The Case of Tait v Fulford: With reference to the letter from Mr. Lawson Tait enclosing one by Messrs. Rowlands and Co., which appeared in our columns on Saturday, Messrs. Smith, Pinsent, and Co., send us the following copy of a letter addressed by them to Mr. Lawson Tait’s solicitors: – “39, Waterloo Street, Birmingham, 25th October, 1890: To Messrs. Rowlands and Co.: Dear Sirs, – Fulford v Tait: Your report to your client, Mr. Lawson Tait, published in today’s Daily Post, is imperfect and inaccurate. Your Mr. Joseph Rowlands called on us on the 20th inst. said the writ had been issued in his absence, and that on this return he had told your client that there was no ground of action, and desired us therefore to return the copyright. This we did on the 21st inst, and you wrote to us on the 22nd that you had cancelled our undertaking to enter appearance. Unless, therefore, you have been acting without instructions, we are at a loss to understand Mr. Tait’s statement on the 24th inst.“that he had no knowledge that the writ in this case had been withdrawn.” Your withdrawal of the action was unsolicited and unconditional and no promise of any communication from Mr. Fulford was given. The publication of a personal expression of opinion is not a matter of general interest; but in our future professional relations it can only have one effect, which we shall very much regret. Your client’s action compels us to send a copy of this letter for publication to the editor of the Post: – Yours, Smith, Pinsent and Co.”. Councillor Fulford writes as follows to the Birmingham Daily Post: – “I have read the letter in which Mr. Joseph Rowlands, writing to Mr. Lawson Tait, repeats what purports to be the substance of a private conversation between himself and Mr. Pinsent, my solicitor, upon the subject of the writ for libel issued by Mr. Tait. It is not usual among gentlemen to repeat or use for public or professional purposes remarks made in the course of private conversation, but I presume, from Mr. Rowlands’s action, that he does not think that this consideration is applicable to him. This however, is of no interest to me, and I leave Mr. Pinsent to say whether Mr. Rowlands’s statements are accurate so far as they refer to himself. I now simply desire to say that no proposals for withdrawal of the writ by arrangement were made by me, or by my authority, and that I have always, as I do now, referred Mr. Tait to his legal remedy if he felt aggrieved. – Yours truly, H.C. Fulford: Augustus Road, October 25th, 1890”
Transcribed in whole or part from scanned originals: Presented with or without modified text and punctuation. For absolute accuracy refer to the original newspapers. Source: The British Newspaper Archive
Referenced
GRO0435 Devonport: Hume Chancellor Pinsent: 1857 – 1920