The Sun.
London, England, 1852-11-04 00:00:00

Mr. Whitmore opened the case to the jury. This
was an inquiry
.for the purpose of ascertaining the
amount of damages which ought to be paid by the de-
fendant to the plaintiff for a libel which the former had
caused to be published upon the latter. The plaintiff
was a tailor and clothier, carrying on business in Staf-
ford, and the. defendant, Mr. John Swaine, carried on
business in Lndon, as a wholesale clothier, under the
firm of Swaine and Co. Somo short time ago a dispute
arose between the defendant and a Messrs. Briggs and
Dowdesley of Staffordshire, which eventually came to trial
in the Staffordshire County Court, held at Henley. The
plaintiff was called as a witness on the trial, and on the
following day, the 20th of February, a fair report of the
trial appeared in the Staffordshire Advertiser. On the
following Monday, the 23rd of February, ono of the
defendants called at the Sun newspaper office, in the
Strand, and, producing a manuscript report of the trial
to a clerk of that establishment, he said he wished to
have it inserted in the paper of the same evening. The
clerk asked if the report had appeared in any other
paper, and the defendant then declared that it had
already been published in the Staffordshire Advertiser,
and ha bad no objection to its being quoted from that
journal, as in fact it was nothing more than a copy of
the report published on the previous Friday. The
report was accordingly inserted in the Sun ; but so far
from its being the report which had appeared in the
Staffordshire Advertiser, or a fair and impartial
report of the trial at all, it was nothing more than
a puff of the defendant's house, and contained a
false and libellous statement to tha effect that
at the County Court trial the defendant was put
into the witness box to support the defence; but ne
" was rebuked by the learned counsel for the intoxicated
state in which he appeared, and he was ordered to stand
down." This statement was wholly untrue, and being
published in a paper with a large commercial circulation
it was calculated to do the plaintiff a serious injury if
it was allow( ci to go uncontradicted, he was therefore
compelled to bring the present action to vindicate his
character. The defendant, however, had suffered judg-
ment to pass against him by default, having in defence
in justification to plead to the libel, and the matter now
came before the jury for the purpose of ascertaining
the amount of compensation that the plaintiff was en-
titled to.

Mr. Charles Chester Mort was called, and gave evi-
dence that he resides at Stafford, and is editor of the
Stafford Advertiser, which is published every Saturday.
Knew Mr. Crosbie very well; he carries on business as
a clothier and mercer. Plaintiff does a very large bus-
iness there. The Stafford Advertiser of the 21st of
February contained a report of a case tried in the Staf-
ford County Court between Messrs. Swaine and Briggs
and Deivley. Witness had seen a copy of The .Sun of
Monday, the 23rd of February, headed " Important
Decision," &c.; he had compared it with the report in
the Stafford Advertiser, and it was not a copy of that
published in the latter paper. (The witness here read
the particular words urged in the libel.)
The Under-Sheriff said it was unnecessary to go into
the question of the libel, for that was clearly admitted
by defendant suffering judgment to go by default.
Mr. Whitmore said he put the point to show the anni-
mus of the defendant in falsifying the original, and there
could be no doubt that that report was true, and that the
variation must have been wilful.
The Witness, in continuation, said he did not think
that the libel was of a nature to do any consider able
damage or injury to the plaintiff, who was well known in
the place and neighbourhood ; but, speaking generally,
the libel was of a highly-injurious tendency.
Cross-examined—Was not present when the case was
tried. Did not know that plaintiff had sustained any
special damage—he considered that it was perfectly
above notice in the neighbourhood.
Re-examined by Mr. Whitmore. He of oourse con-
fined the effect to the neighbourhood and to persons to
whom the plaintiff was known.
Mr. James Keith was called and proved that he was
a clerk in Sun newspaper. On Monday the 23rd of
February the defendant, who is a son of the plaintiff,
in the original action, called at the office. Witness
knew him by sight. Defendant produced a manuscript
copy of the trial at Stafford, and asked him
(Witness) if he would get it inserted in the
Sun of that day. Witness asked him whether it
had appeared in any other publication, and de-
fendant said "Yes, in the Staffordshire Advertiser.
witness then asked him if he had a copy of the paper.
Defendant replied that he had one, but ho wanted it
for another purpose. Witness next asked if there was
anything objectionable in it. Defendant said, no, it was
a very lair report. Witness then observed that he
could not say whether it would appear or not, and re-
quested defendant to write the words, Staffordshire Ad-
vertiser at the bottom of the report, to show that it was
a quotation from that paper. Defendant did so, and
said that he would take a number of papers in the event
of the article being inserted, and wrote an order for 50
copies. Witness repented that he could not say whether
it would be inserted, for there might be something ob-
jectionable, but it should be sent up-stairs. The
article was inserted, and 50 copies sent to defendant as
ordered.
This aas the only evidence for the plaintiff.
Defendant's attorney then addressed the jury in miti-
gation of damages, on the ground that defendant was not
actuated by any malicious motive ; but, being a clerk to
his father, had in his absence, over zealously sent the
article. He urged that it had not suffered any damage.
Mr. Job Gervaine was called, but his evidence was
limited to the fact that defendant was merely his clerk,
and not partner in the firm.
The Under-Sheriff summed up, and said the libel was
certainly calculated to do an injury to any tradesman.
It wal true no special damage had been proved, but it
was difficult—extremaly difficult to say to what extent
plaintiff had or may be injured.
The jury, after retiring about ten minutes, gave a ver-
dict for 50/. damages.

INFANTICIDE.—Last night an inquiry
took place,
before Mr. Bedford, the coroner, at the Rising Sun Tavern,
Charles-street, Grosvenor-square, on the body of a line male
child, which was supposed to have been murdered at the
residence of the Earl of Scarborough, 41, South-street, Park-
however, after a ve:y long consultation,
jurylenient view of the case, and returned a sptcial
tookl Park-
lane. ti e . a Theor a
verdict that the deceased died from suffocation, but how it
was caused there was no evidence to show.
SUSPECTED SUICIDE AT WESTMINSTER BRIDGE.—
Yesterday morning, at an early hour, shortly after the pass-
ing of one of the iron steam-boats through Westminster-
bridge, Windsor, the pier-master of Westminster Pier, per-
ceived the body of a well-dressed man drifting with the tide.
The pierman and his son immediately put off, and succeeded
in recovering the body, which they brought ashore. From
all appearance the body had not been in the water many
hours, and the supposition was that the unfortunate man
whoever he was, had committed suicide by jumping off the
bridge. The deceased has been removed to the dead- housa
to b© identified, and await an inquest.