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

lMe s=elabljawr °slated with the asemposylep resewrial,
of ha 'even Irked t aewereeere Se mese
Indaster thins to report the Peesedilitot4K7 we.
Weight tehee ths Omit et Brim* q . lie las alto
Weed Ilhe. as 'Nor et the Any Men he eti th autos°,
the twommt Amp maim, lett**_ ihe
but la caw lambs raps Elk he, war.. I Mei coa-
-1 Yoh OW yea wit ask ey yenri=smiet • phew sad vie-
*** Alit ity ghee* end =6.1; WO-
andbis welsh trek Ore to a Morin , awl
where knehlog se OM et pale Yung sr jeallAiesiwa have no
dam slid San lot at~dillimol Oa sod
teams tebehes tag iteM mem mentenntepegnaln=
pmmsetioaaderwldiYslenwremmhaw Wm. • Drug
chino with whom I hem yen see well wt eel apes
M two or Wee 01104 the hint •ZpilliitiOn at
e. Weezing's in emptetetlis teeters toward, ma—
(eiped) W. It hens
That was toe letter which Mr. Powell had open ed, and
which, though addressed to the propriehre, was not sub-
mitted to them. He (the Attorney-Gametal) cared not
whether or net it was the duty of nab-editors to send all
When to the which were addressed to them, but
he carte as a man of borrow, the sub-editor,
knowing that a feeling of hostilityeaisted between the writer
of the letter he bad just read, and • person coanected with
the establishment, ought nut to have given it to that person
(namely Mr. Wearing) to enable him to insert it in the paper
in say brat or shape that he pleased, and so far from its
being noised in the usual way by the sub-editor, the initials
of the plaintiff did not appear at the end of the report.
The report was published, and on the 6th of August
Kr. Bog* admission:Oka YAW to Maus. Bradbury and
Beane. ..Mg chile sillowdsw to taw letter he had previously
written In Megae and his repot that a garbled
steizaslsiled by woKpost Sowardi hint, and con-
s* ISO wed of pedals Won" or a single point
ea)mdeited to further the sods d *dos, should have been
allowed to appear in the Dalifeelw. Upon receipt of this
letter, Maws. Bradbury and an inquiry to be
instituted. The matter was maned to Kr. Dilke, and also
to the deleadaab' frolickers. An imeerview took place be-
twos' Kt. Me and Mr. Powell Is the presence of other
=when Powell admitted that le knew of the hostility
Wowing and Smith, that hokum of the report, and
that be gave the letter with the report to Mr. Wearing.
It was is consequence of that cond.* on his part
that he was dismissed from the rielemikente . He
(the Attorney-General) subadlted met y that
the defendants could not in judge kr or to the
public have acted otherwise. They were perfectly justified
in the coarse they had adopted without coasidering whether
or not the report in question was fair or unfair. It appeared
that in every place where Wearing's name was mentioned
as connected with the transactor, certain peerages were ex-
purified by means of a red chalk mark ; and it was evident
that the insertion of the report was dictated by personal
feeling, and by motives which were not directed to the
promotion of the defendants' interests. Under these cite= •
stances were not the jury of opinion that the defendants
had but one course to pursue ? They had under their manage-
ment and control a most important machine for the good or
ill of the public and it was their duty to investigate the
affair in which Mr. Powell had been concerned with Mr.
Wearing. Having heard the whole of the charge imputed
to him and also his explanation, and being satisfied that the
allegations against him were true. they dismissed him. The
result of this case was certainly most important to the plain-
tiff in a pecuniary point of view, and to the defendants in
principle, bat it was of far greater importance to the public,
and be twisted that their conduct would be @auctioned by the
approbation of the jury.
Mr. George Powell, the eerrespondent of the Daily News
at Bristol, proved that in the month of July, 1846, he re-
ceived a letter from the plaintiff requesting him to furnish a
report of the examination in bankruptcy of Mr. W. 11.
Smith. The proceedings having been adjourned, he re-
ceived a second letter reminding him of the necessity of
wading a report to the Daily News. lie was not sure that
this second letter was from Mr. Powell. It was not usual
for him to receive instructions to attend to any particular
matters.

Mr. Diller was then called, and stated that he was the
managerof the Daily News: he held the same office in the
month of August last, when the report in question was
published. The letter dated the 6th of August
was handed to him by the proprietors, on the day
of the publication of the report. He entered into an
investigation of the affair, but not in consequence of any in-
structions from the proprietors. He had an interview with
Mr. Powell in the presence of Mr. Foster and Mr.
Wearing. He held the letter in his hand, and stated
that he considered that the letter affected the cha-
racter of Mr. Wearing. He than made general inquiries,
in order to ascertain whether the statements contained
in that letter were true, and whether the plaintiff was aware
of the circumstances. The result was, that the plaintiff ac-
knowledged that he was aware of the feeling which existed
between Wearing sad Smith. He asked Powell whether he
knew of the hostility which existed between Wearing and
Smith, end he replied in the affirmative. He then said
that he did write to Bristol for the report, and wit-
ness asked him if he had received any letter from
Smith. Wearies answered that question, stating that no
letter had been received then was only a printed state-
ment. He (Mr. Dilke) appealed to Powell, who said, " Oh,
yea, there wee a letter," upon which Wearing replied, " It
was only a memorandum at the back of the prated state-
ment." Witness asked him if it was in ex and
Powell replied that he had given it to Mr. Wearing.
upon Wearing said he had taken it to his ebantben
and that he would fetch it. The original report frovalleistol
was produced, and he learnedd, from Powell that it had beau
ab.i by Wearing. Witner then asked the plainilinow,
under the circumstances, he could intrust lie wpm le Mr.
Wearing ? He did not recollect that Powell awls any reply
to that question. He did not know at that time that any
communisation bad taken plane between Smith and the pro-
prietors previous to the letter of the 6th of August. Having
ascertained these matters, he informed Messrs. Bradbury
and Beans.

Cross-examined—On the 6th of August, the day on which
the report appeared, a letter was addressed by Mr. Wearing
to the proprietors, stating that he had received infermation
that Mr. W. H. Smith intended to me his influence to
damage him in their estimation, but be hoped it was hardly
necessary for him to swum them that his statement
was altogether Mae. He received Mr. Wearing's
letter before he received Smith's. It might have been a
fortnight after the inquiry be had made that Mr. Powell
was dismissed. He (witness) bed stated, to answer to 'ques-
tion from Mr. Wearing, that he never could admit that to
be a fair report in which he had struck out every reference
to himself. He also stated that the fairness or unfair-
ness of the report was not the question; he simply
wished to inform himself whether a gentleman con-
nected with the paper had inserted that particu-
lar report far the purpose of annoying any
with whom be was acquainted. Wearing denied that be
had ever said he wee editor of the paper, and Powell an-
swered all the questions he put to him freely. He remem-
bered having stated that the morality of the paper would be
greatly damaged by a repetition of such conduct as had been
pursued in this case, and the character of the press might
suffer considerably. If gentlemen were permitted to give
insertion to reports for the gratification of private ends,
parties might hereafter be found to accept bribes for the
supwendon of reports, and for other proceedings detrimental
to the interests of the press.
Mr. John Forster was then called, and corroborated the
evidence of Mr. Mike in its material features.
The letter of the 4th of August, 1848, from Mr. Smith to
the defendants, was then put in evidence. It contained the
statement repeated by the Attorney Gemmel in the course of
his speech. Letters of the 18th, 19th, and 20th August were
also read disclosing a eovreepondence which took place
between the defendants and the plaintiff respecting the coin.
plaint against Mr. Powell, sad in sonsequenoe of which
complaint the defendants wrote the letter of the 24th August,
dismissing hint from their service.
Mr. Serjeant Wllkies addressed the jury in reply, and the
Lord Chief Justice proceeded to sum up in nearly the
following terms:
The Judge.—Gentlemen of the jury,—This is an action
brought by the plaintiff, complaining that the defendants,
having entered into • contract with him for the employ-
ment of him for two years, at a certain rate of salary, did,
before the expiration of the two years, at • certain time
which is made evident by the letter produced to you, dismiss
the plaintiff from that employ ; therefore, he mates before
you to claim • compensation by way of damages for the
of that sgresment. The defendants, in answer to
that complaint, find of all, in their formal plea, put the
plaintiff to the proof of the agreement; then further—the
plaintiff alleging in his declaration that he has been dis-
charged without reasonable and probable canoe—they
negative that allegation, and insist that they did not wrong-
fully, or without reasonable and probable muse, dismiss him
from their employment. Then, in their third plea, they
'nate more at large what is the ground upon which they
insist on their right to dissolve this agreement. I need not
tell you that an agreement between the employer end the
employed is always upon the implied condition that the
to be employed will conduct himself in a manner
eon(ormabl• to the spirit of the agreement into which he
has entered, and so as to make hie services available and be-
neficial to his employer. That is a condition engrafted by
the law upon every agreement of this kind; and the breath
of that condition on the part of the person employed will
warrant the other aide in determining the agreement.
Where a person is to pay a certain remuneration for certain
eervices, union those services are rendered so as to be avail-
able
and beaefieial to the employer, the agreement would be
a mere one-sided benefit. To sulntantiate the special plea, it
is necessary that the defendants should prove so much as
constitutes the substance of that plea ; but the second plea,
which alleges only general misconduct, will be sufficiently
proved by such facts as may, in your judgment, constitute a
reasonable and probable cause for dismissing the plaintiff.
In reference to the third plea, it will be your duty to eta-
mine the evidence, and see what portions of it have been
proved. In • cue of this description it always happens
that a variety of topics are introduced not strictly
and properly bearing upon the case. Thus, it is
no question here what are the duties, responsibilities,
and rights of a sub-editor. The complaint against the plain-
tiff is, not that he acted out of his office as sub-editor, but
that he acted improperly in that office. As to the extent of
the duties no question appears to arise ; the important ques-
tion is whether, in the course and proper limits of his duty,
he did or did not properly conduct himself. First, then,
what is the nature of the imputation which the defend-
ants cast upon the plaintiff—in what respect do they say
that he failed in the discharge of his duty' As I understand
it, it is this. They say—" You, as sub-editor, having consider-
able responsibility attached to you, and considerable power
in the general conduct and management of the paper, it is
your duty to see that it is so conducted that nothing shall
reflect on its impartiality or honour, and to take are that it
is not made the vehicle of the private feelings or resentments
of any one connected with it. You are to select articles, not
because they will gratify any one connected with the paper,
but because they are matters about which the public may
reasonably desire to be hammed, and may take an interest
in reading. In so doing, you ought to take care not to lend