The Sun.
London, England, 1839-01-30 00:00:00

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

QUEEN V. JUSTICES OF MIDDLESEX.

IN RE THE PARISH OF ST.

GEORGE'S, HANOVER• SQUARE.

The ATTORNEY- GENERAL showed cause against a rule call-
ing upon the Justices of Middlesex to remove, by certiorari,
into that Court, a most voluminous body of accounts, rcspect-
ing the expenditure of the rates in that county, and also a re-
cent rate made by such parties, dated the Ist of November
last—the object of the application being to substitute their C
Lordships' for the ourt of Quarter Sessions, in order to try
the validity of such rate. Now, though he (the Attorney- Ge-
neral) was prepared to show their Lordships—should they en-
tertain the appeal, the complete validity of that rate—yet he
submitted that their Lordships could not entertain the appli-
cation; for by the Middlesex County Rate, 3 Geo. IV.
cap. 107, it was provided that, if, when any rate was
made, there should be more than one-fourth of the last rate
in the Treasurer's hands, the collection of the rate
might be suspended; and an express appeal to the
Quarter Sessions was given, in several cases, among
others "on the ground of three-fourths of any
former rate, or rates, not having been expended." And as
this was just the objection made by the parish of St. George,
Hanover-square, to the rate of the Ist November last, he (the
Attorney-General) contended that their Lordships would be
acting in direct contravention to the Act of Parliament if they
entertained the appeal : and further, that they would be acting
in opposition to the first principles of their practice, in inter-
fering with inferior jurisdictions, which practice was to inter-
pose by certiorari, ethen the order or rate was bad upon the
face of it, or where the Magistrates had clearly no jurisdiction,
neither of which was the case in the present instance.
Mr. PRENDERGAST followed on the same side.
Mr. DOANE, on the part of the parish of St.. George,
Hanover-square, urged that though the Local Act 3d George
IV. cap. 107, gave the parishioners an appeal to the Quarter
Sessions, it could not deprive them of the right of appeal to
the Queen's Bench, which in common with the country at
large they possessed. They did not go to the Sessions, be-
cause if the Sessions decided against them they could not
come to this Court unless a special case was granted them,
which was not likely to be done.
The COURT having conferred together for some time,
Lord DENMAN inquired what Mr. Doane meant to do with
the by-gone accounts when he had got them.
Mr. DOANE—We want to show that these accounts have
been unduly audited ; and, if so, the rate is bad.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—They want to strikethese items
out of the credit side of the account.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—YOU mean to show that although
the present rate is good upon the face of it, it has been im-
properly made ?
Mr. DOANE—Just so, my Lord.
Lord DENMAN—The Court is of opinion that the present
rate being good upon the face of it, and the power of appeal
having been duly exercised, we cannot see how 'we are to go
any further in it. The rule nisi, therefore, must be discharged
The ATTORNEY- GENERAL applied for costs, but the Cour
did not think it a case in which costs should be given against
the appellants.

JUDGMENT- THE QUEEN U. LAWSON.

Mr. THESIGER [prayed the judgment of the Court in this

ca.w.

Lord DENAIAN read over the notes of the case. It was an
action for libel by Sir John Conroy against the defendant, as
printer and publisher of the Times newspaper. The defend-
ant's Counsel contended that the libel did not hear the con.
struction put upon it, and the Jury found the defendant guilty.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the only question was

whether the libel bore the construction put upon it ; and the
jury having found that it, did, the defendant appeared to re-
ceive the judgment of the Court at the instance of Sir John
Conroy. Mr. Lawson felt to a certain degree what he considered
the hardship of the law as regarded himself, but he felt at
the same time that their Lordships' only duty was to declare
the law, nor could he, dispute (there being a verdict against
him) the power of Sir John Conroy to call him
up to receive such a measure of punishment as their
Lordships might think adequate to his offence. He trusted this
would not be considered a case requiring any severity of punish-
ment. He would remind the Court that punishments in cases like
the present had become much milder in modern times, and he
would venture to suggest without detriment to society,
they might be still further modified. He contended that there
was no real malice or intention to do personal injury in the
case. Neither Mr. Lawson nor those whom he represented,
have had any quarrel with Sir John Conroy. He would re-
mind the Court that that Journal had never been in the
habit of attacking the characters of private tndividuals.
The Times newspaper had been published forty years,
and this was the first time that any person connected
with it had been presented on the floor of that Court to receive
its judgment. He trusted, therefore, that this would be
deemed a case where some indulgence might be shown, and
where, without any detriment to the ends of justice, lenity
might be extended.
Mr. PLATT followed on the same side. Mr. Lawson was
as innocent of the composition of this matter as the persons who
had laid the types for printing the paragraph. He did not men.
tion that for the purpose of shielding him from their Lordships'
judgment, nor did Mr. Lawson wish it. It was a matter of
history that when the shores of that nation were threatened
by a foreign enemy, the Times Journal had stood for-
ward—it was a matter of history, that when the
case of a very high personage in the realm had divided
public opinion, what was the conduct of that Journal ?
Was it not notorious that the object of that Jour-
nal was to keep up patriotism, to protect the
public from peculation and fraud—to keep pure the Houses
of Commons and Lords, and to do every thing for the benefit
of-the public,? They had, therefore, on the floor of the Court
for judgment, a public benefactor, for one single delinquency.
Mr. Lawson was satisfied that their Lordships' judgment:would
not be swayed by passion, on an occasion belonging to cri-
minal justice ; but that they would] temper, their justice with
mercy.

Mr. WIGIITMAN on the same side, said it was unnecessary
for him to offer any observations.
Mr. TIIESIGER said if there had been any decided expres-
sion of regret on the part of the defendant, he should not
have trespassed at all on their Lordships' time ; but he had
listened in vain for even one slight expression of regret for
the conduct which had been pursued towards Sir J. Conroy ;
and it did appear to him to be a ease in which the defendant
had pursued his own object, or the object of some other per-
son, with the most persevering malignity ; for nothing could
be worse than the character of the libel upon which their
Lordships' judgment was craved. The object of the party
whoever he might be, undoubtedly was to poison the public
mind against Sir John Conroy—to create the belief, that by
taking advantage of the confidence reposed in him, he had
fraudulently applied the funds entrusted to him to his own pri-
vate use. It was impossible for him to remain quiet under so
serious an imputation, and he immediately applied to the Court
for a criminal information, denying the imputations endea-
voured to be cast upon him i❑ the most distinct and precise
terms. An opportunity was thus afforded for the defendant
to justify by affidavits the truth of his allegations, but he
shrunk from the opportunity ; but he still endeavoured, with
the perseveringness that had characterised the whole of these
proceedings, to cast a shade of suspicion on the high character
of Sir John Conroy. Afterwards, when another opportunity
was presented to the defendant, he still refused to bend, he
still resisted, and then Sir John Conroy had no other course
than to pursue him to a Jury. What was the course taken
upon the trial ? There was still the same endeavour
to throw suspicion upon Sir J. Conroy. The defendant, as the
Attorney-General had said, complained of the hardship of the
British law, but those who undertook the perilous task of
libelling must take the consequences of their conduct. As the
object of punishment was to reach the offending party, and
as it was possible that other persons might be the real offen-
ders, there was a mode by which both the individual who
stood forward and who chose to make himself a mark
for proceedings of this description could be punished,
and those who stood behind him. He (Mr. T.)
should be guilty of a dereliction of his duty if he did not
press upon their Lordships for a severe punishment, there
being nothing whatever in the character of the defendant
which called for any indulgence, and if he was allowed to
escape with a slight punishment, their Lordships would be
furnishing a bounty to future libellers, and an encourage-
ment to them to brave the law as the defendant had done.
After the Judges had consulted together for a few minutes,
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE said John Joseph Lawson had
been brought up to receive the sentence of the Court for a
gross libel which had appeared in the Times Newspaper, re-
flecting upon the character of Sir John Conroy. It
stated that Sir John Conroy, being in the confidential
employment of the Duchess of Kent, by his misma-
nagement had involved her in debt to the amount of
30,0001. ; but a worse libel followed, for it was insinuated that
he had purchased an estato in Wales, and had paid for it out
of the money abstracted from the Duchess. The defendant
had had an opportunity of making an affidavit of
the facts of the charge, which he had not done, and a Jury had
found that the libel was a malicious one. It had been sug-
gested that he was only the printer of the paper, but as such
he had the opportunity of seeing all that it was pro-
posed to put into it. It was his duty, if he saw any-
thing improper, to go to the editor, and if he persisted in
inserting it, it was the defendant's duty to resign. Taking
all the circumstances into consideration, the Court adjudged
him to be imprisoned in the custody of the Marshal of the
Court for one month, and pay a fine to the Queen of 2001.