The Sun.
London, England, 1839-12-10 00:00:00

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.;

( Guildhall sittings at Nisi Prins, before Mr. Justice
MAULK and a Common Jury.)
DRURY V. PARKER.
This was an action for libel, published in the Lincoln-
shire Chronicle, against the plaintiff, who was editor
of the Lincoln Gazette. Plea, the general issue.
Mr. KELLY (with whom was Mr. Channel]) stated the
case to the Jury. The plaintiff, he said, had been long an
inhabitant of Lincoln, and was (being of Radical poli-
tics) Treasurer to the charities of the town under
the Municipal Corporation. In October, 1838, there
appeared in the Lincoln Chronicle, the Conservative pa-
psi-, the libel complained of, which was a paragraph
headed, " Municipal Registrations," and commencing,
" The Radicals, lost to virtue—manly thought—and all
the noble sallies of the soul,' or at least, the thing called
fool, of knaves the tool,' in the person of the creature who
edites the Gazette, who gets 701. a-year under the Cor-
ration for doing that which many others would do, and
better too, for 20/." And then it went on to stigmatize
him for objecting to the poor Conservative voters, en
masse, in the hopes that having no time to lose,
they would not answer, and be so disfranchised—conduct
which it characterised as merciless and degrading—and
so, undoubtedly, Mr. Kelly said it was; and when the
Jury found that Mr. Drury had taken no part whatever in
the municipal reg strations, they would consider, he
trusted, that the plaintiff had a right to claim just redress
at their hands for the injury which his character must have
sustained by this imputation.
The publicat:oa was admitted, and the paper put in, when
Mr. Andrews, a solicitor of Lincoln, was called, and
stated that the paragraph referred to the plaintiff, and that
he never attended, nor took part in, the registrations.
Cross-examined by Mr. HUMPHREYS, for the' defendant
—Pray, Mr. Andrews, what are you
Witness—A Radical.
Mr. HUMPHREYS—I thought so. Well, now which
part of this passage refers to plaintiff—" Lost to virtue--
manly thought"—eh ?—(Laughter.) Or this---" And all
the noble sallies of the soul."—( Renewed laughter.)
Witness—Why the whole paragraph.
Mr. HUMPIIRRYS—WeII, but it begins—" The Radicals
of Lincoln"—now, as you are a Radical, it refers to you,
don't it ?—(Laughter.)
Witness—Yes.
Mr. HUMPHREYS—So you are " lost to virtue—manly
thought ?"—( Laughter.)
Witness—Yes, they say so; but I don't care for that—
( Laughter.)
Mr. HUMPHERTS—No, I should think not. The
Learned Counsel then made a very humourous address to
the jury, characterising the plaintiff as the most thin-
skinned and touchy of editors ; and ridiculing the " Spar-
tan virtue" of Mr. Kelly, which doubtless would excite
great alarm among the Conservatives, not only of Lincoln,
but of Ipswich—(Laughter)—when they heard on such
high authority, that it was so very bad to object to oppo-
site voters without foundation.—( Laughter.)
The Learned JUDGE told the Jury that he considered
the paragraph somewhat injurious to the plaintiff's cha-
racter, and therefore a libel ; but the Jury would bear in
mind that this was a dispute between rival editors.
The Jury found for the plaintiff, damages one farthing.

EXCHEQUER COURT-THIS DAY

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Baron ALDZRSON and
a London Common Jury.)
ELPORD D. PRIOR.
This was an action brought to recover compensation in
damages for an assault committed under the following cir-
cumstances :—The defendant was a clerk in the Ordnance
Office, who, on the 24th September last, had his horse
home from the grass. He had not a servant at the time,
and engaged a groom named Fry to attend his horse in
the meantime. On the morning of the day named he
ordered Fry to exercise the horse. In place of doing so
himself he put a boy on it, for which he was reprimanded
by the defendant. In the evening he was desired to get a
farrier to administer a ball to the horse. Fry introduced
the plaintiff, who administered the ball at seven o'clock,
and according to Fry's evidence, he made a demand of
2s. 6d. for so doing. The defendant objected to
the charge, saying Is. 6d. was all he was in the
habit of paying, and would pay no more. The plaintiff
said he would not mind it then, but would settle it to-
morrow, and was going away when the defendant all at
once struck him, and knocked him down in the passage.
Fry, the witness, not wishing to see his friend ill-used
without any cause, was about to interfere, but having a
pitchfork in his hand it accidentally struck the defendant
on the head.

For the defence two policemen were called, who de-
posed that when they went up to where the disturbance
was, Mr. Prior said, in the presence of the plaintiff, that
he demanded 2s. 6d. for administering the ball, which he
would not pay. The plaintiff insisted upon being
paid, and would not leave the premises when re-
quested by the defendant. That Elford attempted
to strike him, and that he then took him by the
arm and pushed him out of the stable. Elford
heard all this, and said it was all true, only
that on being put out he was thrown down
with his child in his arms. When they went
up Prior hail a severe cut on his head, which was bleed-
ing profusely. Their evidence was confirmed by the gen-
tleman who lived next doo . The plaintiff wanted the
policemen to take the defendant into custody for an as-
sault, but they refused, which angered him so much that
at nine o'clock of the same evening he went and lodged
a complaint against them with their sergeant.
His LORDSHIP summed up, and said the case was one of
very conflicting evidence, which it was the duty of the
Jury carefully to consider. He did not like admissions
being brought forward to contradict direct testimony.
After pointing out the discrepancies which appeared in the
evidence he said it was of such a nature as to demand their
serious attention.

The Jury consulted for a few minutes, and then return-
ed a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 101.
Mr. JERVIS and Mr. DASENT conducted the plaintiff's
case.

Mr. CHANNBLL and Mr. PETERSDORP were Counsel for
,he defendant.

FATAL EVENT.—We understand' the melan-
choly affair, detailed in another part of our paper, uncler
the head " Mysterious Occurrence," was purely acci-
dental, Mr. Western, at the time of presenting the pis-
tol believing it to be unloaded, and that measures are
in progress for surrendering him before a Judge, in
order to be admitted to bail. The Cambridge account
inaccurately states Mr. Western to be a nephew of
Lord Western. That Nobleman bad only one brother,
who died several years since unmarried.