The Express.
London, England, 1863-05-27 00:00:00

terms of the compromise in 1855, signed by Mies Fray's
mussel. and he was clearly of opinion that the counsel en-
trusted by bee with that sue had autheeray to bind her.
It wan, however, not necessary to hold this, because he
was of opinion that the plaintiff had in fact given her
counsel authority to make the compromise. Under these
circumstances it was his duty to discharge the rule with
costs.
Rule discharged.
THOMPSON r. KING.—THI SOUTHAMPTON =ACTION LIBE4
It will be remembered that the plaintiff io this case, Mr.
George Thompson, me of the candidates at the late election
for Southampton, toed the proprietor of the Hampshire
Advertiser—to recover damages for two libels published
in that paper. The thing principally complained of was
that it was imputed to Mr. Thompson that be had in the
course of the election become the "hind advocate" of
Oaptaio Mangles, another caodidate. The jury found for
the plaintiff, damages 1501.
Mr. Serjeant Shee now moved to arrest the judgment or
for • new trial, upon the ground that the verdict was
against the evidence. The inuendo in the declaration im-
puted that by the epithet " hired advocate" it was meant
that the plaintiff had unworthily, whilst himself • candi-
date, received money as the hired advocate of another
candidate ; but the learned counsel submitted that the evi-
dence did not at all rapport the inuendo. When the libels
were written it was known that Captain Mangles bad paid
100 pilaw in consideration of Mr. Thompson retiring, and
that Mr. Thompson had afterwards addressed two meetings
in favour of Captain Mangles. It was not meant
that Mr. Thompson had, whilst a candidate, become
the " hired advocate" of Captain Mangles, but that it
was part of the consideration for the 100 guineas paid on his
retirement, that he should address the meeting in favour of
Captain Mangles. In doing this he would be peaking in
favour of those principles which it had been the business of
his life to promote, for both gentlemen were of the seine
political opinions. It wt. submitted that it was not
libellous to my, in this sense, that a man was a "hired
advocate," for it was no disgrace for a man to be paid to ad-
vocate what be believed to be good and true. Barristers
were all " hired advocates," and however much this might
diminish the weight of what they said, it was never sug-
gested that it was disgraceful for them to be paid. Another
point upon which the rule was asked was that the damages
were excessive, for it was not suggested that the articles
had really done the plaintiff any harm whatever.
The Lord Chief Justice thought that the meaning imputed
in the inuendo was probably that in which the articles were
written, and indeed the plea of justification substantially
imputed the same meaning. In the coarse of the trial it
was apparent that the articles were written in the expecta-
tion and belief that the 100 OHMS had been paid upon the '
terms that Mr. Thompson should speak in favour of Captain
Mangles. Mr. Thompson being a man of considerable poli.
Moil mark, having been a candidate, and intending at a future
time again to be a candidate for Southampton, it was for the
jury to my whether it would lower him to impute to him
that he had received a retaining fee to speak for Captain
Mangles. Advocates were entitled to be held in honour and
estimation, but everything depended upon their conduct
being true and rimers. If a man said, " I am retained to
support one side," it was clearly not derogatory to him to my
that he was a " hired advocate ;" but it might be derogatory
to say of a man that whilst professing to be a candidate,
and to speak sincerely, be had in fact received a retaining
fee for what he said; and the jury thought it was deroga-
tory. The jury were of opinion that a wrong had been
done, and they had thought it right to give 150!. compensa-
tine. For his part he did not think that that verdict ought
to be interfered with.
Rule refused.