The Express.
London, England, 1847-07-09 00:00:00

proprietors of the paper, sad that after some further corre-
spondence the plaintiff was informed by the proprietors that
they had, under the circumstances, " no alternative hut to
terminate the agreement." Such, then, being the evidence,
the questions was, whether or not the course pursued did or
did not show that the plaintiff was induced by Mr. Wearing
to insert a report which othervrim he would not have in-
serted. Whether or not the report contained any matters
of public interest it will be for the jury to judge.
That Mr. Wearing took an interest in the matter
was clear ; that he instigated Mr. Powell to write for
the report was also clear. They were aware of the
circumstances under which the report was published. The
complaint of the proprietors of the DailylYesos was, that
Mr. Powell, knowing Mr. Wearing's hostility to Mr. Smith,
permitted • matter of little or no interest to the public to be
published, because Mr. Wearing wished to gratify his feelings
' in theniatter ; and the ground on which they claimed a
nestle dieshary Mr. Powell was, that if a person in their
embalms* rablielt•d a matter to gratify any personal feel-
Mir, we arum wild not properly be retained. They
said, we de set inquire whether the report published be a
fair report sr usb—ft Ina not right to publish in our paper
matters which weld not have been inserted but for per-
sonal feelings. Having the whole matter before them,
the jury would have to decide whether or net,
is the language of the emend plea, the defendants
had reasonable and probable cause to dismiss the plaintiff
from their establishment. In the language of the
third plea, they would have to ascertain how many of these
facts were proved—first, that at the request of Mr. Wearing
the plaintiff wrote to procure a report of the examination
that Mr. Wearing was influenced by personal motives, and
that the plaintiff was aware of the existence of those personal
motives ; nest, that the letter received from Mr. Smith was
not sent to the proprietors, but delivered to Mr. Wearing,
and that it was therefore put in his power to prevent the pro-
prietors from ever becoming acquainted with it. And, fur-
ther that the plaintiff improperly instructed Mr. Wearing
to abridge the report and to unlit it to gratify Mr. Wear-
ing's private feelings of resentment against Mr. Smith; that
the publication itself was not interesting to the public ; and
that the plaintiff's acting on such motives and In ouch a
manner was calculated to prejudice and injure the defend-
ants. The substance of those allegations must be proved, in
order to enable the defendants to obtain a verdict.
Mr. Serjeant Wilkins here reminded the learned judge
of the allegation that the report was garbled.
The Lord Chief Justice said, that although there was such
an allegation, and although it would be for the jury to my
whether or not they thought it established, it struck him
that it was not an essential part of the plea. With respect
to the question, whether or not the defendants bad reasona-
ble and probable cause for dismissing the plaintiff, that
would depend upon the view which the jury took of the
conduct of the plaintiff. under the circumstances. If they
thought it did not warrant them, the plaintiff would be enti-
tled to trieir verdict; while, on the contrary, if they consi-
dered it did, their verdict would be the other way. On
the question of damages? supposing the plaintiff to
be entitled to their verdict, the jury would observe
that the plaintiff was a gentleman who appeared to be con-
nected with various departments of the press. if an
wero engaged to lend his services to a particular esth
blishment, and were afterwards improperly dismissed, It was
in the discretion of the jury to say what amount of damages
ho was entitled to. The salary of the plaintiff was 151. per week,
and the whole period for which he was to be employed was
two years. In the case of a gentleman of talent, the jury
had to consider whether, after dismissal, he was entitled to
the whole salary for the period of his engagement, or whe-
ther it might not be supposed that he could make his talents
available during a portion of that time, and, if so, what was
a fair and liberal view of the amount of damage sustained by
him. If a party in the situation of the plaintiff might avail
himself of his talents after dismissal, he eould not
be expected to pocket the full amount, just es if
he could make no use of his time. On that
point there was no evidence; a single witness said he did
not know whether or not the plaintiff bad had any engage-
ment since. The plaintiff being • gentleman of talent and
acquirements, the jury were able to judge what sort of de-
mand there would be in London for a person of his position ;
or how long he was likely to have that holiday of which be
spoke in his note. The amount of damage in case the jury
considered the plaintiff entitled to their verdict would be •
matter for them to exercise their judgment upon ; and on the
other part of the case they would have to decide whether or
not, under the circumstances, there had been " reasonable
and probable cause " for dismissing the plaintiff.
The jury retired to consider their verdict, and, after the
lapse of en hour end a quarter, returned, and delivered the
following verdict :—" For the plaintiff—damages 5001., and
that the report which he made was not a garbled one."

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Nm Pam.-15 re Mr Y. Pollock, C. 8., and a Speelal Jury.
FINDIN AND ANOTHRIE V. JOHNSON AND ANOTHER.—
THE CITY OP LONDON COMMERCIAL CLUB.—MT. WASIOD,
Q.C., with Messrs. Needham and Foote, were counsel for
the plaintiffs ; Mr. Crowder, Q.C., and Mr. Browne for the
defendants. The plaintiffs, Messrs. Findea and Green, who
are architects and surveyors, brought this action to recover
from Alderman Johnson and Mr. Marriott, as member, of
the managing committee of the above-named club lOU., a
balance claimed for drawing specifications and plans, and
for the superintendence of building work executed for the
of the club. In 1838 the club in question w pro-
l'oertri.4 as
Mr. Finden. In the first instance it was intended
to build a club-house of a ve7ieeneive and ornamental de-
scription, the then content ted outlay being somewhere
about 20,0001. That intention was abandoned ; but, before
a definitive determination was formed, certain premises in
Throgmorton•street were taken and put into such repair aa
to be suitable for the purposes of a club. It wee, however,
actually opened in 1840, and was carried on until the dens
of 1842, when it was given up. The defendant, Mr. Mar-
riott, appeared to have taken an active part in the formation
and astonishment of the club from the commencement;
li but Alderman Johnson attended a meeting of the managing
committee for the first time on Dee, 20, 1838. The services
for which the plaintiffs claimed compensation were performed
between the month of June, 1839, and the end of that year. I
On giving up the club the defendants and other members of
it subscribed a sum of money sufficient to pay 10e. in the
pound to the creditors to whom the establishment was then
indebted; that composition the plaintiffs refused, but they
received on account 1001. in two payments, leaving the ba-
lance alleged to be due. The defendants paid 101. into
court, and denied their liability beyond that sum. It ap-
peared that before any portion of the work was executed, the
plaintiff,, on Dee. 12, 1838, addressed a letter to the com-
mittee of menerament of the club, and stated that they
would last make nary charge or claim for any professional
servisindssa by thneaprenously to the club being established
and is sysratioa, and it was contended yesterday that the
debutante were net liable, es all the work for which the
plaintiff eider& was done " previous to the eatablishment
of the club," and that as the plaintiffs were themaelves
members at the club they could not maintain an action
against other members of it, who should be considered u co-
partners. These being the main facts of the case, the
Lord Chief Baron left it to the jury to say whether the
letter of Dec. 12 was to be taken as the agreement under
which the work was done. If they thought it was, the action
could not be maintained. As to Ald..Tohnson, he could not
be made liable for work done previous to Dec. 20, 1838,
when he first became a member of the managing committee.
—The ry, after short consultation, returned verdict for
the defendants.