484 Kidd v. Royal Agricultural Society of England. 
Kidd. Then you have the distinct allegation that it contains these various 
seeds and foreign elements, — cotton cafee, for instance ; and also that it is 
made of " dirty linseed " and " the sweepings of corn warehouses." 
Gentlemen, as soon as this appeared, Mr. Kidd was at once aware of the 
terrible mischief which a report like this, coming with the stamp of a Society 
like this upon it, cast upon the world and circulating among the very people 
who were his patrons and customers, must probably produce. What he feared 
has in effect followed ; because I shall prove to you directly that there has 
been a very serious diminution of orders from the habitual customers since 
this libel appeared, with regard to that particular sort of cake referred to, and 
therefore this is really a case in which, if I am entitled to your verdict, my 
client is entitled to a verdict which will compensate to him the loss which he 
has sustained, and which I shall be able to demonstrate to you. As soon as 
this appeared my client placed himself in the hands of his solicitors, Messrs. 
Eoberts and Leak of Hull, who wrote to the Secretary of the Society, auda 
correspondence of some length passed with which I am not going, in my short 
opening statement, to trouble you. It will be a part of the case : it will be 
referred to by me as far as is necessary, and by my friend ; but there are oae 
or two comments which I think I ought to make on matters which are disclosed 
in that correspondence. It is made the subject of complaint on our part, and 
rightfully I hope you will think, that there was no communication — no letter 
written for explanation or otherwise — by the Secretary, or any official of the 
Koyal Agricultural Society, to Mr. Kidd before this paragraph a2:)peared, or 
before his name was associated with it. One would suppose that the Royal 
Agricultural Society might have published, without parading the name of 
Mr. Kidd in connection with this attack upon the production of his mill, the 
result of their analysis ; one might suppose that they would in all fairness 
to him have given him the opportunity, by personal explanation, or by putting 
them upon the course of enquiry, of modifying in some degree that which they 
had written. However they have not done so — I make no further comment 
upon it, but I think you will agree with me that before they took this extreme 
course which, although they may have been animated by the best public 
motives, they must have known would have the effect of injuring another, 
they ought to have communicated with the individual before mentioning his 
name. 
Gentlemen, there is another matter which I think I ought to refer to, because, | 
in the form which this case takes, it has an important bearing upon it. This 
action being brought to recover compensation and to vindicate the Plaintiffs 
character from the consequences of this libel, the Defendants take this course : 
they plead, first, it is not a libel ; they put me to the proof of the publication, 
and of the meaning and import of the words ; and they say it does not come 
within the definition of a libel, as to which I venture to submit our afiu'mative 
proposition to my Lord's approval. I think there will be no doubt about that; 
and upon the other point possibly less doubt ; but, further, the Defendants do 
this — they put on the Record an affirmative plea alleging that that which they 
have asserted is true. Now, bearing that in mind, I am making this comment 
on this correspondence: they assert that this is the report of a Chemical 
Committee, founded no doubt on chemical analysis, as to the character of 
which, and the care with which it was made and the general character of 
which, we shall hear something before this case is over; but I think you m\\ 
agree with me that when the'solicitor of the Plaintifi' applied three or four 
times over to the solicitors and representatives of the Defendants, they ought, 
in common justness and fairness, to have been furnished by the representatives 
of the Royal Agricultural Society, with a sufficient quantity of the article 
impugned to enable them to have another open and independent analysis 
made ; but although that was prayed, although we asked that they would let 
