Looking back now, it appears that – unknown to either party – the case CTR brought against J J Ross never had any real chance of succeeding, no matter what its merits or demerits were. To win, you had to pick the right platform.
The platform for the case against The Brooklyn Eagle had been a civil suit for libel. In that case, it had not worked. So for the suit against Ross, CTR received different advice.
This time it was go for criminal libel. CTR explained in a letter to E J Coward in The Watch Tower for September 15, 1914:
In Canada they have just two laws governing libel. Under the one the falsifier may be punished by the assessment of damages and money. Under the other, criminal libel, he is subject to imprisonment. I entered suit against Rev. Ross under the criminal act, at the advice of my attorneys, because, as he has no property, a suit for damages would not intimidate him nor stop him. The lower Court found him guilty of libel… I could still bring my action for financial damages, but it would be costly to me and impotent as respects Rev. Ross.
The case came up shortly after the Eagle trial. CTR’s advisors may have thought there was more chance of success by making a criminal charge. The idea was not for Ross to be fined in a civil case or even put in jail in a criminal one, but rather to cause him (in legal terms) to “cease and desist.” Ross did not.
Ross may have had powerful backers. Although the reason given for pursuing criminal rather than civil proceedings was that Ross had no funds – so a civil case would be no deterrent – his local Baptist Church started a collection to help him. Somehow he (or his friends) managed to employ three different lawyers, the most famous of these being George Lynch-Staunton (1858-1940). Staunton would go on to become a powerful politician in Canada. He probably did not come cheap.
It meant that on the docket the litigant was not Charles Taze Russell, but technically “THE KING.”
If it had gone to full trial in the Supreme Court the case would have been most interesting, especially since Ross had no personal knowledge of the accusations he made. As we shall see shortly, in a repetition of strategy from the concurrent Eagle trial, he also planned to call CTR’s estranged wife as a witness.
From the start there were logistical problems of geography. CTR was based in America, but toured the world in his ministry, and Ross was based in Canada, which came under the laws of Great Britain, not America.
The first summons on J J Ross was on December 7, 1912, and at the first hearing on December 9. CTR was present in person to identify himself and dispute the contents of Ross’s tract. Going into the first week of January, 1913, Ross’s defence insisted that CTR had to be further cross-examined at the preliminary hearing. He initially declined because he was not there in Canada, and as a result the original summons was overturned. CTR promptly tried to have the papers served again on January 13, but this time Ross delayed matters by leaving town. According to The Ottawa Citizen for January 15, this was “presumably on the advice of his counsel.” Everything was postponed again for a number of weeks. Another new summons was issued against Ross on February 7. The magistrate had previously denied the defence permission to cross-examine all witnesses at this point, but the divisional court quashed that, so finally, on February 27, a judge stipulated that CTR should again give evidence in person. Unfortunately CTR was preaching in Central America at the time so for the moment the point was moot.
On March 17, CTR at last made it to Canada to give more evidence in person in a preliminary hearing in the Magistrate’s Court. Ross’s legal team were allowed to take him word by word through the offending tract to argue whether it was fair comment or, as CTR contended, libellous. After a two hour session in the morning and one of similar length in the afternoon, Magistrate George Jelfs committed Ross for trial on the charge of criminal libel. The case was now referred to the Supreme Court of Ontario.
The matter was extensively reported on in the press. One typical example was The Windsor Star newspaper for March 19, 1913:
The headline was:
COMMIT HAMILTON PASTOR TO TRIAL ON LIBEL CHARGE
Defamatory libel charged against Rev. J. J. Ross by Pastor Russell.
Hamilton, March 19 - Police Magistrate Jelfs committed for trial Rev. J. J. Ross, pastor of James Street Baptist Church, formerly of Toronto, on a charge of defamatory libel laid by Pastor C. T. Russell. Defendant was committed several weeks ago, but now a preliminary hearing has been held, as ordered by a higher court, because defence had not been allowed to cross-examine plaintiff. Defence took full advantage of the privilege of cross-examining Pastor Russell...(He) was on the stand for over two hours this morning, and underwent a severe cross-examination at the hands of the counsel of Rev. J. J. Ross, George S. Lynch-Staunton, K.C., J. G. Farmer, K.C., and A. M. Lewis.
This particular newspaper report was dated March 19, but the events had in fact taken place two days earlier on Monday, March 17.
The newspaper outlined the various subjects CTR was grilled over. They followed closely the contents of the Ross tract. The paper made no judgment, and no-where was there any suggestion that CTR had been anything less than truthful in his responses. As noted above, after this lengthy interrogation, on the Monday afternoon the magistrate committed Ross for trial in the Higher Court.
So the case hadn’t been dismissed; it was now set to go ahead to the Supreme Court in Ontario. Nearly two weeks later The Winnipeg Tribute for March 29, 1913, published a photo of Ross with the caption: “Rev J J Ross – Baptist Ministry of Hamilton, who has been committed for trial on the charge of libelling Pastor Russell of Brooklyn.”
In the meantime, as reported in the Montreal Gazette for March 24, 1913, CTR offered to close down the case. The heading read ‘Pastor Russell would drop action on receipt of an apology.’ The paper reported an offer to discontinue the action forthwith if Ross would simply apologise for “assassinating his (CTR’s) character.” Attempts at scriptural refutation were one thing, personal attacks were not.
This is supported by what CTR would later recall in the pages of The Watch Tower for October 1, 1915:
My attorneys of course, were obliged to bring their action in harmony with the law of the land. While the case was still pending, I wrote Rev. Ross, assuring him that I had no unkind intention, and proposed that I would discontinue the suit if he would promise to discontinue his injurious, slanderous course.
He had no vindictive interest in Ross being fined or imprisoned; he simply wanted the personal attacks stopped.
Ross’s response was not encouraging. The Gazette’s report concluded:
Mr. Ross could not be reached by phone today, but it is understood he will insist upon the case going to trial.
Ross had probably increased in confidence after the result in the civil case against the Eagle just two months earlier. As already observed, he’d lined up the same stratagem as the newspaper. Fresh from her appearance in the Eagle trial, Ross claimed that CTR’s estranged wife, Maria, was now eager to appear for his defence.
Back in January The Victoria Daily Times for January 23, 1913, under the heading CHARGED WITH LIBEL, reported:
An interesting turn has been given the case of the Rev. J.J. Ross, pastor of St. James Baptist Church here, who is charged by Pastor Russell, of Brooklyn Tabernacle, with alleged libel. Mrs. Russell, who lives near Pittsburgh, has written to Alexis Lewis, lawyer for Mr. Ross, offering to come here of her own free will and give evidence against her former husband. The defence has accepted her offer.
Although the paper described CTR as her former husband, they were still married, although legally separated. When he died she was rightly presented as his widow.
In Ross’s later booklet Some Facts and More Facts about the Self-Styled “Pastor” Charles T. Russell he described how “our witnesses were all present for the trial” including Maria. His description of her – hardly impartial – was that she was “a modest, intelligent, charming devoted Christian woman” with a “vastly superior intellect” to that of her husband.
As already noted, had it gone to full trial it would have been a fascinating case, particularly with Maria there. But of course that didn’t happen.There was one final hurdle before the case could be tried in the High Court. Similar to the USA, Canada had a system where a Grand Jury had to render a verdict. Having heard a certain amount of evidence, along with the summation of counsel, they were tasked with deciding which cases from the police court went higher up the chain for a full trial.
As reported in the Canadian press on April 2, the Grand Jury finally brought in a verdict. It was “no bill.” Thus, after four long months, the action, THE KING vs. JOHN JACOB ROSS, came to an end.
Unsurprisingly, Ross claimed this as a great victory. In Facts and More Facts he wrote:
We only have to go to contemporary newspapers to see this. We noted above that the press reported on the case on April 2, 1913. The Toronto Globe for April 2, 1913 noted that a “no bill” verdict was returned - but gave quite a different reason for it, which we will now explore.
It is worth emphasising what this newspaper says. The jury may have heard several hours of evidence two weeks before this, but ultimately they weren’t given any choice. They were told there was only one verdict they could bring in.
To reiterate:
“Mr Justice Middleton in addressing the Grand Jurors on this case stated that there could be no criminal libel unless the peace of the community was disturbed, and that as the plaintiff did not reside in this country this could scarcely have been the case. It was upon this advice that no bill was returned.”
(Bold print mine)
This verdict and the reason behind it was a bombshell.
We have to ask, does this decision make any sense? When you examine the law on criminal libel, it makes perfect sense. The lack of sense is how the case ever got that far. All the legal proceedings up to that point had been a waste of time. The issue should have been established at the outset, but it obviously passed over the head of CTR’s Canadian counsel, S.F. Washington, and then carried on though the police court, and the cross-examination of CTR by George Lynch-Staunton and others. No matter how matters might have been resolved, it appears the whole case was likely to be doomed on this technicality. It also meant that a no doubt disappointed Maria Russell missed another day in court.
CTR’s advisors had simply picked the wrong platform.
To understand the precise legal position we have to examine British law, which Canada came under. This will be discussed in the next chapter.
No comments:
Post a Comment