The Sun.
London, England, 1806-07-15 00:00:00

L/Tr REPORD.

.rrN•G‘'s:BENCH, .GLAL,DHALL, JULY fs. ,
SITTINGS AFTER TERM BEFoRE LORD ELLENSOROUGH.

CARR V. JONES.

This was an Affirm to recover damages flit a libel
'against the Plaintiff, published in the Liverpool
Chronicle, of which the Defendant was the Pro-
prietor. The Plaintiff was an Attorney, and also.
Clerk of the Court-of Requests at Liverpool, ih which
capacity he, in bet, aeted as Judge. A dispute had
occurred between the Plaintiff and another Attor-
ney of the same place, respeCting an arbitration,
which in the end Produced a prosecution against Carr
for an assault. 'A Report of the proceedings was in-
serted in the Delendaas Paper in May last, but it
was evidently:partial, .untrue; and written for the
purpose of casting' unjust reflee-tions upon the cha-
raater of Mr. Carr.

' Mr. 9ARROW, Counsel for the Defendant, stated,
that his client was a respectable Bookseller at Liver-
pool, and Proprietor of the Paper in which had
:been
published, what he would not contend was not a libel,
but, as the Defendant had a large family, as he was
not the authors of the libel, and as he had inserted it
rather in consequence of that, want of caution which
was more excusable in a Country Editor than a London
one; he trusted 'the Jury would be lenient in• their da-
mages. lt had- been, for a considerable number of
years, a source of amusement and instruction to the
Ikblic, to be informed of what passed in Courts- of
Juitice. It was now grown into a regular-system,
and'persons supposed'to be qualified were engaged to
attend to judicial proceedings; and report their pro-
gress and result. They undoubtedly rendered a great
benefit to the Public, and he for one had no objec-
tion to the continuance of their labours, provided
they_ represented fairly and impartially what they
heard. This, he admitted, bad notbeen done- in the
present-Instance ; but the Defendant was personally
blameless, and therefore not deserving.of vindidive
damages against him..
The Jury, under the direction of the Noble .Judge,
returned a verdict -for the Plaintiff-,-Damages 51:
Mr. G4allow, moved on behalf of a Witness who
came from the country some days ago to give his
evidence in a cause now before the Court, and had
attended. several days, but the cause is not yet tried.
on Saturday last he went to the house of the Attors
hey in the cause, by whom be had been_ subpoenaed,
'as a witness, tor. the.purpOse of consulting on the
sUbjeCt of his evidence, to afford the Attorney means
to prepare his Client's case. As the Witness was
going away from the Attorney's house, where he had
been on his errand, :he was arrested for debt, and
taken to a lock-np-house; he came now into Court,
together with the Sheriff's Officer whis had him in
custody, for the purpose of being discharged, on the
ground that he was privileged from civil arrest by
reason of his being subpoenaed to give his evidence
in Court, and Mr. GA itnow moved to. that died,
observing, that if he had, been going to a place of
amusement,. or on business foreign to the.cause, he
might not be privileged-; but here he was attending
upon business in the cause in which he had been
subpoenaed as a. witness,, and therefore he submitted
that he was entitled to the protedion of the Court.
Lord ELLENBOROLFGH.—" If the Witness had
been coming from his place of abode towards the
Court to give.his evidence—or going from the Court
towards his place of abode, after, having attended
as a 'Witness, the Court would prated him against
any arrest for a civil debt ; but I cannot extend this
privilege to any collateral purposes, although they
happen to be purposes,of the cause. I know of no case
that has gone further than to protect the Witness while
he is coaling towards. the Court to give his evidence,
or while, he is going direCtly towards home after hav-
ing.attended as a Witness. It may be convenient that
he might be proteded on all occasions, and there may
be a itardship to him if he is not; but there is no law
for it. I can order him'to be brought into Court, so
that, you shall not suffer for the want of his testi-
mony.; but I cannot order him to be discharged : if I
did; the erred of that would be, that no person who
happened to be- served with a subpoena would be sub-
jeat to arrest for debt from the moment of his being
served with it until after the cause is tried. I can-
not make any.order.for the
.discharge of this witness,
although his.case m my be a very hard. one, for he may
have been thrown in the way of this arrestby attend-
ing
as a witness ; but I know of no law that extends
to the proteEtion of a witness except when he is
coming to Court, or going back from it, as, a wit-
ness„ If .I. am wrong,. you will move the Court for
an attachment againstthe Officer for the attest."
Mr. GARRow said; there was no intention of that
kind—the party would immediately acquiesce after
his Lordship's opinion was pronounced. .

COURT OE•EXCHEQUER, MONDAY, IDLY 14.
• • - • FISH V. PALMER.

This was an extraordinary case, being an issue
di-
re&ed from the equity side ofthe.Qurt, to ascer-
tain whether a child of the Plaintiff was born alive. or
not, so as to authorize the Plaintiff to keep his wife's
estate as tenant by the courtesy of England. As this
'sort of title has but, seldom-occurred, it may be ne;
cessary to *state, that when 'a man marries -a woman'
having a freehold estate, and it is not settled by any
marriage articles; it 'does not remain with the hus-
band after her death, unless he' has had a child by
her born alive, in which case he keeps it'foi`hais life,
and is called -tenant by the courtesy of England.,—
The question here was, whether a child' of Mr.
Fisher,, born in the year 1796, and whiCh was sup-
posed to have been still-born, did not retain after its
birth sufficient remains of life to say; that it was born
alive ? At the death of his wife, Mr. Fisher supposing,.
he had'no right to the estate, had resigned it to the
Defendant, who had . married his wife's sister; but
subsequent faCts having come to his knowledge, he
brought this aCtion to recover it back again.— I
To prove. the fa; ts of the child being born alive,
the two principal witnesses were the nurse, and
Mary Reynolds, a' cook in the. Plaintiffs fatuity;
but Dr. Lyon (since dead) declared an hour before
the birth, that the child was living. He dire&ed a
bath of warm water to be prepared, and gave the
child, when delivered; to the nurse, to immerse it in
the warm water. It did not cry or move, nor shew
any other symptom of life ; but when It was in the
water there wits twice a twitching and tremulous mo-
tion of the lips, which both these women, swore they