The Sun.
London, England, 1864-05-26 00:00:00

THE BARNS rAPLE ELECTION.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS—YESTERDAY.
:Sittings in Banco, before Lord Chief justice Erle, and
Juetices Willes, and Byles.)
BREMRIDGE V. LATIMER.

This is an actien by the present member for Barnstaple
against the publisher of the Western Times; and M r
Coleridge, Q.C., applied for a rule to rescind an order
granted at Chambers by Mr Justice Williams, striking
out four of the defendant's pleas. The action arose out

of the recent election for Barnstaple. It appeared that
a Mr Hodgson formerly represented Barnstaple, and
that Mr Bremridge, who is a solicitor, acted as his
agent. Ultimately Mr Bremridge stood for Barnstaple
against Mr Hodgson and gained the seat. A vacancy oc-
curring some months ago, Mr Bremridge (who had been
out of Parliament for some time) again came forward, and
thereupon the Wesbern Times published the statements
complained of as libellous. Its articles made, in very strong
terms, charges of bribery against the plaintiff, and they also
charged him with having improperly got back and destroyed
a letter given by him to his former client, Mr Hodgson, in
which he promised never to stand against that gentleman
for the borough. It is for the latter statement that the
plaintiff now brings his action, but the defendant desired to
introduce the matter of bribery, and the two matters being
mixed up in his articles he had recited the articles at leng h,
and justified the charge of bribery in the pleas which had
been struck out,

Mr Coleridge, founding on the 61st section of the Com-
mon Law Procedure Act, argued that the jury might think
the publication not defamatory in the sense put upon it in
the plaintiff's declaration, and yet give damages against his
client because they found in it come other sense which was
defamatory. It was therefore necessary for the defendant
to meet in his pleadings the possibility of damages being
given upon the matter of bribery, and besides the two
matters were inextricably bound together in the defendant's
articles, and it was against all usage for the plaintiff to try
to separate them.
Mr Justice Williams said that the way in which the
matter was put before him was this, that the plaintiff
having complained of certain slanderous imputations, the
pleas said that the articles contained other imputations
which were true.

Mr Coleridge—The defendant wished to set out the
whole articles to show that they bore a certain meaning,
and to assert that according to this meaning they were true.
The Lord Chief Justice—lf it were libellous to say that
the agent had turned out his principal and got the seat for
himself, it would not be the less libellous because the de-
fendant at the same time published a true statement that

the plaintiff was an incorrigible briber.
Mr Coleridge submitted that the defendant had a right
to say upon the record that the sense put upon the alleged
libel was not the true sense, and to set out the whole libel,
and prove the statement.
The Lord Chief Justice—The defendant had a right to
set out the whole libel, but he could only justify the allege-
tiou of which the plaintiff complained. The imputation of
bribery was distinct from that of the plaintiff having
broken his duty towards his client.
Mr Justice Byles—The defendant was charged with one
thing, and he sought to justify another.
Mr Coleridge repeated that he only wanted to show that
the libel bore a different meaning to that suggested by the
plaintiff.
Mr Justice Williams—lf the libel had been, "You are a
blackleg," and the declaration had set out that the meaning
of this was that the plaintiff had been guilty of unfair prac-
tices on the turf and at cards, the defendant could not jus-
tify it by saying, " I meant that you wear black stockings."
(Laughter.)
The Court (after some further discussion) granted a rule
to show cause why the order of Mr Justice Williams should
not be varied or rescinded, and why the proposed pleas
should not be amended by striking out the justification in
reference to the imputation of bribery.

THE VALUE OF A RACE-HORSE is almost fabulous.
The Imaum of Muscat, after ten years' search for
the best Oriental blood he could procure, presented a horse
to George IV., which had coat him in bribes to obtain him
and the price which would make him his own a good
£lO,OOO ; whilst in more recent clays—MS—the celebrated
Harkaway was valued at six thousand guineas, down on the
nail, and without any engagements, for at the time he was
offered for sale his owner hunted him twice a week.—
Once a Week.