The Sun.
London, England, 1837-07-01 00:00:00

tior4 er aseetatly'. tt to customary for persons who have e°•
pi-eviunsly in the gallery, to be put upon trial previous to
their being engaged. Considering the rapidity with which
the reports arc get out, the reports in The Sun Newspaporare
marvellously accurate. There must be some errors arising"from the extreme haste with which they are prepared. A pct.-
son, although a good reporter in the Law Courts, might fall
entirely in going into the
Oaente! Fdr tlib defendant here read extracts from the
plaintiff's reports, as follows :—" Dr. Bowring would move
for leave to bring in a Bill to modify relating to the Naviga-
tion Acts from European Ports," and asked witness if he be-
lieved that was a correct report of any thing that had taken
place in the House of Commons. Witness could not under-
stand what it meant. " Mr. Leader would call the attention
of the Lower Shannon, 13th March." Witness thought such
a. report unintelligible. Such things, if repeated, would se
nously injure the character of the Paper.
Several other extracts of a similar nature were read by
Counsel. Witness would say that such mistakes would shod
the inability of the person to report. No education, however
extensive, would enable a person to report in the gallery
without practice and experience. He might prove incom-
petent, although he had swallowed the whole British Museum.
—(Much laughter.) Witness—Members of Parliament al-
though generally supposed to be men of very superior educa-
tion, might fail as Reporters. On an occasion when the Re-
porters Gallery was closed a report of the discussion which
took place had been sent to the Morning Papers by some of
the Members, and next day there were thirty or forty letters
addressed to the Editor by the Members whose speeches had
been reported, complaining of the inaccuracy of the report.—
(Much laughter.)
Mr. Watts had been thirty or forty years connected with
the press. The evidence of this gentleman, as to engagements
upon the press, was to the same effect as that given by the
preceding witnesses. An acquaintance with the technical
proceedings of the House could only be acquired by ex-
perience..

- Several extracts from the plaintiff's reports were reed to
witness, who said they seemed to him something like rigma-
rolc.—( A laugh.) He had been frequently astonished at the
extreme accuracy of the reports in The Sun newspaper, con-
sidering the great rapidity with which they had been prepared.
Mr. Wm. Piercy has been a Parliamentary reporter on The
Sun newspaper for about ten years. Saw the plaintiff for
three or four nights in the gallery taking notes. Knows Mr.
Ferny ; he is an experienced reporter. Has seen Mr. Ferny
standing behind Mr. Nelson taking notes at the same time.
Has seen Mr. Ferny afterwards correcting Mr. Nelson's re-
ports. There was a good deal of complaint about the inac•
curacy of plaintiff's reports, and witness himself complained
of it. It is the general custom on The Sun to take persons
on trial before they are engaged. Knows instances of two or
three reporters having been dismissed for incompetency from
The Sun newspaper.
The case for the plaintiff here closed.
Mr. CROWDER, for the defendant, submitted to the Learned
Judge that there was no case to go to the Jury. There was
no evidence of contract, and the evidence of the plaintiff's wit-
nesses, on the contrary, went to establish a totally different
state of things—viz., that persons who had never previously
were
yerree-
ported in the Gallery were always taken on trial, a
liable to be dismissed for incompetency.
The Learned June); thought there was no case to go to the
Jury ; but if the plaintiff wished it the case must proceed.
The Plaintiff wished the case to be sent to the Jury.
Mr. CROWDER (with whom was Mr. Carey) addressed the
Jury for the defendant. The learned counsel commenced by
saying the plaintiff, being determined to have the opinion of
the jury on the case presented to them, the difficulty was, on
what evidence were they to come to the conclusion there had
been such a contract between the plaintiff and defendant as
that stated upon the record, and which it was necessary the
plaintiff should establish before he would be entitled to their
verdict. Perhaps it would be expedient for him, before he no-
ticed any of the comments made by Mr. Nelson in his speech,
which he thought, for a considerable time, must have left
them in the dark as to what was the point to which his evi-
dence would be directed, or upon what their verdict was to
proceed, just to state what it was the plaintiff claimed at the
hands of the Jury, and what it was the defendant denied. The
plaintiff, who had been in the habit of reporting police cases,
and the proceedings at public meetings, claimed, under a con-
tract with Mr. Young, the proprietor of The Sun, for the
performance of certain duties, the sum of 881. 65., that being
the amount at 21. 2s. a week for a period of seven months,
from the 31st of January 1837, the day on which Parliament
met, the plaintiff having calculated the session would last that
time. In the first place it was contended by Mr. Young that
the plaintiff was not engaged for the period mentioned, and
therefore was not entitled to the sum claimed, and in the 'se-
cond place it was alleged, which had been commented upon by
the plaintiff in his address, that, assuming there was any en-
gagement, the plaintiff had shown himself incompetent and un-
able to perform the duty of a reporter of Parliamentary pro-
ceedings, and therefore Mr. Young would have a right, ac-
cording to law, to discharge him. Indeed, it was not
doubted by the plaintiff in his replication, that if he
was incompetent to discharge the duties of a Parliamen-
tary reporter, the right existed in Mr. Young to dis-
charge him, assuming that there was a Sessional engage-
ment ; therefore, the first question was, whether there
was a Sessional engagement ? and the Jury would make up
their minds upon that before they came to consider the incom-
petency of Mr. Nelson, which was always an unpleasant task,
and particularly so when the gentleman, as in this case, was
himself present. The plaintiff bad been amply paid for any
work be might have done, because he had actually received
two guineas; and four guineas had been paid into Court to
corer any demand for work or labour done by him for the news-
paper. The Learned Counsel admitted that if there had been
a stipulation between the parties, or if that had passed be-
tween them from which a clear engagement could be inferred
that Mr. Nelson was to continue a Reporter for The Sun
during the Session of Parliament, although he might after-
wards have proved incompetent, Mr. Young would have been
bound by that contract. A contract might be proved in two
ways, either by express stipulation, or by inference, aris-
ing from a usage and custom well established and
known in a profession. But what was the evidence
adduced by the plaintiff on the present occasion, and
on which he principally relied ? Mr. Watts was corroborated
by Mr. Woods, Mr. Byron, Mr. Scott, and by every expe-
rienced gentleraan to whom the question was put; for he, the
Learned Counsel, did not think there was any difference of
opinion among the very respectable gentlemen who had been
called before them ; and what was their evidence ? The evi-
dence was, that when an individual, a Parliamentary reporter
on a newspaper, left that newspaper, and went into the em-
ployment of the proprietor of another newspaper, and was taken
without anything passing between the person engaged and the
person engaging, he took his seat in the Gallery, and was con-
sidered, as a reporter on that newspaper for the Session. But
the jury were aware that the plaintiff never, before the 31st of
.January, 1837, attempted to report as a Parliamentary re-
porter—was never engaged on any newspaper as a Parliamen-
tary reporter—was never in the gallery of the House of Com-
mons, even, to assist another man—and was never in the re-
porters' gallery at all, for the purpose of taking down Par-
liamentary proceedings. Mr. Nelson's principal occupa-
tion appeared to have been in attending police offices,
and public meetings. The question, therefore, which arose,
and which had been put to all the witnesses, was this—sup-
posing a person precisely in the situation of Mr. Nelson, laho
had never been a Parliamentary reporter, on being seen in the
gallery of the House of Commons, arid particularly being seen II
as he was with another gentleman from the same office, sitting
beside him, taking down the same debate, and correcting what
he had afterwards written, according to usage and custom in
your profession, would that person be considered as having a
sessional engagement, without any proof whatever of such
an engagement ? All the witnesses hal decidedly ne-
gatived any such supposition. Then here was Mr. Nelson,
the plaintiff, a person who had never bsfore been engaged as
a Parliamentary reporter, going to the Gallery of the house
of Commons with Mr. Feeney, a reporter on the same esta-
blishment ; Mr. Feeney sat beside him taking notes, he never
being trusted alone ; complaints were made that the reports
were very incorrect ; they were altered by Mr. Feeney ; and,
after being on trial for about fuur or five nights, he was dis-
charged. There was no evidence on which the Jury could say
there was a Sessional engagement, and therefore it was
scarcely necessary to enter into the second branch of the case
as to the incompetency of the plaintiff, because on the first
pert of the case there could not be the slightest doubt. Then
the plaintiff had relied on the fact of two guineas having been
paid him for one week, and four guineas having been paid into
Court, which had been merely done on a former occasion,
when the plaintiff brought a similar action, and was nonsuited
without the defendant's case having' been gone into at all, in
s itiaatde
not
before,pa
that the defendant had taken work- for
he
order that there might no qua': el
shouldl. have been very
The Learned Counsel then stated as
illieichhaldie
Nelson had determined he
.
on the whole case, it was
willing to have sat down without saying anything more, but as
the ease had proceeded, and as
would have the opinion of the Jury
necessary he (Mr.
of the Plaintiff, of which he
it
Crowder) should advert to other topics ;
and when he looked at the speech i
had taken a note, but not in short-band, seemed to him it was
remarkable inn: any of its passages.—( Al ) The plaintiff
appeared to think he was a person oft education ; he (Mr. C.) did
not mean to say he was not ; but t plaintiff seemed to fancy
that if he was a person who had had a good education in Latin
and Greek, he must be a competent Parliamentary. reporter.
The only question or. the second point was ‘4 he tiler tcplaintiff
was a competent Parliamentary reporter? Mr. hNelson, o
this point, had wasted a great deal of time in reasoning onthe
moral equity of the pleadings which he (the Learned Counsel)
did not wish to discuss with him, because in courts of law they
had to conduct the p law
roceedings in a legal manner, and the
Jury would have to take directions upon the from the
Learned Judge who presided. He did not understand a
great deal of tile langu Igo that had been addressed
to the Jury by Mr. Nelson. Much of it was what
he should not have expected from a gentleman profess-
ing to be a man of education, because in his selection
of language he had not been very particular.—( A laugh.)
He had stated that he was considered not fit to throw guts to
a bear.—( Laughter.) Now he (Mr. Crowder) did not find
on the pleadings any such charge against Mr. Nelson. He
did not know whether Mr. Nelson had got these expressions
from Euripides, or any of the other books he had referred
to--( Laughter)—or whether he had learned that language
in the House of Commons ; but this ho knew, that it
was language not very familiar in Courts of Justice.
However, it seemed to be that which tickled the fancy
of Mr. Nelson himself very much, for he had used it not
less than four times. Then the plaintiff had stated that he
had been treated as if he had a dead heart and soul.—
(Laughter. ) God forbid that anything of the sort should be
assumed; the question was whether he was competent at the
time lie was discharged to perform certain duties most im-
portant to the public, which required a certain degree of know-
ledge, and a certain degree of education, but beyond all quea-

tion, a great deal practice. Now why were the jury troubled
with that extraordinary harangue which they had listened to
with a great deal of more patience for three hours than he had
expected, which was not onliy.,a statement of his own excel-
lence, but whieh went to ma..., out that a Reporter was the
quinteacenbc of every thin. . The plaintiff's words Were rather
retat,
:arkable,*—(L'aiiihte.r: ) He lia.d Statesl fllat a R '
as a most beautiful piece of machinery, im- iitai and liteerPa°ryvtLP
samething quite extraordinary—( Laughter)—and_ he had gone
on to state at great length how it was a Reporter must be that
extraordinary indii ideal, combining every moral and mental
qualification together, also with great power of the fingers.
The plaintiff had said that the words of the speaker were taken
in at the " port of the ear"—(the Learned Counsel supposed
Mr. Nelson had meant porch of the ear)—" entered the beauti-
ful alembic of the reporter,l s
brain, and finally oozed out at the
finger's ~
d. —(Great laughter.) Now a man who could
en
take in at the port of his ear words fro the lips of a speaker
which, by a certain electricity' got intothed d
the aleomwhnic
to
of
the
brain, and then, by another electricity, flow
points of his fingers, and then oozed out from the finger's ends
on paper, must be certainly, to say the least of him, a most
'
extraordinary being —(Continued laughter.) Ile would give
full credit to Mr. Nelson for being acquainted with Latin and
Greek; no doubt he had had what was called a liberal educe..
tie!), and was fit to teach young gentlemen Latin and Greek,
The plaintiff did not think it at all necessary for a reporter to
have discretion ; all that, in his opinion, was necessary to con-
stitute a first-rate reporter was, at he should be enabled to
read Demosthenes and Euripides. Whether the plaintiff, Mr.
Nelson, was a man of judgment anddiscretion he would leave
understood
arnstyooradte al lif r hee.
11
it to the Jury to determine.—( Laughter.
was, if he had the power, as he (Mr. 63
porters ought to have, of condensation, e had not exercised
u that day in his address to the Jury.___( Laughter.) Although
gr. Nelson was a person who hadaccor
andin to his own state-
dalthough he was
est ie whole House of
ri
ot
d,
ill, 650id0 a 1 horsenh o
wished power
to
of reeoanseoenn)i nt.rmgo
concentrate
say,
could th(bayLt
at
huwith
tl
ea
ri
n. all).
commons in himself, he (Mr. C.
lais reasoning and all his concentration henot under-
wad the arguments put forth by the plaintiff
with respect to the witnesses that.had been called.
plain-
tiff, be (Mr. C.) had not one word to say against them ; they
a'oppeared to be persons of respectability,a hade giver,
their evidence most fairly ; why Mr. Nelson andbed chosen to
stisniatize some of them, he (Mr. C.) was unable to under--
He had called them reluctant and hostile witnesses.
Ness, in his (Mr. Crowther's) opinion, one and all had
solo.
their testimony as totally indifferent parties, to the given
elin
the action. Some of the witnesses, Mr. Watts rand it
ofv
woods, had borne testimony to the marvellous and wonderfulM
accuracy of the reports in The Sun, notwithstanding the en-
doors on the part of the plaintiff to show that when a re-
porter was totally incompetent to report for any other news-
naner be was fully competent to report for that highly re-
srp-erco'hle. and largely-circulated newspaper, The Sun H
afeinltuconvineed that the Jury would give that weight to that in-
felt
stionlit eh served. Now the question before the Court upon the
w as not whether the reports in The Sun were accurate
secesdi"ue
or not, but vihether or not the plain iff was unfit to f r per 0 111
of a reporter in the House of Commons. Now he
the
shouldetidshow most clearly to the Ju-y that the plaintiff was
totally incompetent to 'perform i
re duty. As the jury must
a paper lika The Sun quired the most competent
be Ogre'
oa account of the haste with which the reports
rweeproerro t''up. Now, in order to show that Mr. Nelson was
ipoivynnfeheaiotr ocel:Tilif eel: tint,s
swsua nnat
,s,he should call Mr. Feeney; one of the reporters
who would state to the Jury that he had re-
behind the plaintiff while he was taking notes,
invariably obliged to correct, and, in some in-
sthtaaiticiefSoto
bedestroy altogether. Mr. Feeney would also state
reports of the plaintiff had been allowed insertion'
they would have injured that paper very
The SO
much. Tin Parliament,
would now have full reports of what
wasin Parliament, and, for the furnishing of which,
took pis •
pre-eminent. He agreed with the plaintiff that
Reporters of the proceedings in Parliament had a very
the
arduous to perform ; but to perform that duty properly, it
auty
was requisite to have a thorough knowledge of Parliamentary
phraadetaiel let ea which the plaintiff seemed most profoundly iff-
Proceeding's' of
According to the evidence of Mr. Wood, if a person
norant. brains of the plaintiff without a knowledge of the
usages of Parliament, he would be totally unftt to
attribPuater(lislncntary Reporter. He did not meats to say that
be a was not a good classic scholar, nor did he wish to
Mr. Nelsoil
to him his own figures of speech, such as an illiterate
ijaaghter)—but lie must say that it was apparent
clown—
that he had anything but a good Reporter ; and as a proof of
that he wal to refer to some of the laintiff's own rerts.
:aniCY
ounsel then read severalp of the plaintiff' po s
own
The Learn
cwoomupldospituitort which created considerable laughter in Court. He
'to the Jury whether a newspaper having any regard
to its
own such
could keep in its employment a person who
could furnishsuch absurd reports of what took place in Parliament.
The pro rioter of The Sun newspaper had no ill-feeling what-
P. gr. Nelson, but he had felt himself bound for his
ever agaiaP • h '
10itnigatthioonw,bole
own interest to disc arge him. With respect to the present
jr. Nelson had himself alone to thank for it.
the Learned Counsel felt convinced that the
aury, on c
go iliideration of the evidence that had been given
end bearing ,
mind that no contract had been shown, would
give their verdict in favour of the defendant.
mr. D. ki, Feeny—ls a reporter of about 12 years' stand-
newspaper.
ing,
and f;rseveral years Parliamentary reporter to The Sun
The plaintiff acted as a reporter for The Sun
for three or four nights at the commencement of the present
line Sessionstag
wsuahs. s
ei witness took notes at the same time with plaintiff,
corrected plaintiff's report. Almost every
qn
sea° e
slip rate,isY
w h
iaenhd
1w) l witness
frs obligedwhaosdw rit
ten
,i n a some casesohsti to
e
destroy the from his own notes. In witness's opinion
a report taken
Plaintiff
was quite incompetent to report the Parliamentary
tphreo proceedings,
nin,(ol he seemed to be quite unacquainted with
of the House. His reports were full of gross
blundersin The saunnd, 0 r any
urdities. If such reports had been inserted
other newspaper, they would materially
engaged, and they injure its char Had ample opportunity of judging of the
during the three or four nights he was 5)
plaintiff's coneeorip"inion was that he was totally incompetent.
Witness was
which hegrieltaed:i
Destroyed altoge
Wsther two or three dozen clips of the plaintiff.
msenlofc.hnhanded some of the defendant's reports,
th the corrections subsequently made by him-
of these extraordinary reports occasioned
Juts here rose and said that it was really a waste
on any further. They were all men of bu-
d their time to
ot like to be detained there all day. He and
siness, and did
Le believed his the
jurymen had made up their minds two
if they sat there till to-morrow morning they
hours ago, and
would be of &Vine opinion.
ea legal right, and I am determined to ex-
Plaintiff—l VI
ercise it.
tbe witness)—Had you any conversation with
Plaintiff (to engagement
the defendant sbolit my
Witness—ye, he told me that he had taken you on trial,
isach afraid you would break down, you were
but he was very
so flighty and illi- - '
steady, and that it would be necessary to
watch you dos& •
,Tliitt. is a question I could not have asked the
Mr. Cruawrieti
tivewditthneescsovin.tarsaact;sp
lama's examination has completely nega-
witness ; but the!'
toyed to report other besides Parliamen-
tary proceedhw for The Sun.
plitinticf_iFtshe British Association of Science pitched their
ei
aouc Thetlir:
813:ertselg
you undertake to report their pro-
camp in London, "uld

clever as other
eeedings?
ceived a classeicaarli although I don't pretend to be so
Wit:len certsialY,
coons.—( Much laughter.) Witness had r
my occupation by
P education.
Witness—l do;
Plaintiff— u state when you were first apprised of
Ole defendant ?
understand you.
The Corter___V
c.
uite unicnta eTIII
Question repealed'
e witness cannot answer questions which
Pla qintiff— igliobui
are
explain what is meant by the term
heliacal occultation:
Witness—l keor something of astronomy, but I would
whether I am bound to enter upoa an
submit to the COO 4
astronomical lectere. lam obliged to attend the House of
The COURT—
Commons at four oici""
nothing to do with
certainly not, Sir. These questions have
plaintiff was reportitli
Mr. William Ibconc—aslelas been for seven or eight years a
from what he had
Parliamentary re Lakerott on The Sun newspaper. When Mr.
fise employed witness took notes while the
Feeney was othcpr and subsequently corrected hisreporta
which were extremeli
on The Sun noPvvs aPer'
naccurate. Witnesa considered plaintiff
in that establish:el;
seen of his reports quite incompetent to
tary proceecEngs. Witness had been
report the Parham°
taken on trial
of the plaintiff's reports w
revolts to obtaining a permanent engagement
and that is the course usually observe I
Mr. J. Mackay—.
full of absurdities aedreader to The Sun newspaper. The slips
those of the other rel ere submitted to him, along with
;oilers. They were extremely incur
The Learned JOO6
roe% He had andeeomplaints to the defendant of then- being
Jury. The first poiet
a contract had been errors. No reporter had ever scot such
slips to the office Ore'
plaintiff, and if they
then they would haveE then summed up the evidence to the
for them to consider was, whether such
had been entered Fade out as was contend-A for by the
then, no doubt, on tile
were of opinion that had been established,
the plaintiff; but to consider the question as to the plain-
tiff's competency,
by the defendant, 1( they believed then such an agreement
into as was contended for by the plaintiff,
first plea they must find a verdict for
the defendant to say,
if they believed, as was contended for
Mr. Nelson a trial, he
the sort which that the real contract was not of
0 contended for by the plaintiff,
of the session, althoug4
but a mere taking on trial, then it would be highly unjust to
that he was a good scholar,
that because he had consented to give
should be bound to keep blot to the end
short step indeed to the
p'aintiff hid gme Lei a gre.t deal of evide.:ce to rave
he could crake no use of him. The
that Mr. Nelson was a well educated man, yet twat was a very
, but although it might be taken
great question between the parties,
because it was quit° clear that a man might be a
very good scholar -iadeed, and well • qualified for high
departments in literator°, and not possess that particular
tart which constituted A good Reporter. Still if the plaintiff
was a good Parliamentary Reporter, he would have to satisfy
the Jury the engagement was such as lie contended. The
Learned Judge haying read the cridevec to the Jury in a
very clear and distinct
at all—or whether manner, left it -to th:m tengagement,first, whether the plaintiff had made out any engagement,
whether iF a contract had been proved the us-Hence did not
he had been merely on trial ; and secondly,
show that he was wholly incompetent, and unfit to d:scharge
the duties of a Parliinicatary reporter. If Mr. Young tool; a
person on trial, and foiled him incompetent, he had a perfect
right to discharge him.
The Jury immediately returned a verdict for the defend nt.
The trial did not terminate till half.
--...•••111
nast four o'clock, arid