678 Kidd V. Royal Agricultural Society of England. 
lOZ. for bran is rather expensive, because a man might buy hi 
linseed and he might buy bran and mix them up himself: aU' 
so with the sesame-cake, if he knew it. It seems to be wort 
6?. 5s. a ton, and when it is mixed up with the bran and sold fo 
lOZ. a ton, he might have bought that separately much mor 
cheaply. That is an argument which would go to make yoi 
think that the farmers, and others buying it, would hardly b 
aware that they were buying cake with only one half of the prope 
stuff in it. That goes to affect not the verdict but the damages 
supposing you find a verdict for the Plaintiff. 
Now, Gentlemen, as the case has lasted so long a time, am 
probably you are tired, 1 will not attempt to go through th 
evidence at all, unless there is any portion of it which you wisl 
read. If there is any portion of the evidence that you wish t( 
have your memories refreshed upon, or any portion of the evi 
dence that has struck some of you one way and some another 
and you want to hear my comments upon it, tell me, and I wil 
read it ; but, unless there is something of that sort, I will end as 
I began, by telling you first to ask yourselves — reading this 
' Mark Lane Express ' — how would that strike you if you were 
reading it for the first time ? How much injurious matter would 
it convey to your minds against Mr. Kidd ? Consider that, and 
then say how much of that you think is justified and proved. Il 
the substance, and all of that which you think would be con- 
veyed to a man reading it for the first time, is shown to be true, 
that is a verdict for the Defendants. If no part of it is shown 
to be true, I need hardly say the damages ought to be high (su|)- 
ject to the other point I was putting), because it is quite true 
that its publication by the Royal Agricultural Society would 
clearly injure a man very seriously in the sale of an article like 
this. But, in measuring the damages, you must consider how 
much is shown to be true, and consider whether you think this 
kind of trade is an honest kind of trade, which you think a man 
ought to conduct, or whether you think it is a fraudulent trade, 
carried on for the purpose of deception, in which, though he is 
entitled to recover damages, because the Defendants have im- 
puted something to him which was not true, yet there was this 
very serious and true imputation which only comes out afterwards. 
That would cut down the damages very much ; I do not even say 
it might not cut them down to be purely nominal damages. Still, 
it would not prevent the Plaintiff getting a verdict. 
All that you will consider for yourselves, and if there is any 
part of the case that you would like my advice upon, or any por- 
tion of the notes which you would like read, tell me, and. I will 
do it; but, without that intimation from you, I will not troubl<? 
you any further. 
