The Sun.
London, England, 1808-07-29 00:00:00

DUBLIN, 'JULY: 23.

COURT OF KING's BENCH, JULY 14.

TRIAL REF:ME THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE AND A SPE-

CIAL JURY OF THE CITY.OI, DUIsLIN.

LIEUT. CHARLES WALLIS,. OF THE DIZIVERS' CORPS,

V. LIEUT.-COL. BROOK YOUNG; OF THE ROYAL

ARTILLbItY.

This was an action for a libel alledged to he corn-
tained in a letter,. bearing date the 2(ith of Nov.
1807, written by the Defendant to Lieut-Colonel
laean, then Brigade-Major to General Manly,
Corn • a der of the Royal Artillery in Ireland, and
said to reject on the Plaintiff. The declaration con-
sisted of several -bunts ; the Plaintiff laid his dama-
ges at 50001.; and the Defendant pleaded the gene-
ral issue and a justification.
Mr. Serjeani BALL, the Plaintiff's leading Conn-
s-al, stated, that the Plaintiff was a 'young' Gentle-
man who 'lately held a Commission in the-Troop of
Royal Artillery
,Drivers, having been appointed
Lieutenant therein in j,he ,montli of March, 1807,
and was ordered to' join the corns ,then quartered
in Cork, under the Defendant, who then command-
ed the Royal Artillery in the south-west division of
Ireland. The Learned Counsel, after stating Seve-
n' circumstances to induce a belief that the De-
fendant ecteriained an unfavourable disposition
towards the Plaintiff, mentioned that the Plaintiff
was, previous to the month- of November, 1807,
snsnended.from all military duty by the Defendant,
and put under a species of arrest by him, and that
the Defendant refused to listen to any explanation
by Plaintiff of his conda—that the Plaintiff was
never afterwards permitted to do any duty in Cork,
and that he was ordered in November, 1807, to
leave Cork, and repair to the barracks at Island--
bridge, near Dublin, by General Manly. The
asubjett of the present action was a letter written by
the Defendant shortly after, to
,Major M‘Lean,
then Brigade-Major to the General, containing
charges of a very serious nature against the Plain-
tiff, involving his charaaer, as a Gentleman, and
impaling' to him several ungentlemanly acts while
gilder the Defendant's command in,tork. Colonel.
IVlgalta, on receiving this letter as an official .docu-
mant, laid it before General Manly, who .ordered
it to be submitted to some of the Officersnof the
Corps of Drivers, at Island-bridge, to which the
Plaintiff then belonged, to make a report upon it
to him—that' such report was favourable to the
Plaintiff; and that Plaintiff, conceiving himself
much aggriever.l by the representation contained in
the Defendant's said letter, 'had brought the pre- I
sent action. That since the bringing of the action,
a Court-Martial was appointed for the investigation
of the Plaintiff's conduct while in Cork, under the
command pf the Defendant, and that 'althOtigh. the
Plaintiff was, by the sentence of the Court-Martial,
cashiered, yet the sentence. was qualified in such a
manner as to leave the Defendant 'fully open to the
present action.
The first witness for the Plaintiff was Lieutenant-
Colonel AP Lean. He said that he was in Novem-
ber last, and'still is, doing the duty of Brigade-Ma-
jor to General Manly, who commanded the Royal
Artillery in Ireland—That having received frcith the.
Defendant the letter in question, he, of course, put
Plaintiff under .an arrest—that General Nanli,
from motives of clemency,
,was induced to desire
the Officers of the Drivers' birps, at Island-bridge,
to consult together on the charges contained in the
letter, and report their,opinion to hitn—itwas. not a
Court of Inquiry, nor was the Defendant,, or any
person on his behalf, present at it, or any wit-
nesses examined on either side. He saki, on his
cross-examination, that it was the duty of a Com-
manding Officer to report the conduct of those un-
der his command; whenever he thought it neces-
sary, and that he himself was the proper person to
whom the report was to be made for General Manly:
He said, that the letter in question contained
animadversiOns on the conduct of another Officer, as
well as on that of the' Plaintiff, and that he, the
witness, entered the lettlin his book, as an official
document—he knew Liet enant-Colonel Young for
upwards'oftwenty-seven years—spoke in the highest
terms of respect of him, and said, that, from his
knowledge of hint, he was convinced that he was in-
capable of making the performance of his duty sub-
servient to any malicious purpose.
The second witness was Captain Henry Lane, in
the Corps of Royal Artillery Drivers, who appeared
to he the other Officer •cottiplied of by the De-
fendent, in the letter to' Lieut.-Colonel 'M`Lean.
Captain Lane proved; that, being in the same, regi-
ment with the Plaintiff, and serving in Cork, he
saw an order in the Orderly book,• in the month of
November last, importing that the- Plaintiff was
suspended from duty by the. Defendant—that
shortly after such order, the Plaintiff wrote a letter
to Defendant, which Defendant returned unopen-
ed 1 he said that. the Plaintiff was ordered from
Cork to Island-bridge, and that he was refused cer-
tain acconnuodaiions by the Defendant, which are
'usually given to Office's who change quarters.
On the cross-examinationl of this witness, he
said that the Defendant had .once or twice made a
complaint of the Plaintiff to him, and imputed
irregularities to -birb—he could not say whether
.the lady that Plaintiftliad at his lodgings in Cork
was his wife or not.: This witness being asked
Whether Colonel-Young bad not occasion to make a
report of himself ? . answered, that Lieut.-Colonel
Young had said a great numbei of very intainous
thtvgs 'of witness,' but that lie had a great esteem
for Colonel Young, which he afterwards explained,
by saying he spoke in an ironical- way. The Wit-
ness acknowledged that he heard that the Plaintiff
lodings in Cork, WitilQiit 11:1.6ng paid for
them, and that. the Plaintiff associated• With 'non-
comitmsioned officers of the Drivers"' Carps, at
Cork, and got drunk with them--he said the Plain-
tijf had made some arrangement for the payment
of the debts he owed in Cork before he left it, and'
that the debts he owed were not of any great
amount.

.
The SOLI.CITOII-GENERAL stated the case ior the
Defendant, and objetaed that the Plaintiff had. not
entitled himself, by any evidence be bad glyen,.to a
verdi& lion) the Jury, and that the Court' would be
warranted, in point of law, to non-suit the Plaintiff.
}le insisted that the ati of. the Defendant, in writ-