Meet Sir Edward Marshall Hall 1858-1927

Sir Edward Marshall Hall was one of the most celebrated barristers of his generation in England, prosecuting and defending in some of the most sensational trials of the early 20th century. His practice as a criminal lawyer is legendary. He also handled many civil cases. His commanding presence in court combined with his striking oratory made him a legal celebrity before that word enjoyed its modern currency. He exhibited courage and tenacity in pursuing the cases of his clients.

Hall was called to the Bar at the Inner Temple in 1883 and was as well-known as any person in England. It is said that millions of people followed his cases, with Hall often arguing before judges who were not sympathetic to his cause. Known for his closing arguments, Hall would stand tall, stretching out his arms as if he were the scales of justice. With his arms outstretched, he would describe the nature of the proof required for a verdict of guilty.

Hall’s eloquence in court mesmerized both judges and jurors. One of his most famous cases in England was known as the Green Bicycle Case. He obtained a not guilty verdict based on reasonable doubt for Ronald Light for the murder of Bella Wright, despite overwhelming circumstantial evidence that included a discarded bicycle, a matching revolver and a false alibi. Hall skillfully enthralled the jury to agree with his assessment of the evidence and view of the reasonable doubt, which would justify the not guilty verdict.

In one particular defamation case, in 1900, his client was 28-year-old Miss Hattie Chattell, whom the Daily Mail newspaper allegedly defamed. The alleged defamation consisted of the newspaper writing the following: “Miss Rosie Boote, whose name is frequently before the public just now, is the daughter of Hattie Chattell, the principal ‘Boy’ in the Hippodrome.” Miss Chattell was furious, as there was no such daughter.

The Daily Mail printed a prompt apology: “There are many well-known married actresses who perform under their maiden names, but the many friends and admirers of Miss Chattell are aware that she is an unmarried lady, and we offer her our sincere apologies.”

The apology did not satisfy Miss Chattell, and a case for libel was filed. During the defamation trial, the Daily Mail asked for three weeks to present a defense. The newspaper apparently searched for negative information about Miss Chattell but uncovered nothing. Thus, the newspaper offered no defense.

Throughout the trial, Hall argued in court that the newspaper’s apology intensified the libel. In a powerful closing argument, Hall stated: “My client may have to work for her living, but her reputation is entitled to the same consideration as that of any lady in the land.” The jury awarded immense damages.

Despite his courtroom success on behalf of his client, on appeal for a new trial, the judge did not support the plaintiff. The judge did not agree with the verdict in that it was argued Hall had improperly inflamed the jury by his rhetoric. He had argued that the defendant had requested more time to present its defense in order to make inquiries around the country to find complaints against Chattell. This comment angered the Judge.

Consider the following conversation between Hall and the judge about Hall’s remarks during the trial.

Court: It is a most shocking imputation to make, and it is without foundation of any sort.
Hall: I submit there was foundation.
Court: None
Hall: The jury thought so. … I put it as a suggestion.
Court: And what is the meaning of that?
Hall: The defendants could have called solicitors to say there was no truth whatever to the suggestion.
Court: It was a disgraceful imputation that was made upon them.
Hall: I resent the word disgraceful.
Court: You make a disgraceful imputation against solicitors, and you suggest they should have been put in the [witness] box. (The imputation is that the solicitors were seeking to uncover conduct of Miss Chattell that would demonstrate poor character so she could be disparaged in court.)
Hall: I must accept your Lord’s comment when you say my conduct was disgraceful, but I submit with respect that it was perfectly legitimate to say here are the facts. I suggest the inference was so and so.

The court was angry. The verdict was not permitted to stand.

Hence, we see that even the best lawyers cannot prevail all the time. It has been said that the lawyer who never loses a case does not try many cases. What is important to observe is Sir Edward Marshall Hall’s courage in resisting the criticism of the court as is often the plight of the trial lawyer.

Source: For The Defence: The Life of Sir Edward Marshall Hall by M.P. Edwards Majoribanks (Independently published, 2026).

Paul Mark Sandler is retired from the firm of Shapiro Sher. He can be reached at [email protected].