The Carlisle Journal, Carlisle’ first newspaper, was founded in 1798.

A liberal weekly, it advocated civil and religious liberty and free political comment (source).

And in 1873, some of its comments angered Thomas Gibson Cant.

Thomas Gibson Cant

Thomas Gibson Cant, a Penrith solicitor whose gravestone can be seen in the main image, has appeared in two posts so far.

Part one involved the John Westmorland seduction case, and a claim for libel.

Part two involved the Robert Hindson fish cases.

The 1873 libel case was to draw them all together.

The libel action

ACTION FOR LIBEL AGAINST THE “CARLISLE JOURNAL.” 

This was an action brought by Thomas Gibson Cant against Messrs. Robert James, and William Steel, publishers of the Carlisle Journal for libel in an issue published on 21/6/1872.

Carlisle Express and Examiner 26/7/1873.

Thomas Gibson Cant was seeking £500 in damages.

He reckoned the Carlisle Journal had had ‘malicious feeling’ towards him for years: since 1866, when he’d advised John Westmorland to sue the paper for libel (see the seduction case )

Since then, the Carlisle Journal had more than once published things that ‘had a tendency to annoy and irritate Mr Cant and make him the laughing stock of the neighbourhood as a pettifogging attorney’. 

In the March 1872 fish case, Superintendent Fowler had acted as witness, prosecutor and advocate. 

Mr Cant had later presented a petition to the bench against the police superintendent conducting police cases.

The Journal had commented on the number of signatories: not seen, but 

‘unless the legal profession is exceedingly strong in Penrith, we should begin to suspect Mr Cant was only doing a little bit touting on his own account’. …

Mr Cant was annoyed that he was being accused of presenting the petition for his own advantage, that he was touting for business in a most disreputable, reprehensible, and disgraceful manner. 

He’d written a long letter to the Journal, which they didn’t publish. 

The Carlisle Journal’s defence

The defendants’ solicitor, Joseph Bendle, said his letter 

‘contained so much that is utterly foreign to the subject to which it is intended to refer, and is couched in language so unjustifiable and so offensive, not only to my clients but to the bench and the police, that my clients could not possibly insert it in their newspaper’… 

However, their columns were open to fair and reasonable comment, including on their own conduct.  

Also, the original article was fair comment.

It seems the letter that wasn’t published ran to ‘four and five sheets of paper’. 

Mr Cant had abandoned the previous libel case only after putting (the Journal) to the greatest possible expense, and after making Mr Westmorland bankrupt to avoid the responsibility of costs… 

‘and (I) suggest for your consideration whether your conduct in that matter does not savour much more of vindictiveness than anything you attribute to my clients’.

Was it libel?

A key plank in libel law has always been whether the remark(s) damaged the person in their professional life.

Mr Cant was cross-examined by Mr Bendle as to whether his business had fallen off as a result of the alleged libel. He thought his conveyancing business, Cant and Fairer, hadn’t been so good in the last 12 months. (An 1884 directory lists Cant and Fairerat 23 Southend Road)

Asked if his name appeared in ALL the county newspapers: “I requested Mr Bendle that they should not let it appear any more.”

(An interesting grasp of how the press work!).

Mr Bendle said that saying someone was ‘touting for business’ wasn’t libellous: there was nothing wrong in seeking business. 

The court heard that Mr Cant had also accused the Journal, in a ‘private letter,’ of taking money from Mr MacOubrey to print his words in full. 

The Carlisle Journal had printed that letter! 

The court was also told about the public meeting Mr Cant had called (see part 2), to criticise the police, which was attended by more than 1,500 local people. And that three of the eight or nine Penrith legal firms signed his petition: his owner, Fairer, and an S K James.

The summing-up

The judge advised the jury to decide: 

1. if the Journal article was libellous. 
2. if so, was it fair comment on a matter of general interest? 
3. were the defendants actuated by malice (which would lose them their ‘privilege’ (freedom to report court hearings)? 

As for the John Westmorland case: the Journal reporting what was said in court, without comment, was not libel. Westmorland would have lost the case.

Re the ‘private’ letter accusing the counsel of offering the reporter 10s to print his speech, Mr Cant had thrown unfounded insinuations against Mr MacOubrey, not believing them to be true. If this was a joke or sarcasm, he could hardly complain of sarcasm against himself. 

He then spoke about the accusations by Mr Cant against the magistrates, imputing them of unworthy motives. The idea that the men had the right to resist the police because they were innocent was one thing, but to say that jailing them for assault reflected disgrace upon the Bench was another. Hindson and Hodgson had been convicted of poaching before and the police had every right to stop them. 

He personally thought superintendents of police should not conduct prosecutions, but the police were ordered to do it and could not be blamed.

Was Mr Cant actuated by the highest principles (in the H&H case), or was it 

‘an indecent attempt to bring the administration of the law improperly into contempt and disgrace, and an endeavour to set the uneducated (the people at his meeting) against it?’

If the latter, he could hardly complain..

He then spoke about damages, if they found in favour. 

VERDICT for the plaintiff. 

DAMAGES one farthing*.

Mr Holker (for Mr Cant) applied for costs, but his Lordship declined, saying the verdict was quite right upon both points.

*the smallest coin of the realm, worth 1/4 of a penny.