Legal Episodes In The History Of Freemasonry.

against a Mr . William F . Graham of Dublin , which was tried before Judge Daly , ancl a special jury . 'Lhe declaration was opened b y Counsellor T . Maklin , who stated that "the plaintiff brought his action against the defendant

for defamation and the publication of three several libels ;—the first , a resolution , dated 2 nd April , 1807 , of the Grand Lodgeof Free Masons in Ireland , staling , lhat Alexander Seton had been expelled the Grand Lodge and Masonry in general ;— -the second , cautionimr thc Brethren aoainst receivino- or sanctionim ?

certificates signed A . Seton , dated since 1 st May , 1806 , as hc had not held any office under the ( Jrand Lodge since lhat period ;—and the third , being the resolutions of the ( Jrand Lodgeof England , dated London , September , 2 , 1 S 07 , slating that the Grand Lodge of England would nol on any account , receive or acknowledge

any certificate issued b y or under the hand of the said Alexander Seton , dated any time subsequent to the 5 th of June 1806 , nor should any person b y virtue of such certificate , be thereb y received into any lodge under the Grand Lodge of England . The p laintiff laid his damage at 2000 / ., and the defendant p leaded the general issue . "

" The case was opened , on thc pari of the plaintiff , bv Counsellor Rolleston , who , at great length expatiated on the injury done to the character ancl property of the p laintiff , b y thus stating to the public his expulsion from so ancient and respectable a Society , and the natural ignominy and disgrace that would

attach to his character , if the jury did not in damages prove to the country , and to the Society , the falsehood of such a charge , which only could bc clone b y their verdict . The learned counsel also stated , that b y this action the ri ght of the p laintiff would be proved to the situation of the Deputy Grand

Secretaryshi p to the Free Masons of Ireland . The Court would thereb y instruct the members of the Order where they ought to appl y for such Masonic documents as they had occasion for , the defendant

having assumed upon himself the situation , and thereby claimed the fees that were attached lo the office ; and also in that ri ght publishing and circulating the libels on which the present action was founded . "

The p laintiff then proved the publication and circulation of the alleged libels , and after the examination of several witnesses , closed his case . The learned Judge then intimated his opinion that the p laintiff should be non-suited . " The p laintiff having staled his

determination to appear , and not submit , but leave the question to a jury of his country , the defendant ' s counsel declared , that out respect to the Court , Ihey would not slate any ease , nor call any evidence . " The Judge , " after a most able and eloquent charge , and having

gone into all the numitia- of the evidence , " directed the jury lo find for the defendant . The jury retired , and , after some consideration , brought in a verdict for the defendant , wilh ( id . costs ,

" thereb y affirming the right of government of the Grand Lodge ; clearly ascertaining the justness and propriety of publishing the expulsion of any its members ; and determining the defendant to bc its proper officer . "

That Seton had not overrated the probable predilection of the Tyrone jury in favour of the pni / ige of their local magnate is clear from the amount of costs awarded . It was the only loophole left b y the Judge ' s direction , and the jury took prompt advantage of it .

Of course , a turbulent knave of Seton ' s character could not accept defeat . He appealed at once to the full Court , and the appeal was heard at the next ensuing sittings . Again , the Grand Lodge and its authority were sustained , as will appear from the following Report : —

' •COMMON PLEAS , DUBLIN , 1 S 0 S . ALEXANDER SETON Esq ., Barrister at Law v . WILLIAM FRANCIS GRAHAM Esq ., on Appeal . " This was a motion on thc pari of the plaintiff lo set aside the verdict had for the defendant at the Assizes al < Jinagh , On the

report ol thc Rig ht lion . Judge Daly , who tried lhe action , it appeared that thc plaintiff had declared , in the situation of D . G . Secretary to the Grand Lodge of Free Masons in Ireland , lor the publication oi libels , slated to be circulated and published b y the defendant , to the following effect : —among others , ' Grand Lodge

of Ireland , Thursday , April 21 , 1 S 07 , Resolved , That , Alexander Seton be expelled the Grand Lodge , and Masonry in general . ' And that bv evidence g iven on tin- part ol the p laintill , (

Inaction was brought more loin his ri g ht to the ollice ol Depuly ( band Secretary in the Grand Lodge of Ireland , than anything . •Is .- The olher bin-Is alleged lo be published , were the subse-. 1 ., i-ol ' iiii ( ir , mil Lodi-vs of Eni / Iand and In-land ,

confirming such expulsion of Mr . Seton . The learned Judge , 111 his report , which was very full , and embraced the entire of the evidence given by the plaintiff , slated his opinion that the

Legal Episodes In The History Of Freemasonry.

plaintiff ought to have been non-suited , but the plaintiff havinodirected his agent to appear , and not having submitted , hc had directed the jury to find for thc defendant , the p laintiff ' s evidence not supporting thc declaration . Thc Court , on hearing the

learned Judge ' s report , did not conceive it necessary to call on thc defendant ' s counsel , and after hearing for a considerable length of time counsel for the plaintiff , Lord Norbury , C . J ., was p leased to declare his opinion as follows : —

1 hat thc action on the part of the p laintiff , was a mere contest for office : a scramble for emolument ; and so appeared b y the declaration and evidence ; that the plaintiff ' s refusal to be nonsuited was an indiscretion ; that if the publication were unnecessary , ancl not according to the duty of the defendant , that then

it would be a diflercnt case , and one that ought to be left to the jury ; that the ri ght to thc office was the matier in contest , and that the Court had not any right to interfere ; that the plaintiff staled thc Society to be of a very good length of standing , being upwards of seventy years old ; that it , therefore , had a right to

act as it thought proper within legal limits , and that it appeared the several publications were distributed and sent to the different lodges of Free Masons in Ireland , as information to that body , b y the defendant , Mr . Graham , who was then the ollicer of the Order ; and that nothing- in the case was to he left

to the jury , but whether the defendant acted , as directed bv thc Order , in his situation ; and that it appeared lie onl y communicated the publications to the Order in that li ght ; that thc Societ y was regulated b y its own laws , and thc plaintiff could have resorted to it for relief , if he had thought proper ; that the

p laintiff himself had set forth the Institution , and thc laws of it , and on them grounded his case , and that if the Court believed him , it ; followed he held no ri ght to the office ; that under such circumstances the Court would not disturb thc verdict , and the Judge ' s report was not onl y full in every respect , but manl y and correct . "

Judge Fox in observing on this case , declared it a very novel one , in the form of an action for defamation . Afterstalingthe first count in the declaration , he observed , "that if a man defamed a character , not being called on b y his oflice to do so , it was libellous ; but that this case would not stand this test . " He referred

then to the publication which was as follows ;— " Grand Lodge of Ireland , Thursday , 2 nd of April 1807 , Brolher Johu Leech Esq ., Grand Secretary , informed the Grand Lod ge pursuant to their order made on the 5 th of March last he had demanded the books and other muniments , the properly of this Grand

Lodge , to be given up b y brother Alexander Seton , late Deputy Grand Secretary , which demand had not been complied with : ' Resolved , That Alexander Scion be expelled this ( Jrand Lodge and Masonry in general . Alexander Jaffray D . G . M . John Leech , G . S . ' That the publication contains more than is

set out on the face of the defendant ' s declaration ; that b y it , il appeared that the cause of the expulsion was for not giving np the books ol the Order , and that in consequence of the p laintiff's disobedience he was expelled ; that it could not bc contended that it was libellous , if a man acted contrary to

lhe Society he was a member of , and was expelled that Society , to slate the fact ; instancing the case of expulsion of a member of a club for not paying his subscription , and the publication and distribution oi it among the members ; that

as to the special damage laid in the p laintiff ' s declaration , it was not material , it appearing lhat the publications were made in discharge of thc defendant ' s duty ; that it could not therefore be 1 , 'iken as a libel . "

The learned Judge compared the case of Sir Joint Carr , tried not long before in England , ancl said " you mi ght extract libel out of Hol y Writ , if you stooped at particular sentences , and did not take in the whole context . " "That it appeared by the p laintiff ' s evidences that the

defendant , Mr . Graham , acted as a Mason and Secretary to that Body ; that hc took the order of expulsion from the Chair , and then published it ; that it was his ( Mr . Graham ' s ) duty to do so : and that the business of a Society could nol exist if it were otherwise ; that il could not be looked upon as a libel , being within the

sp here of the person doing it , and that therefore no action could be sustained for it ; that the declaration was not sustained by the publication ; lhat no publication appeared out of the Order , ' and that the publications distributed appeared necessary ; that ,

therefore , the verdict ought to stand , and the cause shown b y lhe defendant be allowed wilh costs ; thus ascertaining the right of the Grand Lodge of Free Masons in Ireland to expel the members who act contrary to their Laws , and proving ( he defendant , William Graham , to be their | lepiily Grand Secretary . "

Mr . Justice Heleher : ¦¦ - " I concur 111 opinion wilh the rest nf tiie Court . " Appeal dismissed , with costs . It is greatly to the credit of the Grand Lodge of Ireland that