The Express.
London, England, 1848-02-10 00:00:00

Vial at law. If they were willing to do that, tho injoration
would be clinched as a matter of course—The case was
thin directed to rand over, with a view to the arrangement
of a forma order, under the direction of the court.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
tessi Pares.—Before Mr./intim nth, end a special Jury.
,Tea DUKE or BKUNKWICK e. Fereen.—Lteze.—This
was an action to obtain compensation in damages against the
defendant, the printer of the fa:airier newspaper, for alleged
libel. The noble plaintiff conducted his case in person, and
addressed the jury at some length, but from the position he
occupied it wee impossible to hear distinctly any observation
which fell from his highness. There were two libels coin-
plainee ef, one of which was inserted in the Salirist on the '
3rd of November, 1844, and which stated that Barnard i
Gregory would give to the world *statement of all the fasts
connected with his extraordinary came (entitling to his prove-
cution and conviction for libel by the plaintiff ), " extraordie
nary as being from its commencement 'sustained by strong
truth," thus alleging in fact that the libels published by
Gregory were true. The second libel was published on the
9th Meng, 1845, and was appended to a long article
on the subject of the murder, at Hampstead, of Mr.
Delarue, by Hecker. The paragraph which applied
to the plaintiff was headed " congeciality," and the
article having alluded to Rocker being also guilty of un-
natural practices as well as mar& r proceeded to say that
the newspapers stated that the Duke of Brunswick
commodated with • seat the beach at the boas Meryl
police office on the examination of Hocks r, but it did not
appear whether he had also been accommodated with a
pinch of snuff from the box of the prisoner, which was
handed about in a meet affable manner. The damages were
laid at 10,0001. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff'
bad already •obtained satisfaction for the same cause of
action, lied it appeared that an acticei had been brought by
the plaintiff tor the same libels against Mr. Pearson, the
proprietor of the Satirist, which was tried by a common
jury, and a verdict for titre plaintiff given with only one
farthing damages; it further appeared that a similar action
was now pending against the publisher of the Satirist
Mr. Cockburn, Q.C. (with whom was Mr. H. Hill), ad-
dressed the fury for the defendant in a powerful Pineal, con-
tending that the plaintiff had already had full satisfaction
for the alleged injury by the verdict given in his action
against Pearson, and this was n ithing hut a vindictive
and malignant act of persecution, the plaintiff hexing
brought three actions ter the same libels, when one ought to
have satittied him it he had only sought to vindicate his cha-
rector and obtain justice ; but the fact was that he hoped to
obtain damages to reimburse him for the sum which he ad-
mitted it had o-et him to prosecute Barnard Gregory by cri-
minal information and indictment, and which he had said
amounted t s 10,0001. The first libel, which was a mere no-
tice to c. rrespondents, in reply to a communication on the
vindictive
WU not worthy of the notice of the plsintiff after the
ndictive maisner in which he had prosecuted Gregory to
conviction. The second libel, he coots nded, was not in-
tended to bear the construction which the plaintiff had put
upon it. it being merely intended to hold up to public vet-
demnstioe the morbid sysepsthy with great criminals which
induced the ari,t •criey to haunt polices courts and mowd cense,
of justice when heemis offerers were to b- inquired lista.—
Mr. Justice Erie, in summing mi. said the sleet sr aims con-
t third tw count,. in each of welch libel seas islkend. Tee
defendant had pieced. d that the plaintiff had afready had sa-
tisfaction tor the same cam* of action of a
person of the acme of Pearson. Each publication
of the libel was a distinct cause of action, the
only question for the jury being whether the mat-
ters cemplaimil of amounted to a libel; and, if so,
what damages his highnem was entitled to. Anything pub-
lished by one person of another tending to degrade bias in
public estimation er bring him into emit, mpt would.
amount to is libel. The plaintiff bad a perfect right to brine
this as an independent action notwithstaading that serh*.ch he
hid israusait se lust the prorrieter of the Satirist for the
same lib. I. :411,,wertr, in that CUs', the j.,y h 3.1
the plaintiff ray compensstion, he (the learned judge) might
have been inclined to think that this second action "male
bare looked like an attempt at persecution ; oat that was
net so, the damages having been nominal. Ile thought
there was hula doubt that the statement complained o' as
the first libel intended to assert the truth of the libels of
which Barnard Gregory had been convicted, and which
charged the plaintiff with being the murderer of Eliza Grim-
wood, sic. With regard to the second libel, he was at a lose
to put any other c ,netruction upon it than that the plaintiff',
was said to be a person whose feelings and practices wore
"congenial " with those of Mocker, who was stated to have
been guilty of unnatural climes, and was known
to have committed murder. Upon the question of
damages, it was for them to say what their own
feelings would have been if such charges had been
made against them, and what would have lawn their recep-
tion in satiety ? If a former jury had no• given his high.
nese the p:ais-tiff rem than nominal damages, it :ht
presumes: that tiers was not the tame evidence Metre that
jury which had lis.ee adduced to day, and there was ~o rem
son why the matter should not he c insideresl upon entirely
independent grounds. The jury retired, and after an ab-
sence of about half an hour. returned into court with a ver-
dict for the pleintitf.— Dan age?, 1,04101 It is right to state
that several special jurymen who had been summoned on
this cause were fined 10.. for not being present when it was
called on.
RLOINA T. 132.0.1[8.—PERJUitY.—This was an indict-
ment for perjury t smmitted in the course of genie proceed-
ings in a wise of •• Darby v. Job," in the Common Pleas.
The defendant was the managing-clerk of a Mr. Skinner,
who was the attorney for tha plaintiff in that eau*,
and having obtained an award in favour of the
plaintiff upon a reference, the defendant, in the
affidavit of increase, swore that he had paid 5!.
to Mr. Humfrey's: clerk, and 31. le. to Mr. Baggall's clerk,
with the briefs given to those gentlemen, whereas he had
only paid 3/. 3s. and 21. 2.. He also stated in the affidavit
that he had had the subpoenas resealed, which was proved
not to have been done.—Mr. Serjeant Wilkins headrest ad-
dressed the jury for the defendant, called Mr. Skinner, who
stated that he had directed the defendant, shortly be fare the
costs were taxed, to increase the fees to counsel to five and
three guineis. He then left town for Bristol, and was ab-
sent at the time of the taxation. On his return he heard
that the defendant had been charged with perjury before
the master, and di-missed him; hut, upon inquiry into the
circumstances, he took hiszainto his employment again. A
fellow clerk of the defendant's called Burfitt, proved
that the defendant had given him 121. a short time before
the costa were taxed to make various payments, and amongst
others the additional fres to counsel, but having mule the
other payments first, he found that his money would
not hold out, and he omitted to pay such addi-
tional fees, but did not tell the defendant of
it until he had sworn the affidavit of increase, and the coats
had been taxed. Both these witnesses were cross-examined
by Mr. Huddlestone, for the prosecution, for the purpose of
throwing doubt on their testimony, and the learned gentle-
man,
in reply, repudiated the idea of counsel taking addi-
tional fees atter the termination of a cause, in the manner
spoken of by Burfitt, as wholly unprofessional. He was
confident, in fact, that no barrister, or even barrister's clerk,
would sanction such a practice.—Mr. Justice Erie having
summed up, the jury found the defendant guilty, and stated,
in reply to the learned judge, that they end not believe the
evidence of Burfitt ; uoon which Mr. Justice Erie commented
severely on the aggravated nature of the offence, stating
that the defendant had been guilty of there acts of wilful
perjury, and had altered the figures on the brief to which
counsel's name hail been appended, which was an additional
crime. Ile was perfectly satisfied of his guilt, and it was
necesfary to make an example of a person in his position
who had committed such an offence; he should therefore
sentence the defendant to he transported fur seers n years.—
Mr. Serjeant Wilkins having expressed his surprise at his
lordship passing immediate sentence on the defendant, Mr.
Justice Erie said Lord Denman had done so but a short time
ago.—The defendant, according to the usual practice, is out
on bail.