The Sun.
London, England, 1862-12-03 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Sittings at Nisi Prins, after Term, at Westminster,
before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and a Com-
mon Jury.)
sErmoun V. BUTTERIVORTII.--MR. DIOBY SEYMOUR, m.r.,

AND THE BENCHERS OF THE MIDDLE TEMPLE.
This was an action for libel. The defendant
pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Lush, Q.C., and Mr. Keane were counsel for
the plaintiff; Mr. Sergeant Shee, Mr. Hawkins,
Q.C., and Mr. Fisher for the defendant.
Mr. Lush said that he appeared for Mr. Digby
Seymour, a Q.C., and M.P. for the borough of
Southampton, who complained of a very serious
libel published by the defendant, who was the pub-
lisher of the Law Magazine and Law Review,
which has been in existence for many years, and
was to be found in every law library in the king-
dom. The learned gentleman, who stood near the
jury whilst addressing them, and who spoke with
an inaudible voice, was understood to say that
this publication, which was taken in by the
profession generally, had published what he un-
hesitatingly termed a scurrilous libel on the plain-
tiff, and that that gentleman had come before a jury
to claim compensation for the attack that had been
made upon him, and to vindicate his character.
The defendant, by his plea, had shielded the writer
of that article, who evidently had some personal
feeling against the plaintiff, for his malignant feel-
ing was manifest and could be traced through the
whole of the libel. When he read the publication
to them he felt satisfied they would agree with him
that it was penned by some person who had &most
vindictive feeling towards Mr. Seymour, with a view
to crush that gentleman with regard to his profes-
sional success and political standing. It attacked
almost every period of Mr. Seymour's life. It re-
ferred to his origin and education, as well as every
step he had made professionally and politically.
Mr. Seymour's object, therefore, in bringing this
action, which was the first opportunity he had had of
bringing the subject before a jury and the public,
was to have a full investigation into all the circum-
stances that had been the subject of inquiry by the
benchers of the Middle Temple. The writer of the
article complained of had shrunk from pleading a
justification, and had simply pleaded not guilty. By
that course he had raised no issue with regard to
the truth or falsehood of the charges he had made
against Mr. Seymour, and he had placed that gen-
tleman in the position of being placed in the wit-
ness box without being able to give any evidence
with regard to the truth or falsehood of the charge
that had been made against him. All, therefore,
that he was enabled to do was to give such a his-
tory of the circumstances alluded to in the libel as
would enable the jury to understand it, and appre-
ciate the spirit and animus which had actuated the
writer. As the writer had assailed Mr. Seymour
from the beginning of his career up to the present
time, he must give them a history of that gentle-
man's life. Mr. Seymour was the son of an Irish
clergyman of the Protestant Church •, and as the
writer had sneered at Mr. Seymour's education and
i attainments, he had to state that. Mr. Seymour gra-
duated with honours at Trinity College, Dublin,
1 and whilst there he obtained several prizes for lite-
rary productions. On coming to England he was
called to the bar in 1846, and he chose the Northern
Circuit. In 1852 he was elected member for Sunder-
land, and he was now a barrister in considerable
practice. He very soon became leading counsel at
session.. He was engaged in prosecutions for the
Crown and for the Post-office, and, holding that po-
sition, and during the time he was member for Sun-
derland, he was appointed in 1854 Recorder of New-
castle, and from that time to this he had held that
judicial office. Upon receiving the appointment of
recorder he was obliged to vacate his seat. He was
not returned on that occasion, but in 1859 he was
elected for Southampton, and still represented that
borough. In addition to that he was appointed in
1860 Queen's counsel in the county palatine of Lancas-
ter, which was considered by the bar of the Northern
Circuit as a stepping-stone to other dignities in the
profession, and he held that rank till he received
from the late Lord Chancellor his patent of Queen's
Counsel of England. A number of other gentlemen
who were also members of the same circuit obtained
their patents of Queen's Counsel at the same time,
and without disparagement of these learned friends
he might say that Mr. Seymour's appointment was
justified as much as the others. Shortly after that
appointment he received an intimation from the
benchers of the Middle Temple, to which inn he be-
longed, that certain charges had been made against
him which they considered it to be their duty to in-
vestigate. A..r. Seymour was therefore called upon
for the first time to answer, not for professional mis-
conduct, except in one instance, but for other mat-
ters that had occurred unconnected with his profes-
sion seven or eight years previously. He was at a
loss to know what those charges had to do with the
writer of the article in question ; but he did know
that they were brought forward after a lapse of
years, when the means of exculpation had dimi-
nished, and which, if true, were more fitting for an
inquiry in a criminal court than before the benchers
of the Middle Temple. However, so it was, and Mr.
Seymour was called upon to answer certain matters
unconnected with his professional career except in
the one instance he had referred to. Mr. Seymour,
like many others in their foolish and giddy days, be-
came connected with joint-stock companies, and the
charges made against him were in connection with
them. The investigation occupied a considerable
time, and in the course of that inquiry it turned out
in the matter relating to his professional career,
that some time ago, having got into difficulties and
into debt, as the result of his speculations in these
joint-stock companies, he became indebted to a soli-
citor. He was pressed for payment. Being unable to
dcpay,ishrghaeoefftehreedbde, ast
to
ohe only means by which he could
give up whatever fees came from
t hat soul ce. The learned counsel did not mean for one
moment to deny that it was unprofessional conduct
on the part of Mr. Seymour to do so. The proper
Practice. It was the only etiquette of the gar v
of liquiCatin hid Sey-
mour had
honestcondsuecr
n-tent justtryina• tiffs g ls
that ought to b -
professional man'semad° '''
these char
the victim of properly forbade such a
tio,debt;
and, m()d enolktlrfo.
ronenits wchaasrngoeta
moral character Previous
gee, being made Mr. Seymour.
certain vague
doubt, from his connexion
but they took no Bagainst matter
a
to
had been
form,rheuntil the investige,..
e rumours, resulting, no
circumstances pecifiicon with those companies,
tion before the benchers.
con-
nected with them industriously circulated