[Thork]

He wasn't proven wrong. As you know the court found in his favour in the end.

I thought markjo was referring to you and your errors in this thread. Since you've humbly noted your errors, I thought we had proof.

Oh, and do tell us how you determined that the Court found in his favor, with unbiased references. Was his libel conviction ever overturned or was his sentence just reduced to time served and a restraining order?

Lurk moar. I've published the transcript of that court case more than 20 times for people too lazy to use Google.

[Rama Set]

He wasn't proven wrong. As you know the court found in his favour in the end.

I thought markjo was referring to you and your errors in this thread. Since you've humbly noted your errors, I thought we had proof.

Oh, and do tell us how you determined that the Court found in his favor, with unbiased references. Was his libel conviction ever overturned or was his sentence just reduced to time served and a restraining order?

Lurk moar. I've published the transcript of that court case more than 20 times for people too lazy to use Google.

I have read that transcript every time and it never says that Hampden was right, only that the bet was not legal, like Markjo said.  You cling to that transcript much too tightly considering it does not say what you claim.

[Rama Set]

According to that article it looks like Hampden was twice sentenced to prison as well.  So perhaps the first sentence was appealed but not the second?

[Thork]

I'm pretty sure he never got sent down properly. I'd have read it somewhere by now. I haven't time to dig about now, but if one of the RErs would look to see if there is a record of his time in prison (official, not the here say assumptions all over the internet) it would be very useful. I'm at work right now.

[Gulliver]

He wasn't proven wrong. As you know the court found in his favour in the end.

I thought markjo was referring to you and your errors in this thread. Since you've humbly noted your errors, I thought we had proof.

Oh, and do tell us how you determined that the Court found in his favor, with unbiased references. Was his libel conviction ever overturned or was his sentence just reduced to time served and a restraining order?

Lurk moar. I've published the transcript of that court case more than 20 times for people too lazy to use Google.

So how is it that you posted that he was never convicted of libel and was never imprisoned in this very thread. Do you need to "lurk moar"?

So an advanced search on "Hampden" posted by "Thork" yields only one possibility, not 20, and the link to the "published" transcript is broken.

I suggest that Christine Garwood's careful analysis in Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea Chapter 1 demonstrates that you're quite wrong again.

[Rama Set]

I'm pretty sure he never got sent down properly. I'd have read it somewhere by now. I haven't time to dig about now, but if one of the RErs would look to see if there is a record of his time in prison (official, not the here say assumptions all over the internet) it would be very useful. I'm at work right now.

I dont have the slightest idea of how to track down 19th century prison records from England.  I am just a colonist after all.

[Pete Svarrior]

Thork, the "released after one week" quote seems to talk about something that happened before 1875. Your source suggests that says that Wallace sued for libel after that imprisonment. We're talking about different incidents.

Despite being sent to prison for a week and  ordered by the court not to bother Wallace or his family for three months, Hampden wasn't stopped for long.  As soon as the three months were over, the harassment began again.  Hampden was careful not to make any further violent threats against Wallace but he continued to send letters and pamphlets to every professional organization in the country.  By 1871, Wallace had enough of the harassment and sued for libel.

[Thork]

Thork, the "released after one week" quote seems to talk about something that happened before 1875. Your source suggests that says that Wallace sued for libel after that imprisonment. We're talking about different incidents.

Despite being sent to prison for a week and  ordered by the court not to bother Wallace or his family for three months, Hampden wasn't stopped for long.  As soon as the three months were over, the harassment began again.  Hampden was careful not to make any further violent threats against Wallace but he continued to send letters and pamphlets to every professional organization in the country.  By 1871, Wallace had enough of the harassment and sued for libel.

Yes, but no mention of any further imprisonment after that. I've never seen anything about him being imprisoned before. I think that source is erroneous.

[Gulliver]

Thork, the "released after one week" quote seems to talk about something that happened before 1875. Your source suggests that says that Wallace sued for libel after that imprisonment. We're talking about different incidents.

Despite being sent to prison for a week and  ordered by the court not to bother Wallace or his family for three months, Hampden wasn't stopped for long.  As soon as the three months were over, the harassment began again.  Hampden was careful not to make any further violent threats against Wallace but he continued to send letters and pamphlets to every professional organization in the country.  By 1871, Wallace had enough of the harassment and sued for libel.

Yes, but no mention of any further imprisonment after that. I've never seen anything about him being imprisoned before. I think that source is erroneous.

Nope. Garwood confirms the second imprisonment, with a citation.

[Pete Svarrior]

Okay, well, I went and grabbed the prison records.

2nd March 1875, Essex. John Hampden, imprisoned for libel. He's #8 on the list.

[Thork]

Why is there a piece of paper covering the acquitted and discharged column by Hampden's name? Good research by the way. 

Putting the likes of Gulliver to shame.

[Pete Svarrior]

Why is there a piece of paper covering the acquitted and discharged column by Hampden's name?

Probably the Conspiracy trying to cover up some important details. On a more serious note, the first word looks a bit like "recogniz[ance?]", and then there's something about "2 ye[ars?]". Perhaps it's a note of the recognizance as mentioned in the last sentence of the Times article?

[Thork]

Its just I'm sure he was acquitted. I don't think he ever served a sentence for it.

[Pete Svarrior]

What makes you think so?

[Thork]

I'd have seen it come up before. It would have had other repercussions at the time. Like on Rowbotham's cola business. Hampden shifted a lot of cola. No one stepped in to replace him at that time in the society. Those kinds of things. His life story doesn't tell of a 2 year spell in prison.

[Rama Set]

I am not sure what you think the difference is, but I cannot see a relevant difference.  Is there some common usage in the 19th century you are thinking of?

EDIT: I was replying to Tom's now deleted post.

[Thork]

I think Hampden got off on appeal. Is that what you mean?

[Gulliver]

I think Hampden got off on appeal. Is that what you mean?

You might want to read up on that before posting another mistake.

Garwood, Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea is clear: stating that Hampden was convicted and spent 9 months of a one-year prison sentence.

[Thork]

I think Hampden got off on appeal. Is that what you mean?

You might want to read up on that before posting another mistake.

Garwood, Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea is clear: stating that Hampden was convicted and spent 9 months of a one-year prison sentence.

And there is the problem. One year? PPs book shows 2. Garwood has a track record of being economical with the truth as well.

[Gulliver]

I think Hampden got off on appeal. Is that what you mean?

You might want to read up on that before posting another mistake.

Garwood, Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea is clear: stating that Hampden was convicted and spent 9 months of a one-year prison sentence.

And there is the problem. One year? PPs book shows 2. Garwood has a track record of being economical with the truth as well.

So you're now admitting to another error. You are wrong. Hampden was in prision twice.