The Express.
London, England, 1849-11-03 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH,-YESTERDAY.

Tim court did not sit until a quarter to two o'clock, at
which time Mr. Justice Coleridge, Mr. Justice Wightman,
and Mr. Janice Erie took their seats.
THI Duzz or Balms/tux v. HAJULIR —PosLicartolt

O! LzailL.

Sir F. Thesiger moved for Situ's, calling upon the plaintiff
in this use to show cause why there should not be a new
trial, on the ground of misdirection and also upon affidavits.
The cause was tried at the sittings after last term, before
Lord Denman, and a verdict was found far the plaintiff ,1
with 6001. damages. It was an action brought by the Duke
of Brunswick against Mr. Harmer, the proprietor of the
Weekly Dispatch newspaper, (or various alleged libels whisk
had appeared in that journal. The declaration contained flee
counts, and the first count set out a libel which was alleged
to be published in September 1830, nineteen years ago. The
other four counts contained other alleged libels during the
years 1847 and 1848, the last being published in August of
the latter year. The pleas to the whole declaration were se
to the first count containing the alleged libel of 1830, the"
S:atute of Limitations, and a+ to the four others the general
issue. It was admitted that if the question had de+l
pended on the libel of 1830, it would have been
impossible to contend that passages in that ankh
were within the fair and legitimate province of the editor
of a newspaper, even as regarded a public character like the
Duke of Brunswick; but, if that was out of the question,
all the others could be shown not to have exceeded those
limits. The matter, therefore, turned upon the plea of the
statute of laßlitai7o). The Duke of Brunswick conducted
his own case, and called as • tritium Captain lipinholt,
who stated that before 14th March, 1848, he went to the
office of the Weekly Dispatch, and asked for 'petrel num-
ben of the peper—eonte of 1847, and one of the 19th
September, 1830 The person in the shop said he would
look to see if he had a copy of that date, and asked the wit-
ness to will again the next day. lie did so, and nosiest'
the paper. On cross-examination he stated that he was
sent to the office by the Dike of Brunswick for the pur-
pose of buying the paper, and that he delivered
it to him. At the trial two copies of the
paper of 19th September, 1830, were produced, one
from the British Museum, and the other that which it was
alleged had been purchased at the office. It was objected
that, as to the paper of 1830, there was no publication within
six years ; and it was also suggested, that it that point was
decided against the defendant, still the jury should be told
that they were not to give damages fur the libel published iu
1830, but that they were to look only to those published in
1848, and to mans damages solely with regard to them.
'Dui learned judge, however, did not agree in these views;
and the whole case went to the jury as an unjustified publi-
cation of • libel in 1830- It was now submitted that the
learned judge was wrong in holding that there was any publi.
cation of the libel of 1830 within sir years. In order to prove'
publication in • civil action, it must be shown that
it was made to a third person. I; had been held that
although it was true that if a person sent a sealed
letter to another containing libellous matter that was a suf.
&tient publication to autism an indictsnent, yet in a civil
action that was not a publication, and no damage could be
alleged. If the Duke of Brunswick had gone to the office
of the Weekly Diaperelt himself and purchased the paper of
19th September, 1830, it c mid have been contra& d
that that was a sufficient publication to sustain • civil action,
and although a third party had been sent to purchase it, yet
as it was done by the duke's direction, it was precisely the
same as if he had gone and purchased it himself, and as if
the publication had been made by himself. The paper in
question hat becomes dead letter It was not like the case
of a paper recently published. But for the Duke of Bruns,
wick's own act the paper would never have been
published within six year., and probably would
never have been circulated again, and it was ab-
solutely necessary to prove a legal publication within
six lean, which was not for the purposes of a civil action.
In the affidavits it was stated that there was no roper of the
date of 19th September, 1830, in the office of the Weekly
Dispolch at the time of the alleged purchase by Reinholt,
and that, in fact, it was obtained with others by means of a
news-agent, five pounds having been paid for it.
The Court granted a rule to show cause.
Na other motion was made, and the new trial paper was
"'acceded with, but no ease of public interest was heard.