The Express.
London, England, 1867-02-19 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE,

(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

After Term Nisi Prima sittings at guildhall.—(Before the
Lord Chief Justice and Special Juries.)
GALE'S PRuTECTED GIIiPOWDER COMPANY (LIMITED) V.

LAIIIIIR-LIBEL.

This was an action for libel The esprendant pleaded not
guilty, and that the article complained of was true in sub-
stance and in fact.

Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., Mr. Serjeantßoutine, and Mr.
Hume Williams were counsel for the company air R.
Collier and Mr. Lopez were counsel for the defendant.
The defendant is the proprietor of the E.11,11t !mil
Mere dry, published at Plymouth, and the article com-
plained of had reference to the formation of the Galen
Protected Gunpowder Company (Limited), of which Sir
John Hay, M.P. is the chairman, and Sir A. ]fuller,
and others, the directors. The article qated that the
scheme WWI matured, a company was formed, and the
bubble, as it swelled, exhibited gorgeous colours, throw.
ing couleur de rose into the shade, and the patentees
received the magnificent reward of their labours in
the shape of some 25,000 f. The patentees and their agents
set to work in all directions to get the patent taken ap,
but the gunpowder manufacturers could not be prevailed
epee to see the slightest merit or utility in the invention."
The article also stated that names had been added to the
list of shareholders, who were merely the nominees of the
patentees, and it was said to bear the construction that
the directors had received money presents.
Before the jury was sworn a conference took place be.
tween the learned counsel. after which,
Mr. Coleridge said they had arrived at a settlement. It
was an action brought by the company against the defend.
ant for certain comments made by him upon the company,
and, as it was understood by the plaintiffs, on the charac.
tors of the directors also. The actioo was brought, boa.
ever, not for the comments on the invention and formation
of the company, because they were matters open to free and
fair comment, but for certain passages in the article which
reflected directly or indirectly on the character of there
who were connected with the company. He was intoned
by his learned friend that Mr. Latimer never intended
that the passages should be understood as imputing per.
serial dishonour or discredit to those gentlemen, and he
regretted that it should have been so misunderstood.
That being PO the plaintiffs were willing to withdraw a
juror, tndletthis mater rest. .

Sir. It. Collier said the defendant inserted the article
from a sense of duty which he owed to the public in warn.
log them against entering into • speculation which he
honestly believed was not likely to succeed. The defendant
still adhered to the comments he had made with reference
to the fact it contained, and still believed them to
be true. With regard to the personal honour of the
directors, Yr. Latimer had no hesitation in saying
through him that be never intended to make any such im-
putation on the directors, who were, as they all knew.
gentlemen of the highest honour, and he was surprised
that any such interpretation could have been put upon
the article. Mr. Latuuer regretted that any such interpre•
cation should hare been put upon any part of the article,
and he was willing, under the cucnnuitances, to agree to
the withdrawal of • juror.
The Lord Chief Justice said he thought the article wu
capable of the construction that had been put upon it by
the plaintiff, and he also thought that the learned counsel
had arrived at a satisfactory conclusion.
A juror was then withdrawn.