From the Maidstone Telegraph, Saturday 1 January, 1859. Price 1d.

ACTION FOR SLANDER Morrell v. Baker

This case was tried before the Guildhall, London, last week, before Lord Campbell.

Mr. Chambers, in opening the case, said that the plaintiff and defendant were medical practitioners, and had not been on very good terms. It appeared that in 1857 Mr. Morrell took a business at Cranbrook, and in March, 1858, Mr. Baker succeeded to a practice in the same town. In the beginning of June last, Mr. Baker hinted to Dr. Dunhill that Mr. Morrell was not a licentiate of the Apothecaries' Company, and his name only appeared as surgeon in the Medical Directory in 1853; and on the 24th June, at a meeting at the “Bull Inn,” Mr. Baker made use of words, signifying that the plaintiff was an unqualified person; in consequence of which the present action had been brought.

Mr. John Morrell, the plaintiff, said, he became a licentiate of the Apothecaries Company in 1855, and a member of the College of Surgeons in 1840, and in 1857 he purchased a practice from a Mr. Blackwell, in Cranbrook, for £85. In March last, Mr. Baker succeeded to another practice, he did not, as is usual, call upon him. At the “Bull Inn,” on the 24th June, there was a meeting with respect to forming a doctor's club, in connection with the Cranbrook Provident Institute, at which he attended, and on being called to make his proposition, was about stating his intentions with respect to the club when Mr. Baker entered the room. He approached the table in a very excited manner and said, before the proceedings went any further he would make a few observations, when he said that he (the plaintiff) was an unqualified practitioner, and quite incapable of taking this club; and wondered how he could have the impudence to show his face in the room, knowing that he was not a legally qualified man, which he could prove by a book he (the defendant) then held in his hand, in which his name was down only as “John Morrell, Surgeon;” and further stated that he never looked upon him as a respectable, qualified practitioner, and would not take the slightest notice of him; whereupon the members put it to the vote and that he (the plaintiff) should leave, and he left in consequence; Mr. Baker remaining. Subsequently a correspondence took place between the attorneys, with a view to settle the matter, and the present action was brought. An execution had been put into his house, and all the goods were sold in consequence, and he then went to stay at Dr. Jobsons.

Cross-examined:- have a reason to declining to state where I now reside. Had drawn up an apology, but Mr. Baker refused to sign it. I subsequently went to another firm in London, but they refused to act, and I then employed my present attorney. Had practiced at Carshalton; but refused to say why he left. Had never told Mr. Dunk, a tailor, living at Cranbrook, that I refused to pay his bill until I had my damages in the action.

The correspondence with Mr. Baker was then read, and it appeared that the plaintiff drew up an apology, in which Mr. Baker was to confess that he had made a most unwarrantable and slanderous attack upon the plaintiff, and to retract everything of an injurious nature which he might have said against him; and also to confess that all he had said was wholly without foundation, and had just reason to consider that Mr. Morrell was a duly qualified and honourable member of the medical profession. To which Mr. Baker replied that to such an apology no gentleman could affix his name; but would sign an apology dictated by any respectable attorney, admitting that he had made an erroneous statement.

Mr. Macauley in addressing the court, contended that it was a shabby action on the part of the plaintiff, who was not entitled to damages to pay his debts.

Mr. Thomas Baker, the defendant, said he was first qualified as a medical man in 1833, and had practiced since in Bristol and Hampshire. On the 2nd June he called upon Mr. Dunhill and asked him to join with him in a letter to the Apothecaries' company, to interfere with Mr. Morrell. Mr. Dunhill said, “Is he not duly qualified,” and I said I believe he was not, for I could not find his name among the list of apothecaries as late as 1853, to which Mr. Dunhill replied that he should not interfere; he could not get more than £100 a year, let him alone, and he would soon work himself out. Mr. Morrell was speaking when he (the defendant) entered the room and walked quietly up to the table, and said that he believed (Mr. Morrell) was not a duly qualified practitioner, and the book he then held in his hand would prove it. Mr. Morrell said, “You're a liar.” A member was then voted to the chair, and a motion was carried that he should withdraw.

Cross-examined:- had written to Mr. Davis, at Weston-Supermare, and a few days afterwards heard that an execution had been put in and Mr. Morrell was sold up.

Lord Campbell, in summing up, remarked that the plaintiff and the defendant did little credit to their profession, and that defendant had acted most unjustifiably in endeavouring to persecute the plaintiff, and injure him in his profession. On the other hand, the plaintiff was a rolling stone, and his antecedents did not appear very distinctly. He had refused the defendant's offer of conciliation, and proposed to him such an apology as would have most likely blasted the defendant's reputation for life had he signed it. He Lord Campbell thought that if they found a verdict for the plaintiff small damages would suffice.

The Jury then returned with a verdict for the plaintiff, damaged £50.