The Sun.
London, England, 1853-01-26 00:00:00

issue, and unless the whole plea is proved, that issue must
be found for the plaintiff. Same difference of opini°2
has prevailed, and it has been held that a partial justifi-
c ttion in a civil case ought to operate in the reduction of
damages, but all authorities agree that there can be ne
partial finding for the defendant on the ground of the
justification being partially established. In a cri"
minal prosecution for libel, where the Legislature
has given the defendant liberty to plead the
truth as a defence, without any special direction ill
case the whole justification should not be proved, the
jury would have no. right to find that part of the justifi
cation is proved, for there are no damages to be assessed
and the sentence to be pronounced rests exclusively with
the Court. But all doubt on the subject is removed by
the provision made by the Legislature, that wherever
there is a conviction after a plea of justification,
the Court, in pronouncing sentence, shall consider whe-
ther the guilt of the defendant is aggravated or mitigated
by his plea, and the evidence given to prove or disprove
the same. It is for the Court to consider the evidence
on one side and the other, and to form their own conclu-
sions whether it aggravates or mitigates the guilt of the
defendant. But their conclusion as to the sentence is to
be regulated, not by any declaration of the jury, as to
the credit which they think ought t• be given to the
witnesses examined. It is quite clear that the opinion
expressed by the jury as to any particular parts of the
plea, as to the whole, for instance, not being proved,
could not be entered on the record. It may be reported
by the judge who presided at the trial, to the Court hi
whom the sentence is pronounced; but still the judges in
deliberating upon the sentence are bound to form their
conclusions on the evidence, and if it aggravates or initi•
gates the guilt to apportion the punishment accordingly'
The evidence, as it appears on the notes of the judge
who conducted the trial, comes in the place of the pro•
duction of affidavits as to the aggravation or mitigation
of the punishment when sentence is to be pronounced,
and it will be much more satisfactory than affidavits,
because as the witnesses were examined viva voce, and all
opportunity given for cross-examination, what they say
is much more satisfactory, and will afford a better
foundation for the sentence that is to be pronounced,
Under these circumstances, how can we set
aside the verdict, and grant a new trial
That course is adopted only when a different verdict
may be expected ; but here it is admitted that the issue
has been properly formed, and that the jury must fulfil
that the defendant published the libel without the allege'
cause of justification. Again, the defendant must core°,
before us, and the evidence will have to be consider
by us in measuring out his punishment. For these
reasons the rule for a new trial must be discharged, and
sentence must be pronounced. When the defendant 0
broiught before Court to receive judgment, we will, ill
the discharge of our sacred duty, consider whether hist
guilt has been aggravated or mitigated by his plea el
justification, and the evidence given to prove or disprove
it ; and by so doing we conceive that the intentions et
the Legislature will be strictly fulfilled, and that the 01'1'4
of justice will be fully answered.
Rule discharged.

Sir F. Thesiger applied to the Court to certify that the
prosecutor should be indemnified in respect to the costs'
observing that, under the act alluded to in the judgment'
the prosecutor, when a verdict was found in his favour,
was entitled to recover from the defendant the costs sillr
tamed by reason of his plea of justification.
The Attorney-General trusted, as he had another eir
gagement, that the question of costs would be deferred
until a future occasion.

Lord Campbell—We shall give no opinion on the sub'
Ject until we, hear both sides.

Sir F. Thesiger saidhe understood it would be coal
venient for Dr. Newman to attend to receive the judgrae,t°
of the Court on Monday next, and perhaps the Cow-
would fix that day for passing sentence upon him.
Lord Campbell—Very well.
It was then arranged that Dr. Newman should b°
brought up for judgment on Monday, and that thti
question of costs should be deferred until then.
Lord Campbell suggested that, in order to avoid III:
ther expense, it would be better to dispense with v.";
davits in mitigation or aggravation of the sentence
having reference to the evidence at the trial. Of course
additional affidavits would be produced if any new cost
could be urged on either side.

SECONDARIES' COURT.
(Before Mr. Secondary Potter.)
THE EVVECT OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION.—MAS'*
V. TRENDALL.
This was an action to recover the sum of 9t. 129,/
balance of an account for goods sold and delie red.
Mr. Lucas appeared as counsel for the plavintiff; l' stated that plaintiff resided ill BUCkinghaMShire. The
6,
account extended from February to November, ot
consequently, if it could not be shown that there P-oc
been an admission in writing of the debt being iust'tho
unless a payment had been made on account withiotbio
prescribed period, the demand was extinguished.
case, he should be able to show that the defendant
paid on account.
Plaintiff was called, and proved that as the accepting!
was closed in November, defendant paid him 11. in go
cember of the same year, after which he left his reside,:
in Sprigg's-alley, Oxfordshire, and went to Leeds,
only returned in time to receive the writ within the
years.
f thB
The whole of the case rested on the testimony no.
plaintiff and defendant--the payment of the 11. In ,"
cember bringing it within one month of the statute. for
The jury, without hesitation, found for the plaintiff ,
the amount claimed.

NELSON V. BROOME.
This was an action against Harry Broome for leoll
expenses and preparing accounts.
Mr. Duncan appeared for the plaintiff, but an arrfivore' e
ment was come to between the parties, and a Yeruif
taken by consent.
tio
The court was crowded to excess by parties desir%
of hearing the case, who went away evidently dip'
pointed.