danger to every man’s character, and subversive of every principle of justice. But here, where one of the conductors of the paper was professionally and privately associated with my opponent, delicacy of position alone might have induced him to hold the scales of justice with an even hand, instead of adopting a course of partiality unprecedented for its injustice.
I need offer no comment or opinion upon the accuracy of my report, not a line or an expression in it has been, or can be, impugned. I subjoin a copy of both reports face to face, and I conceive it will be plain to every one that they are not in the.1
slightest degree contradictory of each other. But, as might he apprehended, my opponents finding, even after the advantage of a week’s scrutiny, that their account of the trial must confirm mine, have imported into the case personalities and expressions, some of them irrelevant to the contest between us, and all of them wholly and utterly false. The character of the compromise offered, be it noticed, three times to me (and not by me) is also coloured and perverted to assume the appearance of success, whereas it was essentially defeat. I shall offer no comment on these proceedings. But I am, however, authorized by my distinguished counsel and my solicitor to enumerate these misrepresentations, and to charge them as being utterly false; they are as follow:—
“ Chief Justice Monahan.—I think Shew was a very ill-advised young man to defend this action.”
“ Me. Lynch, Q.C.—If time for payment be given until November, we will accept the offer made by Mr. Armstrong.”
“Me. Aemstkong.—Shew may have until the 1st of December. Mr. Murray has no wish to be harsh with him.”
I ask, is it not most unbecoming conduct to invent these personal and malicious expressions for the purpose of colouring the case unfavourably to me, and of perverting the course of justice, and then to attempt to impugn the truth of my report, because it did not contain these false—most utterly false—ingredients ? I am sure I only forestall public opinion by stating, that the persons who could descend to such means as these are unworthy of belief and deserving of public scorn.
One fact will be sufficient to exhibit the character of my opponent’s case, and the sense his Counsel and the Bar entertained of it. An eminent member of the Bar stated in court, that Mr. Murray’s conduct in this case was “ disgraceful.” Even his own counsel, Mr. Armstrong, Q.C., offered on the day before the trial to compromise the case for £32, paying part of the6
costs. On the morning of the trial, Mr. Rolleston, Q.C., his other counsel, renewed this offer to myself and my solicitor personally; but I rejected both these attempts to compromise with me, for I was advised and determined to expose the whole case by a public trial; and it is to avert that exposure that every artifice has been used to disparage me.
The history of this case would be incomplete were I to omit the suitable and characteristic circumstances that led to the trial.
During the time I was in partnership with Mr. Kelly of Grafton-street, an agreement was made with Mr. Murray to publish five Numbers of the Irish Quarterly Review at our own expense, beginning with the December Number. But in November our partnership was dissolved, Kelly taking all the engagements and liabilities of the concern, and I relinquishing my right to an account of the partnership dealings between us. This Review was one of the engagements of the concern, and as such Kelly published it up to March last in his own name alone; but just at this period he endeavoured, for what object time will disclose, to tamper with the dissolution of partnership, upon the pretence that the Irish Review was exempt from its operation, though he had actually been publishing it for six months in accordance with the dissolution. The effect of this scheme, which I saw through at once, would be to destroy the dissolution of partnership, and, in case of Kelly's insolvency or failure, to involve me in all the debts of his concern a second time. To accomplish this laudable object, every effort that artifice could suggest was resorted to, but in vain. Finding himself frustrated on every point, and well knowing that an infraction of the agreement, for which there was a penalty of ¿6100, would involve me as well as himself, he refused to fulfil the agreement, anticipating that the threat of a lawsuit for its breach would coerce me into a compliance with his demands.<
The proprietor of the Review, Mr. Murray, I regret to say, appears to have lent himself to this unworthy purpose; and, almost without an hour’s notice, my solicitor was threatened with an action against me, to which I sent the following reply
“ Sin,—In accordance with my note of this morning, I beg to explain that there has been, since the 26th of November last, a complete dissolution of partnership between Kelly and myself, by which he took upon himself, and I became exonerated from, all the engagements and liabilities of the concern, the Irish Quarterly Review included. The papers carrying out this separation were drawn up by Mr. Donnelly, your brother-in-law, they were for some time under Kelly’s consideration, and they bear his signature. Therefore, in making a demand for money upon you, he was perfectly conscious it was an unjustifiable and improper attempt, that had no other object but to place me in so prejudicial a light with you, that when it might please him to impede the publication of the Review, you might consider me, and not him, as the defaulter. May I trust you will not be misled, or countenance such improper schemes, and so far as I am personally concerned I assure you I am the last person to break or tamper with any agreement with a gentleman. As an evidence of this, if Kelly refuses, upon any pretence whatever, to publish the Review, I will undertake it on the terms of the agreement, and publish it to the best of my ability.
“ Permit me to advert now to the impropriety of Kelly’s demand, even had there been no dissolution between us. He publishes the Review for six months, and, perhaps, incurs needless and wasteful expenses ; he never consults me upon a single point of management or finance, and after this interval he makes a demand for expenses about which I know nothing, and over which I have not had the slightest control. He applies for the whole outlay, without offering any account for the various sums he has received by the sale of the current and back numbers of the Review; and even supposing he had a claim, which he has not, against me, it should be for the deficiency the sales were unable to cover, and not the gross outlay. In short, the attempt comes to this, that I should be responsible for all his mismanagement, recklessness, and want of judgment.
“ K. Shew. .
“ Ro R- •/. Murray, Rsq.”
0.8
Finding me resolved and firm in resisting this manœuvre, it was abandoned, and then began a series of threats and intimidations of every kind, to weary me, as it were, into compliance. Mr. Murray’s brother-in-law was attorney for both parties ; and such was the unbecoming character of this double-dealing, that scarcely had I answered one letter on the part of Kelly, until I was menaced by another from the same attorney, acting for Murray. Some slight conception may be formed of the lengthened annoyance and legal expenses to which I was thus subjected, to prevent myself from being despoiled ad libitum. However, all their manœuvres were foiled by the plain and simple offer to undertake the whole expense of the Review myself, as Kelly had refused to continue it ; but no sooner was this offer made, than anxious as he had appeared hitherto to abandon it, he would not now consent either to relinquish it or to undertake it himself. At length, on the 5th April, I brought the transaction to a final issue. On that day I received a note from Mr. Murray, stating that Kelly refused to proceed with the publication of the Revieiv unless I was involved in each and all of its liabilities, from the publication of the twelfth Number. Mr. Murray stated that if I would not consent to this demand the Review would be discontinued, and I would become liable to an action for a breach of the agreement. This I met by offering to publish the Review in future entirely at my own expense, as it ought to have been quite immaterial to Mr. Murray who fulfilled the agreement, provided it was fulfilled; and I requested the MS. would be supplied to me to enable me to bring forth the next Number. But after a week had passed over, Mr. Murray alleged that the MS. had been sent to Kelly—to the very man who, by his previous refusal to publish it, broke the agreement, and then Mr. Murray pretended he could not refurnish the MS. to me. lhe falsehood of this pretence was palpable, for, in fact, the MS. had never been given to Kelly, and was altogether within the con-trol of Mr. Murray alone. This unfair refusal to supply me with the means of fulfilling the agreement I considered final, and I was resolved, should I be forced, to expose the whole transaction. However the subject was not resumed until the middle of May, when Murray informed me that he had printed the Revieio himself, and ,required Kelly and me to pay its expenses ; but, before the object of this new manœuvre to involve me in the publication could be discovered, Murray handed over the whole of the Review into the hands of Kelly, that is, to the very party who had declined to publish it; and Kelly now, with the stock in his possession, insisted on only paying half of the expenses, while receiving the whole of the proceeds, demanding that I should pay the other half of the expenses, and receive nothing. I offered to pay the half of the expenses if he would engage to pay me half the proceeds, but he refused ; and, had I paid half of the expenses, without this engagement, he would have applied my money to repay himself the loss he alleged he had sustained upon the past Numbers ; ' which loss, if any, had been occasioned by his own mismanagement.
At this stage of the case several interviews took place between Murray, Kelly, and myself, but Kelly was found totally impracticable ; and after I had exhausted every means of settlement short of allowing myself to be plundered, I again offered to print the Review at my own expense, and even to put Kelly’s name upon it permanently as the publisher, relieving him from all the loss and liability. But this and every other suggestion he rejected, and in fact he would neither allow me to fulfil the agreement, nor would he suggest any course by which the difficulties created by himself could be surmounted ; insisting upon wrenching from me as much money as he deemed possible, without offering to account for a single shilling. At length, wearied with useless expostulation and waste of time, I suggested to Mr. Murray that he should formally sue both of us, in order that Kelly’s obstruction might be got rid10
of; and Mr. Murray, instead of expressing, as lie now affects, horror of this course, said,—“ I am sorry I did not do so before.”—But I insisted that I would not he a party to this step unless it was void of all vindictiveness. About this time Mr. Murray proposed to repay Kelly the loss he stated he had sustained upon the past Numbers of the Review, in amount £30; but strangely enough Mr. Murray solicited me to lend him the money for the purpose until his rents became due in December. Though this request aroused my suspicions, I consented to lend the money; but when my consent had been so far gained for his hidden purpose, he sought to renew the old scheme, and to induce me to pay the money to Kelly direct, by which 1 would be committed to an acknowledgment of liability in every way so dangerous to myself. When he found I was still resolute in resisting this imposition, threats and intimidations were again resorted to, and our connexion closed by the following letter, threatening to sue me before the Recorder:—
“ 1, Upper Pembroke-street. Sunday.
“	have given some attention, since I saw you, to the whole
question between you and Mr. Kelly. I think you had better arrange about the £30 bill due on Tuesday, and then you will be in a position to act as a partner from No. 12. Mr. Kelly states to me that if you do not arrange the matter he will pay it, and sue you for so much paid to your account, before the Recorder.
“ P. J. Murray.”
To this respectable document I sent the following reply:—
“ 3rd July.
“ Sib,—I beg to acknowledge your note of yesterday, and can only say, that if Mr. Kelly takes such a course as you indicate I will resist it.
“ I have done everything in my power for peace. I offered a great deal more than I could afford to be saved trouble and annoyance; in fact I have exhausted every effort that could possibly be made to settle the affairs of the Review amicably, but Kelly has offered nothing whatever; the proper and sensible arrangement made between us early11
last month he, and not I, has hacked out of. If you consider his conduct justifies you in placing him on a par with me in your mind, I cannot help it; hut you must do me the credit of acknowledging that I have met your views in the most liberal spirit; and if this he the last communication we have on the subject, I feel entitled distinctly to charge Kelly with being the impediment to our contemplated connexion. I shall be willing and happy to make any private arrangements with yourself that my means and other pursuits will allow for facilitating any course you may devise in this matter, hut I cannot consent to involve myself in past transactions with which I have no concern whatever.
“ R. Shew.”
I do not object to the ingenuity of the eminent counsel engaged against me, but there are a few statements attributed to them, no doubt inadvertently, that are incorrect. First, it is quite incorrect to allege that my object was to get Kelly to resign the Review. Secondly, that our sole dispute was about a claim of £30. Third, that because I had no shop I could not publish the Review. Fourthly, that I offered to take a shop if it would be resigned to me.
What desire, or interest, or wish, could I have in burthening myself with a work, upon each Number of which there was a serious pecuniary loss? That I could desire such an unprofitable accession, or take a “ shop” for such a purpose, I conceive, requires no refutation. And if Mr. Kelly had the slightest grounds for such a claim as £30 against me, is it likely, is it at all probable, or within the scope of possibility, that he would not have made me pay it. Would he have involved himself in trouble with his “ friend” Mr. Murray, to relieve me from a just debt? or would Mr. Murray have offered to pay £30 for me, a stranger and his opponent, if I was liable to Kelly for it, and if there was not some underhand and concealed motive in the transaction best known to themselves? The supposition12
is utterly untenable, and yet Mr. Murray seeks to be thought liberal and disinterested to me, and to make me out the very reverse.
It has been said that my distinguished counsel’s address was partial and unfair. An outline of the case is now, Sir, before you, and I ask you is not Mr. Lynch’s speech a moderate and an understated defence ? I specially reported it in as meagre a form as a sense of some justice to myself would allow. It occupied upwards of an hour in delivery, and I could not attempt to convey the power and fearless exposure with which he traced out to the jury and a crowded Bar every step and every trick in this tortuous and unprincipled case.
I think I may now inquire if Mr. Murray has conducted him-himself in this transaction befitting the dignity of the profession to which he belongs, and if his conduct is likely to uphold the character and the purity bequeathed to it by those eminent men whose names are stamped upon the page of history, and
“ Whose distant footsteps echo Through the corridors of Time ?”
Or if the reputation of the book trade, heretofore claiming to the character of a profession, can be upheld by such practices as have characterized this transaction?
I fear I have already trespassed too far upon your patience; but the case would not be complete without stating that Mr. Kelly made no defence to the action, and let judgment by default be entered against him for £100 and costs; and yet, upon my arrival at Nenagh, I learned that he had been brought down as Mr. Murray’s witness against me, and was in constant intercourse with him and his attorney. This very party, whom Mr. Murray was supposed to be suing, was really acting as his witness and co-operator against me. I leave you to estimate the character of this proceeding in connexion with every other feature of this reputable case.It is with very great regret I found it impossible to avoid introducing the respected Editor-in-Chief of the Saunders’ newspaper into the details of this case. For that gentleman I possess, in common with most persons in Dublin, the highest respect, but the suppression of my letters, which could not have been effected without his knowledge, has left me no alternative but some reference to him—and this I have done with pain.
It is most reluctantly I have had recourse to so public a vindication of myself, feeling but too strongly that my humble affairs are too unimportant to carry with them any general interest. No other course, however, has been left to me, except silently to sit down with a stigma on my character, which, humble as I am, I must protect as my dearest and best property. If I have expressed myself strongly, it is because I feel strongly; and in endeavouring to rescue my character, and the fruits of many years’ severe toil and industry from unprincipled plunder, if indignation has overcome prudence, I feel I shall not be blamed by those who know the value of the interests I have had to preserve.
I am, Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
RICHARD SHEW.
Dublin, 24th August, 1854.THE
REPORT OF THE TRIAL.
ms. skew’s condensed report. the saundeks’ detailed report.
This was an action for breach of agreement between the proprietor of the Irish Qua/rterly Review and his publishers. Damages were laid at £100.
Mr. Rolleston opened the case for the plaintiff. This was an action arising out of an agreement between the plaintiff, the editor of the Irish Quarterly Review, and his publishers, Messrs. Kelly and Shew. The partnership between these gentlemen had been dissolved, but it did not affect Mr. Murray’s rights; and as they could not agree to publish his work, he had to do so himself, and sued them for the damages provided by the agreement.
Mr. Hemphil l opened the pleadings, and stated there was a demurrer to the whole cause of action; and also a defence, upon which the issues to be tried were:—1st. Whether the plaintiff had furnished the original matter and literary composition for the fourteenth N umber of the Irish Quarterly Review; 2nd. Whether the defendant, Shew, had been prevented from publishing said fourteenth Humber by any neglect or default of the plaintiff; and, 3rd. Whether the plaintiff had agreed to waive and abandon an agreement in the plaint mentioned, to bear date the 23rd day of August, 1854.
Mr. Rolleston, Q. C., (with whom were Mr. R. Armstrong, Q.C., Mr. Lover, and Mr. Hemphill), stated the plaintiff’s case. He said it was very plain and simple, and that Mr. Murray had been reluctantly obliged to resort to law to enforce his undoubted rights. Mr. Murray was the proprietor of the Irish Quarterly Review, eleven Numbers of which had been published for him by the defendant, Kelly. In August, 1853, Kelly took Shew into15
THE SAUNDERS*
partnership, and by an agreement in writing, dated 23rd August,
1853,	and made between the partners Kelly and Shew of the one part, and Mr. Murray of the other part, Mr. Murray agreed to give the publication of the twelfth and following Numbers down to, and including the sixteenth Number, to Kelly and Shew; and Kelly and Shew agreed to print and publish said Numbers at their own sole risk and expense, Mr. Murray expressly reserving to himself the entire literary controul and management of the Review. Yery soon after that agreement was come to Kelly and Shew di ffercd between themselves, and in November, 1853, they dissolved partnership. To that dissolution Mr. Murray was no party, nor had he anything to do with it, and his rights, under the agreement of 23rd August, 1853, remained unaffected, and consequently the obligation of Kelly and Shew to print and publish the twelfth and following Numbers of the R iew continued. In consequence of disagreements between Kelly and Shew, a difficulty was experienced in procuring the publication of the thirteenth Number; and the consequence was, that in April,
1854,	when the fourteenth Number, which should be published on 1st of June, 1854, was in the printers’ hands, the printers, Messrs. Goodwin, Son, and Ne-thercott, refused to print unless secured the expense, and they communicated their intention to Kelly by letter of 5th April, 1854. That letter was forwarded to Shew,
DETAILED REPORT.
and was followed by a very long notice from Shew to Kelly and the plaintiff, dated 6th of April, 1854, offering to print and publish the fourteenth Number at his (Shew’s) own sole expense, if plaintiff wouldfurnish him (Shew) with the literary matter for it. Mr. Murray’s reply was, that the literary matter was already in the printers’ hands, and he could not undertake to furnish it over again to Mr. Shew. Some other notices passed between the parties, and by notice of 17th of April, 1854, Mr. Shew unequivocally stated that the fault lay with Mr. Kelly alone, in refusing to resign the publication to him {Shew). Mr. Murray, early in June, 1854, met Kelly and Shew at the printers’, and finding that the dispute between the parties was as to a sum of £30, which Kelly claimed from Shew, Mr. Murray, in order, if possible, to reconcile these persons, offered to pay that sum out of his own pocket, if defendants would co-operate for the future, and publish the Review pursuant to their agreement. But that offer was not accepted, and the upshot was that Mr. Murray, in order to prevent the stoppage of the publication, was obliged to make himself personally answer-able to the printers for their bill, £32 17s. 7d. The agreement of 23rd August, 1853, provided that either party violating it should be liable to pay £100 as liquidated damages; and for that amount Mr. Murray was clearly entitled to a verdict.16
MK. SHEw’s CONDENSED EE POET.	THE SATJNDEEs’ DETAILED EE PORT.
Mr. J. P. Murray examined by Mr. Murray was then exa-Mr. E. Abmstbong, Q. 0.—Made mined.—Identified the agreement; an agreement with the firm of never directly or indirectly agreed Kelly and Shew, that they should to waive or abandon it; knew of
publish the 12th, 13th, 14th, 15 th the dissolution of Kelly and Shew’s
and 16 th Kos. of the Irish Review; partnership when it took place; he had to print the 14th Hum- had nothing to do with it; ever ber at his own expense, and had since the first publication of the paid the printers’ account, amount- Review, the course had been to ing to £32.	furnish the literary matter to the
printers direct, and witness pursued the same course without objection from Shew or any one else up to the present time; such was the usual and proper course, and a part of the “literary management,” which the agreement expressly reserved to witness; a great part of the literary matter was furnished to the printers, in the usual course of business, long before the receipt of Mr. Shew’s notice of 6th April, 1854; Mr. Kelly had a shop in Grafton-street, where the Review had always been published ; Mr. Shew was in Hodges and Smith’s employment, and had no shop of his own, nor any means of publishing the Review; witness never knew or saw Mr. Shew on business until early in June, 1854, when witness by appointment met Kelly and Shew together, at the printers on the subject of the printing of the fourteenth Humber ; witness then offered to pay out of his own pocket £30, which Kelly claimed from Shew, if Kelly and Shew would only agree to work amicably together; Shew said to witness, “ you ought to sue Kelly and me—you will recover £100 from us, and then under threat of an execution for that sum, you can make Kelly do what you like;” witness was ultimately obliged to secure the printers’ bill.17
ME. SHEw’s CONDENSED EEPOET.
Cross-examined by Mr. D. Lynch, Q. C.—Made the agreement with the firm of Kelly and Shew; is aware that firm was dissolved before this agreement came into force; is aware that Kelly published the Review at his sole expense and responsibility since then; knew that Mr. Shew took no part in the publication of the Review, in consequence of the dissolution of partnership with Kelly; never saw Mr. Shew until June, this year; Kelly refused to pay for the expenses of No. 13; Shew offered to publish No. 14 at his own expense; witness refused to give Mr. Shew the MS., alleging he could not do so without Kelly’s consent; Kelly would not consent; notwithstanding this, witness gave Kelly the whole impression of No. 14 to sell, and gave all the advantage to the partner who refused to print it, and refused every opportunity to the partner who offered to keep the agreement.
Mr. R,. Nethercott examined by H. Lovek, Esq.—Witness is the printer of the Irish Quarterly Review, and has been so from its commencement; had always received the manuscript from Mr. Murray, and was always paid by Kelly; had been in the habit of receiving a quantity of the manuscript a considerable time prior to publication; such was the usual course of business; received a
THE SAUNDEES’ DETAILED EEPOET.
Cross-examined by Me. Lynch, Q. C.—Witness brought the present action bond fide and for his own protection; had no arrangement with Kelly; thought when the action was first brought that Kelly would have defended it; Kelly always offered to pay half the expense of the printing if Shew would pay the other half; Shew would not contribute anything unless witness would take the publication from Kelly and give it altogether to Shew; witness did not conceive he would be justified in so doing, nor did he think he had any power or right to do so ; he wished to stand fairly between both Kelly and Shew, and not to give any advantage to one of them over the other; Shew said he would take a shop to publish the Review in, if witness would give the publication exclusively to him; witness conceived that to do so would be a breach of witness’ contract with Kelly and Shew, and would be unfair; witness thought both Kelly and Shew had claims on witness’ consideration, and that neither should be preferred or favoured by witness to the prejudice of the other, and witness told them both so.
Mr. NethercottexaminedbyMr. Lovee.—Printed the 14th Number of the Review on Mr. Murray’s credit; Mr. Murray made himself answerable for it, otherwise it would not have been printed; the literary matter for the 14th Number was furnished by Mr. Murray in the customary course of business, and a great part of it was set up before the month ofApril,1854.
Cross-examined by Mr. Lawson.18
MR. SHEw’s CONDENSED REPORT.
portion of the manuscript for No. 14 of the Revieiv, before 5th April; could not get paid for No. 13 by Kelly, and Mr. Murray printed and paid for No. 14 himself; applied to Mr. Kelly and to Mr. Shew for payment of No. 14; applied by letter; could get no settlement; applied by Mr. Murray’s directions.
Cross-examined by J. A. Law-son, Esq.—Have you been paid for No. 14 by Kelly ? Yes.
How ? By a four months’ bill of exchange.
H. Lover Esq.—You are mistaking No. 13 for No. 14.
Chief Justice Monahan.—You may be a quick printer, but you are a very slow witness.
Cross-examination resumed..— Who paid you for No. 14 ? Mr. Murray.
How ? By a hill of exchange at four months.
Would you not have printed No. 14 of the Review for Mr. Shew ? Yes.
Mr. Lynch, Q. C.—Gentlemen of the jury, I am counsel for Mr. Shew, and find very great difficulty, indeed, in understanding what Mr. Murray’s case is. We have heard of curiosities in literature, hut, in my mind, gentlemen, this action is a curiosity in law; and we are very much in the habit, when we
the saunders’ detailed report. —Mr. Murray paid for it by a bill of exchange, to which Kelly was no party; it was the draft of Goodwin, Son, and Nethercott on Mr. Murray, and not yet due.
Mr. Shew was examined on his own behalf, and stated that he was always willing to publish the Revieiv if Kelly would give it up, and that Mr. Murray appeared willing to give the publication to witness if Kelly would consent, but Mr. Murray would not, without Kelly’s consent, give the publication to witness.
Mr. R. Armstrong, Q. C., in reply, said, his learned friend, Mr. Lynch, had expressed his inability to understand the plaintiff’s case, and had termed it extraordinary and unprecedented. If the j ury were as well accustomed as he (Mr. A.) was to that style of observation, they would find in itMR. SHEW’» CONDENSED DEPORT.
meet what we call an attorney’s action, of leaning very heavily on that branch of the profession; and, gentlemen, I don’t see that when we meet with a barrister’s action, we should spare a member of that branch of the profession, merely because he is one of ourselves. You have heard from Mr. Murray himself, on the table, that this is his first appearance at Henagh. I regret very much that, on his first appearance, he is not in his own proper place, as a barrister, instead of endeavouring to get out of the pocket of my client a special fee of £100, with which he intends to pay himself, or to pay his bill, given to the printer, and which is not yet due, and with the change, gentlemen, to enjoy a pleasant summer excursion. But though my brethren here, as well as myself, shall be happy to hear of his enjoying his summer’s excursion, I hope it shall not be at my client’s expense. But really, gentlemen, I cannot think that Mr. Murray intends to seek from Mr. Shew, who was always ready to fulfil his agreement, not only his own part of the agreement but Kelly’s also, damages which would be unjust and vindictive. You will remember from the evidence given by Mr. Murray himself, that KeUy was the party who was the obstruction and the obstacle to publishing the Review, unless he forced on Mr. Shew his own unjust and oppressive terms. Yet is it to Kelly, the unjust and dishonest partner, that every facility and advantage are afforded by Mr. Murray ; and to Mr. Shew, the just and honest partner, he
THE SAUNDERS DETAILED REVORT.
nothing but the usual language stereotyped for every case in which his learned friend foresaw he had not a leg to stand on. A simpler or a juster case on Mr. Murray’s part it was difficult to conceive'. Kelly and Shew were bound to print and publish at their own expense: they quarrelled, and threw that expense on Mr. Murray, and what was plainer than that they should now bear the consequences. Had Mr. Murray any other alternative than to come into Court, unless he was satisfied to submit to imposition ? He had behaved generously in the hope of reconciling the defendants; he had offered to pay £30 out of his own pocket, as detailed in the evidence, if they would work the Review amicably for the future; and now his reward was to be abused by Shew’s counsel, and to be represented as desiring to make money by this breach of agreement, and amuse himself during the long vacation on the fruits of a verdict. He (Mr. Armstrong) listened to that charge with indignation, and denounced it as a calumny. Thirteen Numbers of the Review had been published, and if the fourteenth had, through the default of the defendants, not appeared, would any one say that £100 was not a most moderate sum, as liquidated damages, to compensate Mr. Murray for the destruction of his literary property ? That the fourteenth Humber had appeared was not the work of Kelly and Shew, or either of them; Mr. Murray himself was obliged to bring it out, and if he now sued for the expense of doingME. SHEW S CONDENSED HEPOET. THE SAUNDEKs’ DETAILED KEPOET.
refuses the slightest facility for so, what rational ground of corn-performing the agreement, on foot plaint existed on defendant’s part? of which he drags him here. But And yet Mr. Lynch had exhibited from this course of unfair dealing, a heat and incandescence in the gentlemen, you will be able to case which every one interested discover that this is not Mr. Mur- in the preservation of his learned ray’s action, but that his name friend’s health must deplore (a has been used as the only means laugh). Shew was in truth the by which Kelly could force on cause of this litigation; for, in Mr. Shew the unjust and unfair requiring Mr. Murray to with-terms which he has in vain en- draw the publication from Kelly deavoured to impose on him from and give it exclusively to him the dissolution of their co-part- (Shew), as the condition on which nership up to the present time. Shew would publish, he knew he And to counteract that design, was imposing an impossible condi-and to save himself from being tion, one which Mr. Murray could robbed by Kelly, Mr. Shew’s only not, in law or honour, comply mode was to defend this action, with. What right would Mr. I have not the least doubt, gen- Murray have to exclude Kelly to tlemen, that in your hands this please Shew, or to exclude Shew design will meet its deserved sue- to please Kelly ? Mr. Murray had cess. (The learned gentleman’s steered a straightforward course address was listened to with great between these two men; but attention by a crowded court.) Shew’s object was to get to himself alone the benefit and advantage of the publication, and with that view he had proposed to Mr. Murray to sue himself and Kelly, to get judgment for £100 against them, and under terror of an execution for that sum to force Kelly into submission. If Mr. Murray were capable of such conduct he would he, indeed, obnoxious to Mr. Lynch’s observations. As to looking for £100, he heard Mr. Lynch’s remarks with astonishment as well as indignation, and on Mr. Murray’s part he wholly repudiated the idea of seeking anything in the action beyond indemnity. He would not visit on the client the indiscretion of his advocate; and now, in consistency with every part of Mr. Mur-21
MB. skew’s condensed bepokt.
Judgment by default was then entered against Kelly, for £100 damages and costs; and a compromise offered by Mr. Murray was accepted by the other party.
False in every particular, as no such language was used by any of the parties; the object of introducing it into the case, and yarticularly into this, the latter part of it, that would remain in the reader's mind, is manifest.
THE SAUNDEBS’ DETAILED BEPOBT.
ray’s conduct in this matter, he made this offer :—Let Shew’s demurrer be withdrawn ; let a verdict be taken for £32 17s. 7d., and he would not press for the £100 as liquidated damages ; but let it be distinctly understood that this offer was made not in deference to any of Mr. Lynch’s unworthy observations, or from any doubt that, in point of law the full £100 was recoverable as liquidated damages, but simply because Mr. Murray wanted nothing but indemnity against loss, and did not seek to press the case unnecessarily against either of the defendants.
Kelly had let judgment go by default.
f Chief Justice Monahan.—I think Shew was a very ill-advised young man to defend this action.
Me. Lynch, Q.C.—If time 1 for payment be given until No-J vember, we will accept the ] offer made by Mr. Armstrong.
Me. Aemsteono.—Shew may have until the 1st December;
I Mr. Murray has no wish to be l harsh with him.
A verdict was then taken for the plaintiff for £32 17s. 7d., and
6d. costs, with stay of execution until first of December next.
(/ may observe, in conclusion, if Mr. Kelly does not satisfactorily settle for the above verdict and the costs incurred, and also my own costs, before the first day of next Term, that my Solicitor will bring him up before the Court to compel him to do so, by the power I possess under the dissolution of partnership between us)