The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-06-26 00:00:00

LAW INTEI,LIGENCE.

COURT OF RING'S BENCH, SATURDAY, Juxr
RICHARD MARTIN, ESQ. V. w•.). CLEMENT, REQ.'
This was an action for a libel published in the Morning Chro-
nick, of which the defendant is the proprietor. The defendant
pleaded, first, not guilty ; and seetwol, ajuatification.
Mr. Guns EY ( with whom was Mr. ('HITTY) stated the eve
This, he said, was an action by Mr. Martin, well known as having
been t'or many years a representative in Parliament for the count)
of Galway, against the defendant, as proprietor of the Aforni.•
Chrosade. Mr. Martin complained of a series of attacks ape;
him in the several newspapers which he (slr. G.) held in his hand.
and which were published in the months of July, Septemb(7, sod
October in the last year. Mr. Martin had introduced into Perlis.
ment a bill, which passed into a law, for the prevention of cruelty
to dumb animals, and had, with a great degree of humanity, lent
his assistance on various occasions for the purpose of enforcing the
Statute. This conduct had exposed him to attacks from those who
differed from him as to the policy of the law. Of these attacks Le
complained : some of them had found their way into the defen-
dant's newspaper. One of the libels of which the plaintiff com-
plained was in the statement of what was supposed to have parted
at a police-office, on an occasion when Mr. Martin made a can-
plaint against a boy for cruelty to an ass. Mr. Martin was repre.
aented to nave stated, in one part of his evidence, that the boy hod
beaten the ass a ith a bludgeon, and that in another he called the
instrument a switch, thereby imputing to him that he had made
inconsistent and contradictory statements. To this the plaintiff
thought he ought not to submit, and he had brought this action for
the vindication of his character. The defendant had pleaded a
justification, and had undertaken to prove that the plaintiff had
made the contradictory sta•ements alleged. The only object that Mr.
Martin had in bringing this action was, the vindication of his chat.
racier. That was all the satisfaction he sought to-day. lie (Mr.
Gurney) trusted he should be able to convince the Jury that the
defendant had acted without authority; and it was fur the latter to
justify, by his evidence, the representation which he had hem in.
damd to make respecting the plaintiff's conduct.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL here interfered, and said—lf 3lr.
Gurney will allow me, I ant ready, on the part of Mr. Clement,
to state (and knowitig what I do of Mr. Martin, I think lie
statement will be satisfactory to him), that he Met reason to think
there was some inaccuracy in the reports complained of, although
there was no intention whatever to throw any imputation on Mr.
Martin's character. We are convinced there must have been
some inaccuracy in the statement, and at the same time that we
make this concession, it is right to say that it is made in the Niles:
manner, and with the most liberal feeling on the part of Mr.
Clement, who, being now convinced that his paper was made the
medium of an incorrect statement, I trust Mr. Martin will be
satisfied. I ant desirous of making this concession in the fullest
manner.

31r. GURNEY—From what I know of Mr. Maitin (who is hoe
in town), I think I may venture to say, that he will be satisfiel
with the statement made by my Learned Friend. I know that
in bringing this action, nothing was further from his contem-
plation than the recovery of damages. Ilia tale object was,
the vindication of his character; and after what is stated by the
A Porney-(kneral on the defendant's behalf, I think I may take
upon myself the responsibility of accepting a verdict for not inal
damages.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—I am sure if Mr. Martin were
here lie would be in perfect good humour, as I have reason to be.
lieve that lie is now in good humour with his Irish constituents.
Me has been returned again for the county of Galway, and his son
is returned for the borough of Galway; and I certainly am glad
that his Cunnamara friends have adhered to hint so faithfully.
A verdict was then entered for the plaintiff—Damages Is. by
consent.

COI'RT OF COMMON PLEAS, SATURDAY, JUNE 24.
STANTON' AND KENNY V. PENELOPE AND CATHERINE

MARIA FAMSHAW E.
Mr. Sergeant ADAMS stated that this was an action brought to
recover the amount of a bill which had been incurred in consequence
of the negligence of the defendants' servant. The plaintiffs were
surgeons, carrying on business in partnership, and the defendants
were ladies of rank and fortune, residing in Berkeky.square. So
long ago as the 31st of Marcia, 11124, the accident which had given
rise to the present action occurred. On the evening of that day the
defendants were in their carriage, returning from a vls,t to their
relative, Sir B. Martin, in Somerset-house, when their coachman
drove their horses with such speed, and with so much negligence,
through the gateway of that place, that he drove over and seriously
injured two females named Robertson and Purvis. Thedefendants
were immediately informed of the accident, and manifested, as
might have been expected, the greatest sorrow for what bad oc-
curred ; one of the females had her leg broken, and the other het
spine injured. The unfortunate persons were taken to the plain-
tiffs' house, and the defendants desired Mr. Stanton to affOrd them
every assistance, and promised to recompense him for his attend.
ante. That gentleman accordingly attended Mrs. Robertson and
Mrs. Purvis, from the time •.f the accident to the 20th August.
1024, and for that attendance, as well as for the medicines fur-
nished, he and his partner claimed a sum of 471. As the defendants,
for reasons best known to themselves, had refused to satisfy this
claim, the plaintiffs had been compelled to come into Court, and to
ask from a Jury that which no reasons'''e person could suppose to
be other than a moderate demand, when die nature of the injuries,
and the time consumed in curing them, were properly considered.
The Learned Sergeant called a Mr, Gordon, who saw the accident,
and who swore to having afterwards seen one of the defendants hand
her card out of the carriage to Mr. Stanton, and hearing her at the
same time say that she would see him recompensed for hie trouble.
Mr. Reynolds, who, st the time in question, was an apprentice
to Mr. Stanton, proved the attendance and the medicines furnished.
Mrs. Purvis proved the injury she had received, and said that
the Misses Fanshawe called on her during her illness, and told her
that they had desired 111 r. Stanton to pay her every attention, and
they would pay the expenses. She added, that in fact they had
paid the expenses she had incurred.
On her cross-examination she stated that she had received SI:11.
from the defendants, as a compensation for the injury she had re.
ceived. This was after she had brought an action against them.
31r. Watson said he had received a sum of 7511. from the Mines
Fanshawe. Of' that sum 501. was paid as a compensation to Mrs.
Purvis, and the rest for costa, and the surgeons' bill.
Mrs. Anne Neale, at whose house Mrs. Robertson lodged, swore
that once, when the Misses Fetishawe came there, they promised to
pay the doctors' bill.
Mr. Serjeant SPASTKI 6, for the defendants, said, that in point of
law the defendants were not liable for any of the expenses that had
been incurred, as the injury which these persons had sustained was
purely accidental. What the defendants had done, was merely
out of a motive of hnmanitv ; and not only had they consented to
afford to each of the two injured persons ample compensation, but
they had also, in fact, paid all the expenses that had been incurred.
He should prove these facts, and beyond these, that Mr. Stanton
had himself declared that he did not hold the 31isArs Fanshawe re-
sponsible; and having done so, the defendants would be entitled to
a vertltch

Mr. Warren, the defendant's attorney, proved that actions had
been brought against the defendants, both by Mrs. Purvis and by
Mrs. Robertson; that the former was settled. on the payment et
7GI. as silently described ; and the other on payment of 2091. WWI
lie made the calculations on which these settlements were effected.
he certainly did include in his mind the amount of the doctors
bill. lie did so, because the defendants intended to recoo,pence
both these persons for all the expense and inconvenienee they had
incurred in consequence of the accident.
The attorney who had conducted Mrs. Robertson's action,
proved the receipt of the 2001., which he had paid over to his
client. Mr. Stanton requested to have notice when the money
was paid to Mrs. Robertson, in order that he might come and re-
ceive his bill. Notice was accordingly given, and Mr. Stanton
called on Mrs. Robertson, who complained that his bill was exor-
bitant, and offered him a sum, which he refused to take.
This witness was asked, on cross-examination, whether he had
not offered to bring an action for Mr. Stanton against the Misses
Fanshawe ?—to which he immediately replied in the negative;
and added, that when the compromise was effected between those
ladies and his client, he had asked Mr. Brougham and another
gentleman, whom he had retained, whether such an action would
lie, and they both told him it would not.
The Lor Cn- ' 11087,--

The Loan Citiee lorricE—And no man in his lenses could
entertain a different opinion. Let the plalntiffi be called.
The plaintiff's were accordingly nonsuited.
HIGH WATER THIS DAY AT LONDON BRIDGE.
Morning
- - -
hinted at THE BRITISH PRESS Office; by I. W. CARLTON, N.. NI,
Strand, and published by R. CANNON, URN PIM.