J. S. Pardy's Lawsuite against Paul Pry
On December 12, 1838, The Times (London) carried the following account of John Stephen Pardy's legal action against the gossip magazine Paul Pry and its attempt to extort money from him:
HATTON-GARDEN. — Yesterday Mr. John Stephen Pardy, of Southampton-mews, Russell-square, attended at this office, in company of a friend, and applied to Mr. Burrell, the sitting magistrate, for warrants against a person named Christopher Hawden, and the proprietors of a publication called the Paul Pry, for being concerned in an attempt to extort money from him under the following aggravated circumstances: —
Mr. Pardy produced several numbers of the publication containing articles of an infamously scurrilous nature towards him and his wife, and stated that for some time past he had been annoyed by fellows who made it their business to perambulate the neighbourhood in which he resided bawling out his name. His wife, who bore an irreproachable character, was so much affected by the vituperation, that she was now exceedingly indisposed, and there being no foundation for the libels, applicant was resolved, if possible, to bring the parties to justice. He had applied to eminent counsel for their opinion upon the subject, and also to Mr. Flower, the solicitor, who advised him to make the present application. He here read the articles in question, which charged him with being a felon, and guilty of the worst crimes.
Mr. Mould, the clerk, said, that the magistrates had nothing to do with the case. It was a matter of libel, and he ought to bring his action or indict at the sessions.
Mr. Pardy said, that was all very good, but the case was one of considerable importance as concerned the liberty of the press and the public, and he was in possession of facts, if he was allowed to state them, which he contended would authorize the magistrate to grant warrants for the apprehension of this party, who had by the greatest means attempted to extore 50£ from his under a threat of exposing crimes which he had never been guilty of. He here produced the following letter, which had been sent to him, viz.: —
"Sire, — the proprietors of Paul Pry beg leave to inform Mr. Pardy, that if he send them his check for 50£, paying the expenses of the several indictments now against them, they will in future keep his name out of the Paul Pry, otherwise they will in their next Paul Pry not only charge him with felony, but with the commission of a nameless offence.
"5th December, 1838.
"To Mr. John Stephen Pardy, Southampton-mews, Russell-square."
At the conclusion of the letter a burst of indignation was expressed in the office.
Mr. Pardy said that he had caused handbills to be circulated offering a reward of 10 guineas for the true names and addresses of the printer and machiner of any copies of the paper.
Mr. Mould said that the statue required that the applicant should go in fear of some bodily harm to justify the granting of warrants.
Mr. Pardy said that he could identify the parties, and about two hours before the above letter was delivered to him a person named Christopher Hawden, who is connected with the Paul Pry, called at his home, and requested an interview, which being granted he inquired whether he meant to pay attention to the letter that had been sent to him by Paul Pry, of Wellington-street. Applicant had not received the letter at the time, or he would have detained him, and given him into custody. Major Richardson and Mr. Smithson, the solicitor, had indicted the party for libels, but applicant being able to identify Hawden and others connected with the publication, thought he had sufficient grounds for his application for warrants.
Mr. Burrell read a portion of the articles in the papers produced, and found that they charged Mr. Pardy with being a begging-letter writer, a convicted felon, and living upon the prostitution of a woman residing at No. 1, Southampton-street.
Mr. Pardy assured the magistrate that the whole was untrue. He was never at No. 1 Southampton-street, in all his life; the house was kept by a respectable lady named Rees, of whom he knew nothing, and the system of extortion attempted upon him was adopted towards other respectable persons in the neighbourhood. He had advertised in The Times, and other newspapers, offering a liberal reward for anybody who would come forward to prove that he had ever been guilty of what they had charged him with. He expected to receive a situation in Her Majesty's household, but in consequence of these foul aspersions he had been injured to the amount of $300£ or $400£ a-year.
Mr. Burrell. — Magistrates in such cases have but a limited jurisdiction; but in my opinion this is an awful case of felony, and I am inclined to grant the warrants. He inquired whether he could positively identify the person who called upon him relative to the letter.
Mr. Pardy said he could, also the whole of the proprietors and others. He had served notices upon S. G. Farebrother, of Bow-street, the printer; Richard Taylor, Common Councilman, the machinist; and Henry Hetherington, Edward Elliott, and several others, for publishing the paper; and Mr. Flower, the solicitor, had brought several indictments against the parties. He added, that his wife was most respectably connected, and the base statement, that he was supported by the prostitution of the woman with whom he lived at No. 1, Southampton-street, was malicious and false, which he could prove by the most respectable testimony. He had lately come into possession of considerable property, and the party no doubt conceived that they could make him an easy victim through intimidation.
Mr. BURRELL — It is a most serious case, and I am ready to grant your application for a warrant, but as it is a matter requiring mature consideration, I shall request you to call again at this office on Thursday next, when I will let you know the result of my deliberation.
Mr. WHISKIN, a county magistrate, who was on the bench, concurred with Mr. Burrell.
Mr. Pardy thanked their worships for their attention, and quitted the office with his friend, promising to attend on Thursday next, and expressing his determination not to let the matter drop, for the benefit of the public.
Two days later, on December 14, 1838, The Times carried a report of the follow-up to Pardy's attempt to prosecute those associated with Paul Pry and their attempt to extort money from him. He explained that the editor of the gossip magazine began to harrass him shortly after Pardy's servant accidentally delivered a letter regarding a dog the the Paul Pry offices. Several articles attacking Pardy and smearing his name appeared in the magazine over the course of several months, and he then received several letters from the gossip magazine, culminating in the one quoted above.
The editor of Paul Pry, Christopher Hawden, repeatedly denies he is the editor even though Pardy's solicitor has evidence showing that he is.
The magistrate in the case refuses to grant warrants again Hawden and the others associated with the magazine, however, citing as his reason the fact that actions of libel are properly to be filed in a different (higher) court. Pardy's attempt to prosecute Paul Pry is dismissed.
A story published in The Times on April 27, 1840, shows that Pardy's legal troubles are not over. The editor of Paul Pry, who is indeed the above-referenced Christopher Hawden, files suit against The Times and London's Morning Chronicle and Pardy for being responsible for those earlier newspaper articles describing the court proceedings discussed above. Hawden's claim was that the two articles, which appeared in both papers, were in fact written by Pardy who then bribed a Times stringer to place them in the paper and overstated the case against him (Hawden), and therefore constituted libel. The fact Hawden was, at the time of his lawsuit against Pardy, in prison for attempted extortion, and that the basic information in the articles was accurate, did carry a lot of weight with the jury, which required only a minute or two to come to its finding: on a technicality (having to do with differences between lower and higher courts in Britain at the time) they felt compelled to find in favor of Hawden, the extorting editor of Paul Pry, but they awarded him, in the words of Pardy's attorney, "the smallest sum which was known to the law" — 1 farthing, the lowest-value coin in circulation in England at the time, roughly equivalent to 14 cents US in 2024.
Yet these waters get even murkier, I'm afraid, and in a way that does not reflect well on Pardy, for the situation seems to have been reversed when Pardy, prior to the above case, finds himself being sued for libel. The December 31, 1839 edition of The Times carried the following note on legal proceedings for the day before:
The January sessions for the county of Middlesex were held yesterday at the Sessions-house, Clerkenwell-green. . . .
The cases which came before the Court for trial were destitute of the slightest public interest. It may, however, be well to mention, that
John Stephen Pardy pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged him with having published in the columns of the Paul Pry paper a scandalous and malicious libel on John Barret Judkins.
The CHAIRMAN ordered him to pay a fine of 1s., and to enter into his own recognizance to be of good behaviour for the next six months.