who Indigo planters were. Another case in point was The King v. Evans Vol. III "Stark's Nisi Prius Reports."
Mr. Justice Wells asked if he (the learned Counsel) considered that if the Indigo planters were a corporate body with a seal, etc., they would be in a better position to come into Court.
Mr. Eglinton apprehended that would materially alter the case, proceeded to cite other cases, including King v. Jenner, King v. Burdett, reported in "Crown Cases." He submitted that the passage in the pamphlet which made mention of the wife of the planter could not be construed to men what the prosecution suggested. It was intended by the author to convey an idea of the Native feeling, and although not congenial to European tastes, still it showed the Native character. The Native idea of female etiquette was very different to ours; and he contended that the innuendo raised by the prosecution would not suggest itself to the ordinary reader, or to one who was a stranger to the enmity and dislike which existed between the Indigo planters and the ryots. He submitted, generally, that the innuendoes throughout the indictment were not liable to the construction put upon them.
The Chief Justice—But, would English society adopt the same view as the learned Counsel in estimating the bearing of the contents of that pamphlet?
Mr. Eglinton had nothing further to urge, and would ask their Lordships to consider the point which he had already raised.
Mr. Newmarch, on the same side, addressed their Lordships. Some doubt having been expressed by the Chief Justice as to whether it was usual for the Court to hear two counsels on the same side, on a motion for a rule nisi. Eventually, Mr. Newmarch was allowed to address the Court on the understanding that it should not form a precedent. The learned Counsel had only a few words to add to the remarks of his learned friend. He contended that if the principle were once conceded, a libel would not be too general if described as committed upon mankind at large. He also contended that the innuendoes were vague and undefined. The Indigo planters were only mentioned as a body without any reference to number. He thought that they did not exist in such a defined way as to allow of the present libel, if libel at all, being applied to them.
The Chief Justice was inclined to consider that the status of Indigo planters, as laid down in the indictment, was sufficiently distinct.
165
