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

LAW INTELLIGEA tiE.--Feb. G.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
crfurmeG V. TOSIPSON.
Mr. Watson, Q.C., 'Mr. E. James, Q.C., and Mr.
Lush were counsel for the plaintiff ; Mr. Sergeant Wil-
kills and Mr. Petersdorff for the defendant.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
compensation in damnes for a libel, contained in an
anonymous letter, sent .to the committee of the Junior
United Service Club, alleged to be composed and pub-
lished by the drfendaet, 'imputing to the plaintiff that
he had been forced to retire from the Corps of Gentle-
men-at-Areas for peculation and conduct unworthy of
an officer and a gall:leo:Lan.
The defendant Headed not guilty.
The plaintiff, Cep ain Cureng, is a gentleman wbo
formerly was the adjutant and clerk of the check of the
Corps of Gealemen-at- Arms, mins now a captain of
the Royal London NT.ilitia. The defendant, Captain
Tompson, is also an officer in the same regiment of mi-
litia, and was also fora) erly in the Corps of Gentlemen-
at-Arms. In the mo:it h of August, 1853, Captain Cur-
, ling was proposed as a member of the Junior United
Service Club. The ballot came off in July, 1854. Just
after the ballot commenced, at about ten o clock in the
morning, the secretary of the club, Mr. Hatch, received
an anonymous letter in the following terms .--
" Artillery House, Finsbury, City, July 5, 1854.
"Several member' of the Hon. Artillery Company pre-
sent their respects to the committee of the Junior United
Service Club, thinking
it is only right to inform the coin-
mitteo that it is their intention to direct the attention of the
Liositenancy of the City of London!to the fact of the Court
of Lieutenancy having appointed a man to fill a responsi-
ble situation who is not; duly qualified or at all fit to hold
such appointment. We are in a position to prove that
Captain Bunco Curling, of the Royal London Militia Regi-
ment was forced to retire from the Corps of Gentlemen-at-
Arms for peculation and conduct unbecoming of an officer
and a gentleman, I. avoid public scandal and the confisca-
tion of the commission to the Crown. Major Cooke and
other officers of the corps forbore to press the charge.
Daring his (Curling's) clerkship .to the corps he canvassed
the lieutenancy personally, begging votes from men who
only knew him as a man holding some appointment at St.
J amen's. Had any member known lie (Captain Curling)
was-a. man who should hold up his hand at the Old Bailey,
it ire not probable he would have stood in your lists as
" C ap t. BUNCH CURLING, Royal London Militia Regiment.
" Captain Curling has thought proper to villify
and al -use the Honourable Artillery Company, having in
coin, nc -n with the officers of the regiment, received every
attoi it.:ion from our corps, and used our house during the
train:it Ir. However, we hold ourselves to be his supe-
riors courtesy, as we now mean to be in justice to so-
ciety a. t large.
"To the Committee of the Junior United Service Club."
On red .cling this letter Mr. Hatch handed, it to the coin-
mit tee of the club, by whom it was banded round to -the
mei .a'e era present, and the result was that out of 150 votes
C.ar t. Curling had 40 black balls. On Capt. Curling lc,ain
lag the result, he applied to the committee of the club, and
at; &red from them the letter in question. 011 seeing the
letter Capt. Cor:ing immediately thought that the letter
was in the defendant's bandwreting, although disguised ;
he i nimediately put it into the hands of Mr. Netnerelift,
the facsimilist, of the British Mueeuin, agentlemanskill led in the comparison of handwriting, and gave him
sem e letters of the defendant which ho had received from
him some time before, and Mr. Nethereliff at once gave
it as his opinion that the letter was in the handwr:ding
of the defendant. It was then put into the hands of
other gentlemen ekilled in handwriting, and they al
camee to the same conclusion. The motive which, it was
irn.puti el, must haul induced the defendant to write the
lib el le as but slight. It appeared that in the year 1850
Captait Tompson sold out of the Corps of Gentlemeneit-
Alreast and Captain Curling acted as the friend of the
deiteacti nt, as also of the purchaser, aid One COllditi•A Of

the agreement was that the accoutrements of the de
fendant should be handed over to the purchaser of his
commission. Some dispute arose about this, and the
plaintiff wrote to him on the subject. and also asking for
two guiueas due to the mess fund. To this the defendent
wrote a scurrilous letters denying that he was indebted
to the inees, as he had never belonged to it, and saying
that those who lived in glees 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
be 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 ; hut it appeared that they always
met as strangers, osily speaking on matters of duty.
In support of the plaintiff's case, the plaintiff, the ad-
jutant of the Ros al London Militia, the pay-sergeant
of the defendant's company, and others, were called,
who speke to the anonymous letter being in the hand-
writing of the defendant. After which seieral skilled
witnesses were called, who spoke to having compared
the anonymonsi letter with several genuine letters of the
defendant, and that they believed the anonymous letter
was in hie handwriting, alt:iough 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 caneidate for
admission as a member of the Junior United Service
Club. Several witnesses were also called who, on being
shown the anonymous letter, swore that the letter was
not in the handwriting of the defendant, and, 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
his act by coming 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 case 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 nu
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
of 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.