The National Register.
London, England, 1822-06-03 00:00:00

LAI+ INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
1.111EL.-JONES v. STLPIIENS.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff. who is an atto ney.
to recover damages from the defendant, who is a law bookseller,
for a libel published by him in a pamphlet. The daniasta were
laid at 10001.
Mr. Jervis stated the case. The plaintiff was a gentleman
carrying on the busine a of an attorney at Hanley, in Stafford •
shire; and the defendant was a respectable law stationer and
bookseller, well-known to the profession, and carrying on busi-
ness in Bell-yard. The libel in question, which had been pub-
lished and extensively circulated for the last two years, was con-
tained in a pamphlet addressed to the Master of the Court of
King's Bench. The subject was some fancied abuse which was
stated to exist in that Court (the Court of Mixchequero and the
most respectable individuals, the Clerks of that Court. were made
the subject of the attack. They were charged with filing decla-
rations on unstamped paper, charging the duty to the client. as
ii it had been paid, and putting it into their own pockets; thus
defrauding tha 'subject or the revenue. In the course of this
hitch which was written under the assumed name of Paul Wil-
kinson, and went on most wickedly to villify the learned Judge
of that Court, as well as the clerks; allusion was mode to a case,
where a party having entered into a bail bond, by some neglect
himselland his two bail were fined, and in consequence three
declarations were filed against them, or. in other words. separate
actions were commenced against each of the parties, and the ori-
ginal debt being but 131. taxed costs to the amount of DI. were
accumulated upon it. and the Court refused to give relief to the
parties until these costs were paid. This, which was a common
course of proceeding in other courts, the author of the libel had
used as the ground-work of his accusation, and burst out with
Know, learned reader, that the attorney in this case was Thos.
June:, of Hanley, in Stafffirdshire," and went on to say that his
character and conduct might be learned from his neighbours,
but that, according to his own account of himself, he was a man
more Armed against than sinning." The libel went on at
considerable length, in a strain of affected irony, to accuse the
plaintiff of being a disreputable practitioner of the law. The
earned counsel concluded by making an appeal to the Jury as
o the value of character, and particularly protaaaional character,
and it would be their duty to give protection and compensation
to the person who now appealed to them, by inflicting most exem-
plary punishment on the purse of the defendant.
The publication of the libel was proved, and in the course of
the evidence it was also proved that the three declarations filed
in the actions on the bail-buns were without stamps. In the
taxed bill of costs was one charge of t ts. SJ. and another of Hs.
7il. for duty, of which no stamps were shown.
The Clerk of the Warrant of Attorney-office was called to
prove that the plaintiff had been, and was now, regularly
enter das an attorney. On his cross-examination it appeared,
that between the years 18t3 and 1814, and from November to
February last, no entry was made in the books of the defendant's
being certificated.
Mr. Brougham here submitted, that the plaintiff must be
non suited, as it had been averred in the declaration that he was
at the time of the publication of the libel an attorney. It was
neceisary to prove the avemnent. and to show that he was such
attorney at the time of the publication; but by the evidence
which had been put in to prove the declaration, it was shown that
the plaintiff wits not legally entered as an attorney. A penalty
of 101. was annexed to the offence of practising as an attorney
without a due entry. As die admission of an attorney was no-
thing without his certificate, so the certificate of his admission
was nothing witnout the entry.
A long argument ensued on this objection, which Baron
Wood ultimately overruled, observing, that in the whole course
(Allis practice he had never known of a case of the kind, and
would not venture to stop the cause upon the objection, of which
the plaintiff might derive the benefit her:after. The point was
therefore reserved for the Bench.
Mr. Brougham addressed the Jury for the defendant. in reply
to Mr. Jervis, and said he should give them proofs of the truth
of the assertions contained in the pamphlet respecting the conduct
and character of the plaintiff, and consequently of the defendant's
right to publish those truths. It had been admitted that the
plaintiff had in his practice on the occasion spoken of, brought on
one bond three actions to increase the costs, when one action
would have otherwise sufficed. He cited the case of Kay v. Hill,
where three actions had been instituted to recover treble costs,
when Chief Justice Abbott characterized the case as one which
did not often come, but which always demanded the marked
censure of the Court as most improper. The learned counsel
asked why the action had not been brought in Staffordshire,
where the plaintiff had pracisad, as Hanley well knew, and
where, it' he durst, he would have brought the action; for there
it was known, whether he was or not a respectable practitioner,
useful or tolerable to his neighbours. Why had he proceeded
against the publisher, when the author was ready to meet him,
unless that he found it more safe to contend with one who did
not know tine, than with one who did ? These facts alone, the
learned counsel contended, ought, if the case went no farther, to
cut down the damages to a farthing. But he would go farther,
and show that every line of the alleged libel was true, and would
prove that the plaintiff carried on a most flagitious practice of
erect ng offices at two places, at one of which lie put up a man of
straw, whilst his clients could only have the benefit of his AO
and experience in another. The learned counsel said, he rested
Mr a verdict on the proof of the truth of the mutters alleged, and
to which pitiot he requested their MMOSI attention.
Sonia witnesses were called, of whom it was tried to extract
evidence of the general character of Jones, but the Court would
not suffer such a course of examination.

Mr. Brougham said, that if the Court should afterwards coin-
cide with his Lordship, in declaring such evidence inadmissible,
it would prevedt any one from pleading in justification.
It. Jones. a grocer, deposed that he had employed Hammond
in a suit at law which he understood on the toms of " no cure no
pay," and that no costs should be paid if the suit were lost. The
suit was lost, when the plaintiff; Mr. Jones, scr.t hint in a bill of
costs. and on his refusing to pay, he was arrested, and after
considerable imprisonment for it, got out by taking the benefit of
the act.

Another witness, a grocer, deposed to the saine effect.
It was proved that after Ilarnmond quitted Jones, each issued
an advertisement cautioning their connexions against paying
their respective debts or bills to each other.
A variety of evidence was ufiered fir the purpose of justifying
the detailsof the libel, but declared to be inadmissible, and the
above was all that went to the Jury.
Mr. Jervis replied at great length, and ascribed the conduct of
the witnesses who had come forward against the plaintiff' to a
groundless ill-will towards that gentleman. He contended that
the libel had been by no means justified.
Mr. Baron Wood, in sommitig up, said it was for the Jury to
pronounce whether the libel, which lie believed to be a most
scandalous one, had received a fair justification.
The Jury retired for a short time, and returned a verdict for
he plaiotiff—dartuiges 501.
WEDNESDAY, SAY 29.
31ANNElt LreAs.
This was an action brought to recover damages for slander
and defamation. The damages were laid at vuol.
Mr—lervis said, the plaintiff: Mr. Francis Manners, a res-
pectable tradesman in the city, proceeded against his son-in-law,
the defendant, not to recover damages, but by the verdict which
lie sought from the Jury, to put a stop to the course of abuse
which lie had received from his son-in-law, in return for the sup-
port, assistance, and benefits which his kindness had bestowed
upon him.
The defendant, who is a young man of about six-and-twenty,

THE NATIONAL REGISTER

was in Court for the purpose of pleading his own cause; but
Baton Wood interrupted the counsel for the prosecution, and
asked whether the case, which as between members of the same
family must be a peculially painful one to enter into, could not
be settled out of Court?
Mr. Jervis said, if the defendant would make an apology in the
Court for his conduct, and promise as publicly that it should
never be repeated, all the purpose► of the prusecution would be
answered.
The learned Judge advised the defendant, that he could not
get off mote advantageously than by making the reparation
demanded.
The defendant, after a short consideration, expressed his son ow
and repentance for the conduct he had pursued, and promised
that it should never be repeated.
A verdict for the plaintiff, damages •os. was then taken ; but
it was promised that, so long as the defendant kept his word,
the payment of the damages and costs should nt t be enforced.
Baron Wood gave an eloquent admonition to the detendant,
' on the folly and wickedness of his conduct; particularly ani-
madverting upon the situation in which bath conduct placed his
unbrtunate wife towards her parent.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
WEDNESDAY, MAY 29.

THE KING V. NIARSIIALLANDANOTIIER.

This was indictment against the defendants, charging them
with conspiracy to gist a false character to persons, who
thereby obtained goods trout the Loudon Gas and Tar COlll-
- It appeared in the course of the proceedings that tire
person% who aloud in the situation of prosecutors, were not
sufficiently vested with the property belonging to the company
to ausintaio the prosecution, and the defentrants were acquitted.