A most singular case of slander was tried at Bristol
on the 15th inst. Mr. Stogdon, a farmer, was engaged to a Miss Leet,e, but, discovering that he drank hard, the lady broke off the engagement and contracted herself to a Mr. Pidsley. Meeting them in the street, Stogdon declared he would ex- pose her, that she had slept with him repeatedly, and followed her, using the same language, into a railway carriage. Mr. Picisley naturally insisted on an inquiry, and as °Stogdon, pressed by a lawyer, peremptorily refused to retract, an action was brought for slander, damages 2,0001. The defendant appeared in the box and swore positively to his statement, giving dates and places with singular particularity, but the evidence, including that of a doctor of the highest character, was overwhelming upon the other side. The judge directed the officers to detain Stogdon to answer to a prosecution for perjury, and the jury found a verdict for plaintiff, but with damages of only 60/. Female chastity seems not to hold a very high value in Bristol, where the very same jury would have given the same plaintiff at least 1,000/. had Stogdon, during his engagement, happened to change his mind. Ile is not, moreover, to be indicted for perjury, because, said the judge, there is no criminal assize held in Bristol, and a pro- secution at Gloucester would be an expensive affair.
Previous page
