The Sun.
London, England, 1839-12-09 00:00:00

CHANCELLOR V. HOLT.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff against
the proprietors of the Age newspaper for a scandalous
libel.

The defendant pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Thesiger, Mr. Bodkin, and Mr. Channell ap-
peared for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Platt for the defen-
dant.
Mr. THESIGER, in opening the case, said that this
was an action against Mr. Holt, the publisher of the
Age newspaper, complaining of a gross libel in that
paper. It was a case very different from the last, and one
which imperatively called on the plaintiff to justify his
character by an appeal to a jury of his country. The
plaintiff was born in Margate, where he had resided for
the whole period of his life, and had carrieci on for many
years the trade of a baker. Within the last few years
he had been appointed the collector of the harbour
and pier duties of that place. The publication com-
plained of was inserted in the Age Newspaper, of the
7th October, 1838. The Editors of Newspapers were
generally discharged of any private personal feelings in
such attacks ; but on the present occasion it would
be found the defendant was actuated by a personal and
gross motive, which gave the whole affair a very
different character. A very good regulation had
been adopted at Margate, that no person should be
admitted on the jetty whilst a steamer was starting
this was in order to avoid the crowd which would other-
wise assemble there. Mr. Holt was down at Mar-
gate in the month of September, 1838, and he wished
to go on the jetty to deliver a letter to a person in the
steam boat to take to London. He was refused ad-
mission; but he then represented he would take the
boat to London himself, and was admitted accordingly.
After the steam boat left, he was about to go front
the jetty, when he was seen by the officer on duty ; and
as he had been guilty of an offence, stated as such
in the Local Act of Parliament, he was taken before
a Magistrate, and an information laid against him by
Mr Chancellor, and he was fined five shillings only, he
being a stranger. Before reading the libel, he (Mr.

Tuesiger) would state to them that, some years ago,
one evening, the house of a certain Mr. Taylor was
painted over with sentences imputing to him the most
horrible crimes, and a part of this libel imputed to
the plaintiff that he was the person concerned in that
proceeding. The libel appeared on the 7th of Oc-
tober, 1838, was of the coarsest description, and began
by some observations about woful, woebegone Mar-
and the grievances of King, Cobb, and Company
(web-known characters in the town). It then spoke of the
sneaking collector of pier dues, who prided himself
on his white face and fine hair and whiskers, and
went on to say it was a pity no limner would spend
half an hour in driuving them. It further stated, that
it appeared that Mr. Chancellor's father had been col-
lector of taxes, spoke of him in terms irritating to the
plaintiff, and said he had been removed from his situa-
tion for playing Don Giovanni with a poor pauper idiot
woman in the work-house. It then asked if the
plaintiff had given any account of his pier
dues, and extraordinary perquisites, which he did
the public out of ; after which there followed an in-
sinuation to Mr. Taylor. "Do you (the
plaintiff) know anything about the painting the walls
of the house of Mr. Taylor, charging him with revolting
' crimes? Will you put your hand on your heart (if you
have one) and say you had no enmity against him ?
Did not the unfortunate Mr. Taylor, persecuted to
madness by a gang of Margate assassins, blow out his
brains? Do you know the baker (alluding to the plain-
tiff) detected by Mr. Taylor for selling bread of a pecu-
iiar weight and character ?" After many insinuations
it asked if the plaintiff had not been denounced as a
" liar," a " common scoundrel," and " only wanted
courage to be an assassin." Th's was the nature of
the libel, and he (Mr. Thesiger) left it for the Jury to
say whether it was not of such an aggravated character
as called for heavy damages, to compensate foe the
injury inflicted on the plaintiff's character.
He then called wittiesFes to prove his case.
The libel was then put in, and
Mr. PRATT addressed the Jury at some length on
behalf of the defendant.
Lord DaNMAN summed up, and in strong terms con-
demned the defendant for having used the great power
vested in his hands for mere personal purposes.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, da.
mates 100/.