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

yourself to any private feeling, or you will bring discredit
oa the paper, and induce a suspicion that it is not conducted
in honourable feeling." That is the general nature of the
imputation; and, applying it to this particular case, they
say, " You knew that Mr. Wearing, a gentleman employed
in a particular department of the paper, had had a personal
quarrel, and was personally connected with the affairs of
Smith. In the particulars of that person's affairs the
public had no interest; but, at the request of Mr. Wearing,
and knowing of his private feelings, you went out of the
course of your duty, and did that which was unusual, and
not consistent with your duty al an editor honourably and
impartially conducting himself. Yon wrote to Bristol to
procure a report of that man's examination under his bank-
ruptcy. It was most unusual to take such an interest in auk
matter; ; last of all should it have been dons in a case where
a party connected with the paper had strong feelings and
personal interests." They say more than that ; they say,
" You bad a letter from Smitti directed for the proprietors."
There is no complaint against the plaintiff for opening that
letter, but that, finding it to contain a complaint against
Weartfieinstead of putting it in a course to come to the
knowledge of the proprietors, so that they might exercise
their judgment on the conduct of this individual, the
plaintiff gave it to Wearing, and even allowed him
to withdraw it from its proper depository—the office—take
it into his own custody, and thus prevent it ever coming to
the knowledge of the proprietors. They say to the plaintiff,
" This you ought not to have done ; and, coupling this with
the other fact, of your writing to obtain that particular re-
port, we think that if in the conduct of our newspaper you
will lend yourself to forward the wishes and designs of per-
sons employed upon it, that is a circumstance calculated to
bring it into disrepute, and, therefore, we claim to dismiss
you.' It is your duty to see whether this complaint is estab-
liahtd to your satisfaction. As to whether the conduct of
Smith was honourable or dishonourable, that is wholly out of
question it would have been quite foreign to have examined
him here, and would only have distracted your attention,
and made it difficult for you to address your minds to the
real subject. The question is, did Mr. Powell act improperly
or not, in acting upon the suggestion and stimulus applied
to him by Wearing, whose motives he knew; and did his
doing so amount to such a degree of impropriety as
justify the proprietors in removing him from his ellos f
That is the real question is the cause. It appears that, es
the 24th Aug. a letter was written by the defendants to the
plaintiff, dismissing him; so that they claim the right to
determine the agreement from that day, and rifler to the
rubjectmatter of the previous correspondence me the p 1
for that determination. Now we come to the real saoMor

of complaint. A great pert of plaintiff's evidence
was to show the extent of the authority belonging to the
office of a sub-editor ,• but that is not matter of controversy
at all. Any report of proceedings in bankruptcy of a nature
to be interesting to the public would properly come
under the notice of the plaintiff as sub-editor ; and such •
report from the provinces would, in the ordinary course of
his duties, be handed to the gentlemen under him, of whom
Mr. Wearing was one, to correct and condense. Su
this report to have corn. in the ordinary way, either
• country newspaper, from their own reporter, or frees a
eorrespondent, no doubt it would have come properly unit[
the consideration of the plaintiff, and, in the ordinary count,
would have been handed to him for the purpose of condens-
ing it and putting it in • form for publication. Then, it ap-
pears, Mr. Wearing's duty was to place his initials to it, and
those initials were the warrant to the printer for inserting it
in the newspaper. Now, it seems, Mr. Powell, the reporter
at Bristol, received a letter from the plaintiffin July, request-
tag a report of this case. In the fiat place, this is said to be
an unusual course ; and in the next place, thtt it was
done after communication with a gentleman of the establish-
ment; for, according to the evidence, the plaintiff admits
he was aware of the state of feeling which existed between
Mr. Wearing and the bankrupt Smith prior to his writing
this letter. The proprieton seem to think it was improper
in their sub-editor, influenced by such means, to go out of
his way for the purpose of procuring this report at all. It
lhrtherappws that the matter was kept in his mind; for
Ilea YeWa being adjourned, a second note was ad-
deemed to the Bristol reporter, saying, " Smith is coming
V again on the 11th of August ; please remember us."
This shows that the plaintiff's attention was kept to the
subject. Then comes up the report, which you will have
banded to you. I have read it, and it appears to me that
there is nothing omitted which in any degree reflect. upon
Mr. Smith; and the only parts struck out that can
be considered favourable to Smith are one or two
little passages—The learned judge having directed
attention to these words, proceeded to say, the first
;Point for your consideration, when you some to
look at the matter, will be, " Is tbis, in truth, a case which
would have been published at all, unless somebody connected
with the newspaper had had a personal interest in it?" We
well know that many of the cases in bankruptcy furnish matter
of considerable general interest; but whether the particulars
about Mr. Smith having attended a certain gambling-
house or not were • matter of public interest to a paper
which was desirous of occupying its columns with eco-
nomy as much as possible, having reduced its size
from two sheets to one, you will judge for yourselves. Then
it is said that the proprietors must have thought the case an
interesting one, for they published further reports of the
proceedings in subsequent papers. But there is this difference :
the publication is question in this cause has nothing to do with
say general principle ; it has only to do with Smith's par-
dada: conduct. The subsequent papers referred to have
evidently been published with the view of elucidating general
principles of law. That is to say, where power is given to a
indge to discharge • person out of custody, the Court of
Queen's Bench thought the power was limited to the judge,
and that, if the judge should decide erroneously, the court had
no power to supervise his judgment and reverse it. This was the
question raised when the subsequent reports were published.
Therefore, there was a distinction between the two cases
this may be gathered from the reports themselves. But the
real question is, whether or not this is an article which
would have found its way into the newspapers from being
calculated, in the mind of any reasonable man, to excite
public Interest in itself; or whether it did so merely because
Mr. Wearing had ha/ a quarrel with Mr. Smith, and wee
personally interested in the result? Of that you will judge
for yourselves. With respect to this being • garbled or an
unfair report, supposing it was a matter proper to be pub-
lished at all, you will also judge. I cannot say that it does
appear to me to be an unfair report at all, in any respect but
one, and that one not a matter of interest as between the
public and the aewqapers, but one in which Smith himself
Wlfeel interested.. That is to say, if • newspaper pub-
an account of his examination, he would, of course,
with it to be known that some person connected with that
Mhad an interest in the matter refined to, and that it
t., therefore, be supposed that • colour was thus given
to the report. With respect to the general substance of it,
It wears to me that it might have been very well spared.
Of skid, you will judge for yourselves. The more mate-
rial question now is, whether it could he supposed
to excite public interest so as to warrant its üblication.
Well, now, it appears that Mr. Smith, feeling himself ',-
grieved by the publication of his affairs, oontaiaing nothing
according to his statement in which the public were inter-
ested, wrote to the proprietors on the 4th of August. Mr.
Smith imputes to Mr. %Veering, you will observe, motives of
which we have no means of Ithowing whether they were
well or ill founded, and which had nothing to do with this
case, except so for as they bear upon Mr. Powell's conduct :
they are not material, except so far as Mr. Powell's being
aware that there were personal feelings in the matter ought
to have led him to act in • manner of which neither party
could complain. Before Mr. Smith's case we. published, the
letter was sent by him, and directed to the proprietor' it
the paper, accompanied by • memorial by himself, sating his
owners against Mr. Wearing to the benchers of Lincoln's-Mn.
It does set appear to be material, because, whatever Mr.
Wwwing's conduct may have been, it is only material as it
z=co the case of Mr. Powell. The only value of this
t is, that it shows that on the 4th of August, before
the publication of the report, Mr. Smith intimates to the
proprietors that he makes certain charges against Mr. Wear-
ing, and that he apprehends Mr. Wearing will use
his influence to make their paper instrumental in
publishing unnecessarily matters concerning himself.
Now, the proprietors do not say that • sub-editor is not to
open letters directed to proprietors which come to him is
the ordinary course of business, nor that, speaking giro
rally, he may not exercise • discretion as to what =
ions in such a case; but they say that such a letter co
ing of the eoniuct of a gentleman connected with the paper,
ought to hays been brought within their knowledge, in
order that they might have been at least made aware of the
imputations which, justly or unjustly, were cast upon this
gentleman, and been on their guard with respect to any in-
fluence he might afterward' exercise in the conduct of the
paper. This letter, however, which cams before the pub-
lication of the report, was not shown to the proprie-
tors. Mr. Powell's statement is, that he handed the
letter to Mr. Wearing, saying, " That, Wearing, con-
cerns you." It does not appear that there was any im-
propriety in his showing that to Mr. iWearing—quite the
contrary ; but whether with his knowledge that certain im-
putations were made against Mr. Wearing by Mr. Smith it
was right to give the letter to Mr. Wearing, and so put it out
of his power to bring the matter under the notice of the
proprietor+, Is a totally different question; se is also
whether, with this letter before the publication, it was ex
pedient for him to be acting with Mr. Wearing in calming
the publication. It will be for you to confider, indeed, on
reading this case, whether you think it a matter of such
peculiar interest to the public, that notwithstanding the
particular circumstances of the case its Insertion was justl-
Sid ; it will be for you to consider whether circumstances
did not impose a caution upon the conductor' of a news-
paper not unnecessarily to insert matters which might bring
the honour and impartiality of the paper under suspicion.
So the matter stands before the publication. Well, then,
immediately after the publication, Mr. Smith again writes
the proprietors on the 6th August. It appears that Mr.
Wowing WPM CO the proprietors on August 6 to this effect:
Ham slis,—l ban received certain information which induces me
to Mang that Mr. Minh intends using hie influence to damage cm in
soar sollaadaa. r purpose he has, I believe, forwarded to
yes
a nprimisd staemmt, whicti be
ltotee a Memorial to the
of Linedn'utes. I hope is hardly necessary for me to
aware you that this document Is altogether false.

Gentlemen, those terms appear rather curious, when you
consider that, on that very day, the letter of Mr. Smith,
which was accompanied by the memorial referred to, was in
the hande of Mr. Wearing, and that if the proprietors were
to have it at all it must be from himself. The learned judge
then re►d other portions of the letter, in which Mr. Wearing
stated, amongst other things, that, notwithstanding the
memorial, the benchers had been perfectly satiafted with his
conduct. The learned judge proceeded to say that the letter
entered into no particulars, that it did not refer to the
publication of Mr. Smith's affairs, or to any complaint
made by Mr. Smith to the proprietors; it gave the pro-
prietors no information with regard to Mr. Smith's
complaint, or to Mr. Wearing'. connexion with him.
After going over the defendants' evidence with great
minuteness, the learned judge proceeded to observe, that
after the inquiry which took place into the cireumstances by
Mr. Dilke and Mr. Forster, the former made a report to the