The Express.
London, England, 1868-02-04 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCREQUER.-FEB„ 3.

Sittinp at Nisi Prima-030ton Mr. Baton Pigott and
a Special Jury.)
Davis V. IVALMSLEL
- •

This was an action for libel. The defendant pleaded not
guilty and • justification.
Mr. Digby Seymour, Q.C. and Mr. Butler Rigby were
counsel for the plaintiff ; Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr.
Joyce were counsel for the defendant.
The plaintiff, Robert Mountain Dave 7, was a general
printer in Lamb's Conduit-street and Fleet-street, and pro-
prietor of a newspaper called Sporting Opinion, and the
defendant, Paul Walinaley, was the proprietor of • circular
known as the Afanehester Rating Inreatinator, which fur-
nished " tips" for different races. The principal libel
complained of wen an advertisement inserted by the de-
fendant
in the Sporting Life, on the 18th of September
last, in which he said his circular would in (attire be pub-
, Balled on Monday, in order " to put • stop to that unprin-
cipled lot of scoundrels connected with Sporting Opinion
and Telegram, who have not sufficient bruins to eke out •
living themselves, but rob me by selling my/Inel saleatlons,
and now advertise a shilling swindle." The lastallusion had
! reference to • kind of lottery, in which the drawers of the
winning hones received in certain proportions the
money subscribed, minus 10 per oent, which was kept by
! the plaintiff to cover the expenses. On the Mad of the
same month the defendant wrote a letter to the plaintiff,
in which he threatened to expose his swindling "xii'
. and called him an infernal scoundrel, a notorious
and other opprobrious names ; sod in • subsequent number
of the defendant's circular similar language wee applied
tomer& the plaintiff.
. -

Mr. Davey, the plaintiff, in cress-examination, said be
was proprietor of the " shilling specs." In the spec /or the
emarewitch of 1861 there were to be 3,000 subscribers at
• shilling each. The drawer of the first hone was to
receive tiff., of the second 301., and 10L was to he divided
among the starters, and 15/. among the nonstarters. The
spec was guaranteed by the proprietors of Sporting
opinion. The list was not filled up, and the awns actually
divided were for the first horse 31., for the second 11. 10s.,
for the starters 1/. 10.., and for the nonstarters 21. Ns.
This was after deducting the 10 per cant. If the money was
notcalled for on the Monday after the race it was forfeited.
The object of that was to compel the subscribers to come
and take their money. He did not wish them to leave the
money in his hands. He was not connected himself with
the turf, and he employed • sporting writer to furnish the
leading articles for Sportiap Opinion. He also advertised
a spec for the Cambridgeshire race, end in • leading article
it was called • swindle, but only in a figurative sense. The
list was not filled, and all the money was returned with-
out any deduction. The defendant published on Saturday
his circular containing a key to his " selections" of
horses, which were advertised in the daily papers in the
following week, and witness published his paper on Mon-
day, and gave in it sometimes • part and sometimes the
whole of that key just 411 it suited him. The defendant
sold his circular for ls. and Sporting Opinion was sold
for twopence. Witnesioontinued to so copy from the de-
fendant's circular during the whole of the racing seamen of
1807, and when the defendant changed his day of publication
to Monday he changed his to Tuesday in orderto besnabled
to copy his keys, but in the same way he copied sporting
news from the Morning Poet and other newspapers. He
still continued to cepy the defendant's keys whenever they ,
were published. He was not aware that in sporting
phraseology " specs " were called swindl or that glasses,'
of drink won by toning were sodesignated
Re-examined—l got " nix " by the Cambridgeshire
spec—that is nothing.
I Mr. Weiland Seale, publisher of the Swaim Timm,
identified the writing of the defendant in the letter of the
22nd September.
I The defense was that the plaintiff syeteiciatically used
for his own paper the information which the defendant
collected at mint trouble and expense, end by selling it at
2d. seriously diminished the aresdation of the tosestwater_ ,
upon the receipts from which the defendant depended
entirely for his livelihood ; that be disregarded all the
remonstrances and cautions of the defendant against such
an unfair and dishonest practice ; and that under these'
circumstances the defendant was jasifled ia speaking of
end desariling the pisintil In the way ha had dons.