The Sun.
London, England, 1855-02-07 00:00:00

the agreement was that the accoutrements of the de- •
reialant should be handsel over to the purchaser of his
cortinissio». Sri:no disputa arose about this, and the
plaintiff wrote to him on the 'subject. and also asking fur
two guineas due to the mess fund. To this the defendant
wrote a scurrilous letter, denying that he was indebted
to "the mess, as he had never belonged to it, and saying
that those who lived in glsss houses should not throw
stones, and then went on to impute that the plaintiff had
taken a fee of 51. ss. on the transfer of the commission,
which he had no right to do, as his late Majesty William
IV. had directed that it should not be taken, and that
he would institute an inquiry into it. Subsequently to
this there was such an inquiry at the Lord Chamber-
lain's-office, which terminated in plaintiff's entire exo-
neration from all blame in the transaction, and his cap-
tain, Lord Sandwich, gave him a testimonial to that
effect. Subsequently to this the plaintiff became a cap-
tain in the Royal London Militia, in which the defendant
was then a captain ; but it appeared that they always
met as strangers, only speaking on matters of duty.
In support of are plaintiff's case, the plaintiff, the ad-
jutant of the Royal London Militia, the pay-sergeant
of the defendant's company, and others, were called,
who spoke to the anonymous letter being in the hand-
writing of the defendant.. After which several skilled
witnesses were called, who spoke to having compared
the anonymous letter with several genuine letters of the
defendant, and that they believed the anonymous letter
was in his handwriting, although disguised.
For the defence, the defendant was called, who swore
that the letter in question was not written by him, or
with his knowledge, and he further swore that he did
not even know that the plaintiff was a candidate for
admission as a member of the Junior United Service
Club. Several witnesses were also called who, on being
shows the anonymous letter, swore that the letter was
not in the handwriting of the defendant, awl, in their
opinion, did not resemble it. It was also most eloquently
urged by the learned counsel for the defence that there
was an entire absence of motive in the defendant to
commit so serious an offence as_ that imputed to him,
and that before they could find for the plaintiff, they
must find the defendant guilty of perjury.
Mr. James, in the absence of Mr. Watson,replied upon
the evidence adduced on the part of the defendant, and
contended that a person who was base and dastardly
enough to write such a cruel slander as that contained in
the anonymous letter in question would not hesitate to
endeavour to relieve himself from the consequences of
hie act by coining there to commit the crime of perjury
by denying that he wrote the letter.
Lord Campbell, in summing up, said that this was a
most important ewe both to the parties and to the public.
It was perfectly clear that the letter set out in the de-
claration was a libel. Indeed, the eloquent counsel ow
both sides had Equally reprobated the conduct of any
person who could write such a dastardly attack on ano-
ther behind his back, and thus do him a most irreparable
injury. The falsity of that letter was admitted on all
hands, and the only question in this case was, who wrote
the letter. That was a question peculiarly for the jury.
The present case was the first that had been tried in this
court in which the provision contained in the 27th sec.
of the new Common Law Procedure Act came into ope-
ration. That was a most salutary provision, and enabled
a jury to institute a comparison as to the handwriting
el a document alleged to be in the handwriting of the
defendant with any other document proved to the satis-
faction of the judge to be a genuine document in the
handwriting of the defendant. In the present case the
plaintiff had made out a most serious case for the consi-
deration of the jury ; but it was for them to say whether
that case had been answered by the defendant to their
satisfaction. No doubt it was for the plaintiff to make
out his case, and if the jury entertained any reasonable
doubt on the case they were bount to find for the de-
fendant. His lordship then went most carefully through
the evidence, after which
The jury retired to consider their verdict. On their
return they found for the plaintiff—damages, 2001.