The Sun.
London, England, 1837-04-22 00:00:00

HASLOCK V. SMITH.

This case stood for judgment on the paper, but his Lordship
on taking his seat stated, that as he had not had an opportu-
nity of looking into the papers, he must postpone giving judg-
ment till Monday.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. LUBBOCK.

The arguments were concluded in this case.
postponed giving judgment.

His Lordship

MAYHEW V. BRETTINGHAM.

The COURT then proceeded with this appeal, the arguments
in which had not concluded when our Reporter left.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY.)

His Honour the VICE-CHANCELLOR was occupied the whole
morning with the part heard case of " Dryden v. Frost."

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

STOCKDALE V. HANSARD.

The plaintiff, who appeared in person, moved for a rule to
show cause why the verdict for the defendant in this case
should not be set aside, and_a new trial had. It was an action
for libel brought by the plaintiff, the notorious publisher,.
against the Messrs. Hansard, printers to the two Houses of
Parliament, for the publication of a report of the Inspectors of
Prisons, under the head of " Newgate," and which report was
calculated to exercise a despotic tyranny over the lives, liber-
ties, and character of the King's subjects. The grounds of
the present application were—first, that the finding of the
Jury was not a legal finding—one of the Special Jurors having,
when the verdict was returned, distinctly stated that he could
not agree in finding that the publication was disgusting, inas-
much as it appeared to him to be a medical work.
Lord DENMAN—I heard the Juror make that observation,
and I stated that I could not receive the verdict unless they
found it unanimously, in the terms of the issue, which was
" indecent, disgusting, and obscene." The Jury then con-
ferred together again, and returned a verdict unanimously in
these terms.

Mr. STOCKDALE—The second ground was, that the finding
of the Jury was against evidence. The only witness exa-
mined for the defendants was the Rev. Mr. Russell, ono of the
Inspectors of Prisons, who declared his ignorance of medical
and surgical science, and who could therefore give no opinion
upon a work of that nature. He would now state to their
Lordships the nature of the invaluable medical work which
had been impugned. Mr. Stockdale here read the contents
of the work, which he contended was similar to Dr. Arnold's
Elements of Physic, and must be considered purely in the
light of a surgical and anatomical work. The third ground upon
which his application, was made wai surprieo ; and the fourth was
that in consequence of a petition presented by the defendants in
the House of Commons on the previous evening, the report
of which appeared in the public Papers on the morning of the
trial, the minds of the Jury had been improperly influenced in
giving their verdict. Mr. Stockdale then referred to the re-
port of the Court of Aldermen, who gave it as their opinion
that the book in question was a scientific medical work. On
these grounds, he trusted that the Court would see the pro-
priety and justice of granting a rule for a new trial.
The COURT did not think any grounds had been laid before
it, which would warrant their disturbing the verdict. The sole
question the Jury had to try, was whether the publication in
question merited the epithets applied to it in the report of the
Inspector of Prisons, and of that they were the sole judges.
If any affidavit bad been laid before the Court, which would
warrant it in coming to the conclusion, that the minds of the
Jury had been improperly prejudiced by any report of what
took place in the House of Commons on the previous evening,
that might have formed a ground fer granting a new trial, but
no such fact having been laid before it, the present application
could not be entertained.—Rule refused.