REMARKABLE TRIALS.

I.

THE CITY LIBEL CASE.

RUBERY V. GRANT AND SAMPSON.

THIS was an action for libel, brought by Mr. Alfred Rubery, of Hazelwood Lodge, Birmingham, against Mr. Sampson, formerly the City editor of the "Times." The counsel for the plaintiff were the Solicitor-General (Sir John Holker), Mr. Hume Williams, Mr. Douglas Straight, and Mr. Percy Gye; for Mr. Albert Grant, Mr. Day, Q.C., Mr. Grantham, and Mr. Reid; and for Mr. Sampson, Mr. H. Giffard, Q.C., Sir Henry James, Q.C., and Mr. J. O. Griffits. The alleged libels appeared in the "Times" of Nov. 18 and Dec. 20 and 21, 1872, the defendant Sampson being at that time City editor of that paper.

The proceedings were opened on Dec. 18, 1874, by the Solicitor-General, Sir John Holker. He stated that the plaintiff was a gentleman residing near Birmingham, the son of a manufacturer in that town; the first defendant, Mr. Sampson, was the writer of the "Money Article" in the "Times," and the other defendant, Baron Albert Grant, was a banker and financial agent in the City. The libels complained of were contained in some articles in the "Times," imputing to the plaintiff that he was party to the gross fraud in the year 1872, known as "the Great Californian Diamond Swindle," which was exposed in that newspaper. Mr. Sampson had admitted that he was the writer of the articles in question, and pleaded that he was justified in writing them, as they were true in substance and fact. Baron Grant had simply pleaded "Not Guilty," which meant that he had nothing to do with the publication of the articles, but Mr. Rubery asserted that he had instigated Mr. Sampson to write them. The plaintiff had in 1862 travelled in America, and there making the acquaintance of Mr. Harpending, he had, in conjunction with him and some other Southern gentlemen, fitted out a privateer to act against the Northern fleet; before the vessel was out of harbour she was seized, the plaintiff was, with Mr. Harpending, tried and sentenced to imprisonment and fine, but was eventually pardoned through the intervention of Mr. John Bright, and returned to England. This act of fitting out the privateer was charged in the libels as being an act of piracy. On his return to England the plaintiff went into business in Birmingham, but failed in 1869, paying, however, 20s. in the pound to his creditors. In the same year, Harpending came to England, and tried with the plaintiff to form a company to work some mineral property owned by himself and others, called the Pyramid Range. This scheme was unsuccessful because it was written against in the "Times; "

but Harpending and Rubery coming in contact with Baron Grant, that gentleman, it was alleged, said that if he had taken the matter in hand, he would have made the fortune of the Pyramid Range; he knew Sampson, a man of great literary attainments, but a man not above temptation, and he had him under his thumb, and could make him do what he liked. Baron Grant then, in conjunction with Rubery and Harpending, formed the Californian Mining Company, but a dispute having arisen between Grant and the plaintiff, which was compromised by the former paying a considerable sum of money, he was reported to have told Rubery that if he and Harpending brought out a company, he would have it condemned in the "Times," through the instrumentality of Sampson.

In 1871 Harpending again visited England, and communicated to the plaintiff the rumour afloat of a great diamond discovery. A man named Lent came over from America, and told Harpending and Rubery of the nature of the discovery and the value of the stones, and they all three agreed to go out to the States together. The discovery was admitted (said the Solicitor-General) to be a gross fraud from beginning to end; no diamonds natural to the soil were there; a tract of land had been "salted," and although it was undoubtedly known to some persons, it was not known to everybody. In April or May 1872, an expedition to view the "diamond fields" started, led by one Arnold, and consisting of Harpending, Rubery, M. Janin, a mining engineer of considerable reputation, and a few others. The diamond field was situated in the neighbourhood of the Green River, near the Snake River. They commenced their search, and found some diamonds and rubies. Steps were taken to form a company to work the fields, other companies were afterwards formed, and allotments of land given them. When the expedition first found their way to the field, they gave glowing accounts of the discovery, and were interviewed by newspaper editors and reporters. The plaintiff is said to have stated that his foot struck against an ant-hill, and stooping down to look at it, he found it filled with diamonds and rubies. He would deny ever having said such a thing, but if he did, the greater fool was the reporter who believed it. After a time public suspicion was roused. Articles appeared in the “Times" newspaper. The American public was warned not to be credulous. At length the fraud was discovered. It was a fraud, and Rubery had been gulled and deceived like the rest. Upon the discovery being made, the people who had lost their money were naturally very angry. The matter was laid before a grand jury in America for enquiry; the plaintiff was at once dismissed, and others were convicted. There was no evidence against the plaintiff, and the grand jury were satisfied he had nothing to do with the fraud.

The plaintiff returned to this country, and had been living here ever since; but, unfortunately for him, on his return he found that the "Times" had been very busy about the diamond swindle, and not only with that, but with his name. The Solicitor-General then read the libels of which the plaintiff complained. They were published in the "Times" of Nov. 18 and Dec. 20 and 21, 1872, and were written avowedly by the defendant Sampson.

One paragraph was as follows:-" In the accounts received some weeks back of the Arizona mining discoveries,' it was narrated that one of the party, ‘an intelligent young Englishman named Rubery' (there is an intelligent Englishman or an eminent English mining engineer in every Californian speculation), stumbling upon an ant-hill, found on examination that the mound was composed of rubies and diamonds. It might have been hoped that before this our fortunate countryman would have communicated interesting details to some

family or other connexions on this side, where they would have met with proper attention; but nothing has since been heard of him. His Christian name was not mentioned, and the surname of Rubery appears common in California. A Mr. Rubery was understood to have been interested in some way in the Lincoln gold mining affair, and a Mr. Rubery, an Englishman, was arrested in San Francisco in the winter of 1862 for fitting up a schooner called the 'Chapman' as a privateer.”

The second libel contained the following paragraph :-"The greatest swindle ever exposed in America' is the heading placed by the New York Sun' to the full history just received of the Californian diamond frauds. It details how in August last two men, named Slack and Arnold, came to San Francisco as discoverers of the diamond-field, and associated themselves with several persons, Lent, Harpending, Roberts, and others; how Mr. Henry Janin, a mining expert, was chosen to survey the locality, and reported it as 'a wonderfully safe and attractive' property; how all the prominent business men of San Francisco, together with their connexions in New York, rushed into the investment; how the articles on the subject in the London Times' on the transparent folly of the whole affair created misgivings which induced those parties to order a new survey under Mr. Clarence King, United States' geologist; and how that authority at once ascertained it to have been the contrivance of 'swindlers of no common order.' This result, however, was not attained until the concoctors of the business had escaped with about 130,000l., or, as is alleged in some accounts, 400,0007.—which is still a trifle compared with what might have been obtained from the American and English public had the exposures been delayed even for a few weeks.

دو

The Solicitor-General only read a portion of the third libel, which had appeared in the form of a leader in the "Times."

In conclusion the Solicitor-General said: The plaintiff had applied for redress; he could get none, and was driven to bring this action. Sampson had confessed to having written the libels, and the only question with him was, were the accusations true? With regard to Baron Grant, his (the Solicitor-General's) instructions were, that they were written at the instigation of Baron Grant by Sampson, and personally paid for by Grant. He would have to go into matters about Grant and Sampson, and should ask the jury to infer that Grant knew all about these libels, that he carried out his threat, and ordered Sampson, whom he stated to be under his thumb, to attack Rubery. That the plaintiff joined the expeditions was not denied, but it was denied that he was a party to the fraud.

The examination of the plaintiff occupied the court two days, and corroborated the Solicitor-General's statements.

The deposition of M. Janin (taken at the commision in America) was next read. It stated that he was a mining engineer, and that in May 1872, being in New York, Lent and Dodge called upon him and met by appointment at the Metropolitan Hotel, when Harpending came, and the diamond affair was discussed, and he was requested to go out to the fields and make an examination of them. When search was made in his presence, Rubery was the first man to announce that he had found a diamond, and Janin said, "Come, Rubery, is that honest now?" He said it was; it was no joke he was perpetrating. Where Rubery found the stone it was a thin drift of alluvial deposit of gravel, conglomerate, and sand. Janin himself found some diamonds and rubies, and the whole amount found was between 800 and 1,000, but most of them were exceedingly small. It appeared from the deposition that other parties had

L

been organised, but that they carne to nothing. Janin went on to say that he made another trip to the fields, accompanied by King. "I examined the ground (he said), and truly enough found rubies there, where they had been put for inspection, but found them nearly all superficial, not extending downward, and, as was very clear, fraudulently placed there." He went on to say that he formed an opinion that the discovery of gems was a fraud and a “sell,” and he entertained that opinion still. In cross-examination, he stated that he saw nothing in the conduct and manner of Rubery at the time when he visited the field with him which led him to suspect then or afterwards that he had any complicity in the fraud. After his first visit it appeared that M. Janin was so impressed with the genuineness of the affair that he purchased stock in the undertaking to the amount of 10,000 dols.

Baron Albert Grant was then called by the Solicitor-General,-He said, I am a banker and financial agent in London. I have also had a good deal to do with some companies established here and abroad. I remember the Pyramid Range Company, and I saw a money article in the "Times" respecting it on Jan. 30, 1871. At that time I was acquainted with Mr. Sampson. I have known him for 25 years, but more intimately during the last 10 or 15 years. He was City editor of the "Times," and I believe he had the management of the money article, but I don't know how he was controlled in Printing House Square. Soon after the date of the article I understood the Pyramid Range Company collapsed, but I did not know it of my own knowledge. I met Mr. Harpending within a month or two of the publication of the article. I had not seen him before, but I knew he was connected with the Pyramid Range scheme. Mr. Frederick Doulton, M.P. for Lambeth, introduced him. They came to my office in Old Broad Street. Rubery was with them. I never exchanged a word with Rubery. Doulton mentioned shortly before this interview the Mineral Hill Mine, which he said had been described as a fine property. He mentioned the name of Harpending as a person interested in the property. I had a conversation with Harpending about the mine, and I saw him two or three times afterwards. I was instrumental in forming the Mineral Hill Company-that would be three or four months after my first interview with Harpending, in June or July. There was also a company which had been formed previously by me-the Californian Mining Company (Limited). There never was a prospectus. There were articles of association, but I have not got them. The Californian Company purchased the Mineral Hill property. Before I would have anything to do with the matter I required that Messrs. Taylor and Sons, the eminent mining engineers, should inspect the mine and report whether the statements of Harpending were true. The Californian Mining Company was formed to buy mines in California. They first nominally purchased the Mineral Hill Mine from Harpending, and after the report of Messrs. Taylor and Sons, they actually purchased it and sold it to the Mineral Hill Company. The mine is in Nevada. The report was received in May 1871. I had the greatest reliance on Messrs. Taylor and Sons, and their report was satisfactory. There was an agreement between me and Harpending, either directly or indirectly. The Mineral Hill Company went into liquidation 15 months ago. It was a silver mine. I cannot tell from memory what it was sold for to the Californian Company. I think it was sold for 230,0007., and it was resold to the Mineral Hill Company for the same sum, together with any surplus profits over and above the sum required for the debentures issued by the latter company, and the sinking fund.

Some little difficulty having been found in understanding the exact nature

of the transactions, Baron Grant explained that the Californian Company purchased the mine from Harpending for 230,0001,, or 240,000l. in cash, and authorised him to form the Mineral Hill Company, which issued debentures to the public to about the same amount. Asked what profit the Californian Company were to make, he said they did not earn a penny, unless there were profits over and above the amount necessary for the debentures and the sinking fund; and, as the result was, they did not make a penny profit.

Baron Grant was then examined as to his settlement of the Chancery suits instituted by Harpending and Rubery. He said they were settled by the payment of 12,000l. and 5,000 shares in the Mineral Hill Company. Examination continued: Mr. Sampson never mentioned Rubery's name to me, nor did I mention it to him. Did you ever give Mr. Sampson any money for the publication of articles in the "Times"?-Never. Either on your own behalf or on behalf of companies with which you were connected?-Never. The question was then repeated in this form :-Did you, either on your own account or as agent for any company, pay money to Mr. Sampson for printing and publishing articles in the money article of the "Times"?-No. Did you in 1871 pay 2,500l. to Mr. Sampson? Mr. Day: I object, as irrelevant, to any evidence of the pecuniary transactions, if there are any, between Baron Grant and Mr. Sampson. There has been no evidence to connect Baron Grant with the articles in the "Times." The Lord Chief Baron: I think the question is strictly admissible. At the request of Mr. Day, his objection was placed on the record. The Solicitor-General said he had been instructed to put the question, and he felt it to be his duty to do so. He would put it in this form: Did you, on your own account, or on the account of any company, pay Mr. Sampson 2,5001. ?—Not having my books here I cannot say yes or no. I have already emphatically denied that I ever gave Mr. Sampson a shilling to induce him to write articles in the "Times," nor is he the man to receive money for such a purpose. I appeal to your lordship whether I should go into the details of my transactions with Mr. Sampson as to investments I may have made for him, the stock I may have sold for him, and the money I have paid to him.

The subpoena duces tecum was read, and Baron Grant accordingly produced his books, and after answering questions respecting the various cheques given to Mr. Sampson, said that the entire sum of 2,500l. was given him on account of his losses in the Labuan Coal Company. He was further asked :

Did you pay Mr. Sampson a considerable sum in 1872?-I can't say one way or other without the books. Will you swear you did not give Mr. Sampson 5,000l. without any consideration in 1872?--I really cannot swear; I have no memory on the subject. Supposing you gave that sum, what was it for?Probably it was given in the usual way in the City. Was it a free gift?—If I paid him any sums it was in reference to profits on allotments of stock, which persons in influential positions like Mr. Sampson have a sort of right to receive, on allotments which he may or may not sell at a premium. When Mr. Sampson got an allotment of stock, did he pay for it?-Sometimes, and sometimes not. And if the stock is sold at a profit, it goes into his pocket?-Precisely SO. Is that a common practice?—It is not unusual. By the Labuan Company Mr. Sampson lost between 3,000l. and 5,0007. I told him I regretted his loss, but I might have an opportunity of recouping him in my other operations. His position, both financially and socially, entitled Mr. Sampson to the consideration of any board of directors in allotting stock. In some cases shares were not usually made over, but the profits on the supposed allotments were paid over. I did not say to anybody that I could do as I liked with the