The National Register.
London, England, 1822-06-02 00:00:00

DIVIDENDS.

June 18. S. Todd, Southampton, mercer-22. J. and C. Bigg,
Hatfield, Hots, co iiiii ion brewers-18, J. Forbes and D. Gre-
gory. Aldem milbury, merchant*--M, J. Tickall, Brighoux,
Cunilx•rlanti, broker-18. C. Hist, Comhill, auctioneer--19.
J.
Ratehill:. Manchester, calico printer-1, A. Kelly, Colonnatle,
Pall Mall, jeweller-18, T. Palmer, Gutter Lane, Cheapside,
silk manufacturer.
CERTIFICATES to be granted June IS.
J. Thurbon, Match, (7anibridgeshire, draper-1. Jacobs.
Bristol, glass manufacturer—lt. J. Tomlinson, Bristol. oil of
viUiol manufacturcr-11. B. Hall, Grosvenor Street West. l int-
liro, carpriarr—T. White, Drinklnw, Warwickshire, intrholdcr
W. and N. Baker, Porkka, gtocci—T. Windt:tat, Totstock,

r

LAI+ INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
LINEI.JONES V. RTILVHENS.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is an atto ney,
to recover damages from the defendailt, who is a law bookseller,
for n libel published by him in a pamphlet. The damages were
laid at 10001.
Mr. Jervis stated the case. The plaintiff was a gentleman
carrying on the business of an attorney at I lanky, in Stultstal •
shire; and the defendant was a respectable law stationer and
bookseller, well-known to the profession, and carrying on bud-
PIeSS 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'► Bench. The subject was some fancied abuse which was
stated to exist in that Court (the Court of Exchequer,) 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 tinstamped paper, charging the duty to the client, as
if it had been (mid• and misting it into their own pockets; thus
defrauding tha 'subject or the revenue. In the course of this
libel, 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 made to LA CAW,
where a party having entered into a bail bond, by some neglect
himself and his two bail were tined, and in conacquence three
declarations were filed against them, or. in other words. separate
actions were commenced against each of the patties, turd elle ori-
ginal debt being but 131. taxed costs to the amount of 211. were
aectimulat-d upon it, and the Court refused to give relief to the
parties until these costs were paid. This, which was a common
' .rse 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.
Jones, of Hanley, in Stsiliwelshire," 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 sinned against than sinning." The libel went on at
considerable length, in a strain of affected irony, to accuse the
I:lint:di of being a disreputable practitioner of the law. The
canted counsel concluded ky making an appeal to the Jury as
o the value of character, and particularly professional character,
and it would be their duty to give protection and compensation
to the person alto now appealed to them, by billicting 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-bona were without stainps. In the
taxed bill of costs was one charge of lls. li. and another of 8,
7,1. 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 appeased,
that between the years 1813 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
nun-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
necessary 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 was not legally entered as an attorney. A penalty
of fol. was annexed to the obi ace of practising as an attorney
without a dire entry. As the admission of an attorney was no-
thing without his certificate, so the certificate of his adinission
was nothing witnout the entry.
A long argument ensued on this objection, which Baron
Wood ultimately overruled, observing, that in the whole course
of his 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 henclit hereafter. The puha was
tltcrefore reserves' for the Bench.

Mr. Brougham addressed the for the defendant, in reply
to Nlr. Jervis, and said lie should give them proofs of the truth
of the assertions contained in the an ph let 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. 11111,
where three actions had been instituted to recover tieble costs,
When Chief Justice Abbott characterized the case as one which
did not often come, but which always demanded the makes,
censure of the Court as most improper. The learned counsel
asked why the action had not been brought in Staffordshire,
where the plaintiff' hail prac iscd, as Hanley well knew, and
where, if lie durst, he would hare brought the action ; for there
it was known, whether he was or not a respectable practitioner,
useful or tolerable to his neighbours. Wily had he proceeded
against the publisher, when the author was ready to meet him,
unless that lee found it more safe to contend with one who did
not know him, 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
erecting Whet... 3 at two places, at one of which he put up a man of
straw, whilst his clients could only have the benefit of his skill
rend experience in another. The bunted counsel said, he rested
for a verdict MI the proof of the truth of the matters alleged, and
to which pout he requested their utmost attention.
Some witnesses were calied, of whom it was tried to extract
evidence of the general cluutecter of Joni*, but the Court would
not suffer such a course of exanlination.

Mr. Brougham said, that if the Court should afterwards coin-
cide with his Lonl.hip, in declaring such evidence inadmissible,
it would prevedt any one from pleading in justification.
N. Jone,, a grocer, deposed that he had employed I liimmond
in a suit a! law which lie understood on the terms of" no cure no
',Ay," and that no costs should be paid if the suit were lost. The
suit was lost, when the plaintiff; Alt. Jones, sent him in a bill of
costs, and tin his refusing to pay, he was arrested, and after
con,ideruble imprisonment fur it, got out by taking the benefit of
the act.

Another witness, a grocer, deposed to the same efFect.
It was proved that alter Hammond quitted Jones, each issued
an advertisement cautioning their connexions against paying
their rem wetive debts of L ills to each other.
A variety of evidence was offered tor the purpose of justifying
the detail, of the libel, but di:elated to be inadmissible, and the
above was all that went to the Jury.
Air—Jervis replied at great length, and ascribed the conduct of
the witnesses who had *nue forward against the plaintiff' to a
gnwrialle,s ill•will towards that gentleman. He contended that
the libel had been by no means justified.
Ali% Baron ‘Vood, in suinniibg up, said it was for the Jury to
pronounce whether the libel, which he believed to be a most
scandalous one, had rettivitl a Ctir justification.
The Jury retired for a shuts time, and returned a verdict for
he plainull:--tlani4es Sol.

WEDNESDAY, MtY 29.
MANNER 1,. Litc.ba.
This wag an action brought to recover damages for blander
and defamation. The datita-c, were laid at Mil.
Mr. Jervis said, the rilsirititr, Mr. Francis Manners, a res-
pectable tradesman in the city. proceeded against his
the defendtuu,not to recover damages, but by the verdict which
ho sought from the Jury, to put a shy to the course of ithuve
which lie had received from his son-in-law, in return for the sup-
port, as,istance, told benefits which his kindness had bestowed
upon him.
The defendant, why is a young man of about bia-autl-tw tatty,