The Sun.
London, England, 1863-04-15 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

;Before the Lord Chief Baron and Barons Bramwell,
Martin, and Wilde.)

BEAUMONT AND WRITE V. FAULTON AND ANOTHER.

Mr. Temple, Q.C., said in this case a verdict had been
given for defend ants, and he now moved a rule to show cause
why the verdict should not be bet aside on the ground that
it was against the evidence. The action was for a libel, and
the defendants were the proprietor and editor of the Man-
chester Examiner and Times, in which paper the libel com-
plained of appeared. The libel was published twice, and
plaintiffs sought to recover special damages which they
stated they had sustained, and which they showed in figures.
The defendants in answer said there was no malice, and
under the 6th and 7fh Vict., peal 40s. into court as amends.
It became necessary that he should give a short explana-
tion in order at the term " Surat" should be understood
by their lordships. In the present state of the cotton
market American cotton was so adulterated or mixed with
Surat that the term became a byword, end everything that
was not free from adulteration was called " Surat," The
plaintiffs were brewers at Staleybridge, and carried on busi-
ness there, being the owners of several public-houses,
amongst which was the Butlers' Inn. The libel com-
plained of was in the shape of an advertisement which ap-
pea ed in two publications, in which the plaintiffs
were mentioned as " the Surat brewers of Staley-
bridge." Previous to the advertisement appearing
Messrs. Beaumont were in treaty with a gen.
tlernen named Dickens for the purchase of their
interest in the Butlers' Inn, but after the publica-
tion of the obnoxious advertisement he thought the property
so much injured that he refused to complete his purchase.
The same circumstance occurred with respect to another
publicbouse called the Crystal Palace, so that the
money they derived from the two houses had dimi-
nished nearly one-half in consequence of so injurious
a statement appearing in the newspaper. Messrs. Beaumont
sent to the office of the Examiner and demanded the
name of the writer, when he was handed the copy
of the advertisement, and said it bad been taken over the
counter in the ordinary way of business, and that they
knew nothing further about it. The defendants after-
wards inserted what they termed an apology, which was
not at all satisfactory, as it only went to the extent of say-
ing that a very stupid advertisement had appeared in their
paper, but as it seemed to have displeased Messrs, Beau-
mont and White, they rejected its insertion."
The Court said that it did not appear to be an apology
at all, because it merely said if we've done you an injury we
are sorry for it. It aid not say whether the accusation
was true or false.

Mr. Temple said that was so. At the time seven wit-
nesses positively stated that, in consequence of the publica-
tion of the advertisement, they dared not even allow the
plaintiffs'• carts to stand at their door, much less sell his ale)
and thus their business materially suffered The defendants
had, previous to the trial, paid 40s. into court " as amends,"
but, he contended, they might just as well have paid one
farthing.
The court granted a rule to show cause,

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

(Before Chief Justice Erie and Justices Willes, Byles, and

Keating.)
MARKHAM AND STAMFORD.

Mr. Besley occupied the attention of their lordships with
this case, the subject in dispute being the recovery of
certain sums of money, dues as toll, and which, it was con-
tended, on the other side, it could not be recovered, as the
alleged agreement between the parties was insufficient.
[The case w,,s proceeding when we went to press.]