The Express.
London, England, 1856-11-21 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

THIS DAY.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
armies 111 5L11C0.1111.1111.2 TN! 1.011:0 C 2117 SAXON. 11i. SALM
ALDIIIOOIf. 111. RAMON lIIAIIWY.LL, ARO WI HAIM WATIOR.
THE EARL OF LUCAN ~ GEOROE FREDERICK.
SMITH AND OTHERS.—ALLEGED LIBEL.

Me. Field applied for a rule to show cause why the
defendant% the proprietors of the Daily News, should not
be allowed to add a special plea to the record in this cue,
which was one of vast importance. The action was brought
to recover damages for an alleged libel published in the
Deily News of the 26th of July last. It would be
it the recollection of their lordehips that there
WHO two 00011liatiOn of inquiry instituted, one
called the Crimean end the other the Chelsea Commie-
/doe, for the purpose of reporting on the conduct of the
Ofiktifl in the Crimes during the late disutrone war. The
Chelsea Commissioners, in their report, had animadverted in
rather strong terms on tho conduct of certain
noble officer% and amongst others the Earl of Lucie,
which draw forth an article in the Daily Newt, the subject
of the present proceedings. Those proceedings were VOW
pending, end it was far the purr's* of adding a special plea
to the record that the present application was made. The
plaintiff complained that the alleged libellous article, which
referred to the report of the Cliches Commluioners, eon-
Wised certain observations which uojastly sad unfairly
reflected on his charaeter, more particularly the conclusion
of the article, which referred to the officers of the division
which was engaged in the lamentable cavalry chew at
Balaclava. The plea which the defendants proposed to
plead would embody part of the report of the Chelsea
_ . . . .

Commissioners on which the sttioM was hued, and it was
essential that that report should be admitted in evidence at
the trial.

Mr Baron Watson—The report of the Chelsea inquiry
wee published submitted to parliament ?
Mr. Field raid such wu the sue, sad the alleged libel
wee written after the Tepid sppeered.
The Chief Baron—l suppose you intend to justify por-
tions of the libel. Won't the plea you propose to add
come under the general issue ?

Mr. Field said inch was tot the intention of the defen-
dants. They maintained that the 'Wide was not libellou,
and wee only a fair comment on the public acts of a public
men. Unless the special plea wee added setting oat what the
decree world be, the defendants would at the trial be told
that they had acted unfairly. The otject was to state in the
plea the fade which drew forth the commend is the Daily
Nees.

Mr. Lush, who appeared in the first inetance to show
canes against the rule, said it was 113 W becoming the fashion
to introduce irrelevant matter Into special plec-, in order to
prejudice the minds of the jury.

The Chief Baron—How can the introduetion of lemma-
teritl, irrelevant, and improper matter in the plea, enable
the defendant to put in evidence that which ought not to be
put in evidence ?

Mr. Lush observed that such wu ofteo the case, and the
istroduction of such matters in a speed plea wu a mere
clap trap. If the defendants could justify a Biagio allega-
tion In the libel, for libel it was, he would not oppoie this
application. The article began with a statement that the
pinata!' was a general commanding a division of cavalry in
the Crimea.

The Chief 13tron—lied you not better read the alleged
libel ?

Kr. Lush hating stated that the article complained of was
published to a leader which appeared in the Daly News of
the 26th of July last, read the tollowirg entrect :

_ .
.. IU as we think of Lord Lasso end Lord Cardigan, w•
fool convineod that had they bets under the orders of •
1 oorapetent Conmander-in-Chid, of on* who would hat•

'enema and treated them so eoldien only, even they
would not have disgraced and thicredited the name
and fame of England, or would have been obliged to
resign. Insolent, disorderly re they are—much inclined
as they are to abuse their positions—relying aa they do
for support on a bad system of favouritism in high
quarters, they are both brave men, they have both some
m;lit•ry spirit nod aspirations ; and used as instruments by
• firm, vigorous, competent commander, whims firm will
they respected end feared, somethir g might have been made
of them. Not being so commanded, all their natural and
acquired vices and defects bad full play, and
have introduced into the telitary history of thole
country an episode of the most discreditable de-
scription, which is not to be shufll -d out of
blame the board of general 461cen happens is
have hit on the true cause why supplier could not be car
Yeyed from Balaklava to the front. No, the Lucas.
Cardigan scandal Still remains undiminished in real gravity,
at ones a veining and an instruction to the Duke of
Cambridge as to the heavy responsibility he has assumed
at the Horse Guards. His 13-st, his imperative
ditty will be to throw himself upon the yens(
and energetic officers of the army ; to seek out and
elevate to places of mast true ability and seal ; to introduce
into the service • deeper sense of responsibility, a more
*brew sum of duty, than the truculent insubordination of
the two whitewashed peers, and the frivolous tone of the
Report upon which we have been commenting, proves to

. .
prevail among the senior members of the profession."
The learned oomssel then proceeded to say] that if the
defendants could jastify a shies allegation therein con-
tained, he would not appear there to oppose the application;
but it was totally groundless. The whole point of the
plea was embodied in that which already appeared CM
the 'scud, namely, that the art.cle in question was a fair
and botrafsde comment on the wadect of the Earl of Lucius,
cad was printed and published without any malicious inten-
tion on the part of the defendants.
Mr. Baron Alderson—That will fall within the general
. _

Mr. Lash—lf the defeedants relied on the grouad that
the libel was a fair comment is a public journal on a publie
man, the plea of "not guilty" would include it.
The Chief Baron—lt the defendants are at liberty to prove
the feet at the trial which they now seek to plead I don't see
why it should not appear on the record.
Mr Lush replied that the plea sought to be added WAS
for the purpose of introducing irrelevant matter at the
trial. _ . -

The Chief Baron—Sitting as a judge al Nisi Prins, I
would net admit irrelevant matter.
Mr. Lush said that the rules laid down to govern the
pleas which might be shaded, set forth that ',vend pleas
founded on some one ground of defence should not be ad-
mitted on the record.
The court having requested Mr. Lush to real the libel
again, which the I d couneel did,
Mr. Baron Alderson observed that it reflected more on
the character tithe late Lord Raglan than on that of the
Earl of Luoan.
Mr. Baron Bramwell—lf the defendaats say that this
alleged libel is a fair comment on a public man, and intends
to support that view at the trial, what occasion is there to
introduce this special pleat The object clearly is to bring
forward this matter which the defendants propose to embody
in the *pedal plea at the trial. They can do so without
pleading it.
Mr. Lush concurred in that view, saying that if the plain.
tiff et the trial demurred to the introduction of that evi-
dence, the co:utnna of the Daily News would teem with
observations on the unfairness of the Tem:edits.
The Chief Baron—l doe's agree with you, Mr. Lush,
when you state that these special pleas are added for the
purpose of introducing Wordiest matter. The istroductien
of irrelevant matter in ovideacie is
judge. The counsel in their speeches frequently introduse
irrelevant wetter, and there is some difficulty is stopping
them. (A lamb.)
Mr. Field was then heard is 'aspen t of the rule, contend-
fog that *elms their lordships granted thin application, the
defendants would be precluded, at the trial, from the admis-
sion of evidence if importance to the defendants which
ought to be admitted.
Mr. Baron Alderson—Yon might as well pat " Chevy
Chase "en the record. (Laughter )
The Chief Baron—You will be et liberty to introduces
the evidence notwithstanding that it is not set
forth is the pies. You may plead the general Wee,
sad add • plea atatiag that the libel is a fair comment oa
the public acts of a public man, but you can't go further.
Mr. Lath said he had an authority to support his view.
The case of " Fore it. Btivertop," which same before the
Court of Commoa Flees, biro 'Erectly on the point.
Mr. Baron Bramwell—lf this rule be granted it will bind
the defendants to prove certain facts,,h ,ifit is refused,
they will set be bound to sabetaatiate the propoeed plea.
It would, in my opinion, prove • miachievnes grant to the
defeadants if we vended to the aNlicstion.
Their lordships refused the rule but gave the defendants
leave to plead that the article complained of was "a fair
comment la a public jostled ea the public acts of a public
era."
Rule refused aoreordingly.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
IMMO 01 34000.-1170011 /Mien canswau., WILL 1•115.

CROWDIII, AIM Rica.

lATLOIL MID Artirtaill e. STRAY —TVIICHASE or SIAM