Tag: 1890

Mr. Lawson Tait v Councillor Fulford: Mr. Joseph Rowlands sends us the following copy of a letter addressed by him to Messrs. Smith, Pinsent and Co., in reply to their letter published in our columns yesterday: 27^th October, 1890: “Dear Sirs – Your letter of the 25^th instant has today been received by me. I think you should have sent it to me before publishing it in the newspapers. I should have thought it must have been apparent to you and your client that my letter to Mr. Tait was not written for publication. If it had been, it would have been written in very different terms. I wrote the letter on the 20^th instant, immediately after my interview with you. It did not pretend to convey to Mr. Tait a full account of the interview – only sufficient to guide him in his future conduct. With that letter the matter ended so far as I am concerned. Under these circumstances you will probably consider it to be a matter of little importance whether the letter contained an imperfect representation of the interview or otherwise. At the same time, if you desire it, I have no object to a full account being published: Yours truly, Joseph Rowlands” … On the same subject, Mr. Lawson Tait writes as follows … To the Editor of the Daily Post: “Sir – It is, of course, characteristically considerate of Mr. Fulford to refer me to my legal remedy if I feel aggrieved. Fortunately, I do not now feel much aggrieved, as my friends and advisers have pointed out that Mr. Fulford’s vulgar electioneering abuse constitutes no libel. …”

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

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, 25^th 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 20^th 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 21^st inst, and you wrote to us on the 22^nd 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 24^th 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 25^th, 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