The Sun.
London, England, 1830-05-14 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Mav 13.
SCALES V. SAUL.
This was an action of slander. Mr. Serjeant
WILDE and Mr. RICHARDS conducted the plaintiff's
case, and called two witnesses, from whose testi-
mony it appeared that in 1828 the plaintiff, a car-
cass-butcher, was a candidate for the representation
in the Common Council, of the ward of Portsoken,
but was not successful. At the wardmote held on
that occasion, as soon as the election was over, and
before the meeting separated, the defendant stood
up and said that "he admired the religious princi-
ples of Mr. Scales ; but he wished his real charac-
ter to be known : he had neither principle, honour,
nor honesty." Upon this some confusion took
place, whereupon the defendant repeated that " Mr.
Scales had neither honour nor common honesty."
He then went on to observe, that "it was well
known that the Whitechapel butchers killed for the
Jews and the high-priest ; when he was interrupted
by the Alderman, Sir James Shaw, who said this
had nothing to do with the business of the meeting,
and nothing further occurred. The declaration
alleged that the above words were spoken of the
plaintiff in the way of his trade as a carcass-
' butcher; and to explain the latter part of them, it
was stated that the meat killed for the Jews was
killed by persons appointed for that purpose by the
high-priest.
Mr. Serjeant SPANKIE on behalf of the defendant,
said Mr. Serjeant Wilde had told the jury, that he
(Mr. Serjeant Spankie) would treat the case with
some merriment; but he assured them that he was
not now in a mood to do so. The trial had been
so long hanging over, that his mind had become
jaded, and he could not be 'sprightly if he would.
He did not know what was the period of gestation
for a joke, bat whatever it was, he was sure that his.
had gone beyond its time.—(Langhter.)—He felt
that he had miscarried—(A laugh)—and that he
could now bring forth nothing lively.—(Great
laughter.)—The Learned Serjeant then proceeded
to contend, that the words here complained of had
not been spoken of the plaintiff in his trade, but in
his character as a candidate for the cffice of Com-
mon Councilman. When he became a candidate
for that honour, he was bound to submit to-have his
merits canvassed, and it was only in that character
that the defendant had spoken of him. He had
dropped his blue apron, and professed to come for-
Ward in a white robe of innocence,—he would not
say a white sheet—(A laugh)--and what was
said of him on that occasion by the defend.
ant had no more to do with his trade of a
carcass butcher than it had with tile battle of
Waterloo, although that also was a slaying matter.
(Laughter.)—But, in point of fact, the defendant
had sounded his praise, for he said he admired his
religion. It was very true he said he had neither
principle, honour, nor honesty, but these were mere
worldly qualities, and he had given him credit for a
spiritual one. Only think what a comfort it would
be to him when he went down to his grave to have
it inscribed upon his tombstone, " Here lieth
Michael Scales, of whom Saul said,' I admire his
religion.' "—(Great laughter.)—But then the High
Priest was dragged in to show that it was of him in
the way of his trade that the words were spoken;
but how could the jury tell, if Sir James Shaw had
not interrupted the defendant, that it was not in
illustration of his religion which he so much admired
that he was going to speak : it might be that the
High Priest had converted him, or that lie had con-
verted the High Priest.—(A laugh.)—And after all
what was it he was said to want ? Honour, prin-
ciple, and honesty. Now as to honour, the Jury
would put that out of the question at once ; because
that was a commodity that was not at all necessary
in going through the world.—(A laugh.)—Then us
to principle, that merely meant political principle,—
that principle which was to govern him in the
Common Council (the city House of Commons) in
his votes as to the expenses of London-bridge, or
the Lord Mayor's household.—(A laugh.)—All that
a person meant when he accused another of want of
principle was, that he was not of his principles, or
that he was not steady in his principles, especially
at present when men set their principles as they did
their watches. Then, last of all, he accused him of
want of " common honesty." Now, by his using
the word " common," it was clear he was thinking
of the Common Council.—(Laughter.)—'That was,
he had not that sort of honesty, common honesty,
that was suited for the Common Council. In short,
there was no pretence for bringing this action, except
to obtain further fame for the plaintiff, who had
lately figured in every court in Westminster-hall,
and out of it ; and whose thirst for litigation, for
which the lawyers must feel very grateful to him,
appeared to be inextinguishable.
After about ten minutes' deliberation, the Jury re-
turned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages Is.