The Sun.
London, England, 1814-02-22 00:00:00

sill-TM-tea. by tbe movef, tirosirenor fmd
Stockton; and opOsed -by Mr. Sharp—neatived
by ayes and noes-; ayes. , noos_103; Mr. Gas-
then_ruoved an ametll to Mr. Roberts's
resolntion—‘ Thfit the President be retpiested to
gire the information (desired), respecting. said let-
ter,'—reciting in his amendment the letter at full
length. This •ammitnent \v is also negatived, by
ayes and noes—ayes 65, noes 96,—it was sup-
ported by Messrs. Gaston and'Pitkin. .

The Turreau Letter must -now be inserted at
full length upon the Journals of. the House, so
that it will now be seen by the pul>iic in an Offi-
cial form. '

The question then recurred on Mr. itoberts's
original resolution, and was carried.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OP KING's BENCH, FEB. 21.

LIBEL-KIERRULFF V. QUIN.

This wan' an actionr,brought by the Baron
Kierrnlff, (who, the reader wilt recollect, was in-
dicted at the Ohl Bailey, in company with Daven-
p(rt.' coley and Edward Meyer, for feloniously
taking certain bills of exchange from the Mat-
(-Plis of ileadfort, and the whole being acquitted
'if that charge, was included in an indictment with
the saMe.persons in the Court for a conspiracy to
defraud the Marquis -of the said bills, brit the
plaintiff was alsp-Ifcquit of the latter charge)
against the proprietor of Cie Trarelter for two li-
bels, 'the One contained in the police-report of
that newspaper, when' these persons were com-
mitted. for the felony, and the other in the Old
tea'off, ,zhen they ‘vere acquitted thereof.
The first Ebel stated, as the faCt was, that the
plaintiff and ScrileY-were 'committed on the above
charge, and then, in proceeding to give the nar-
rative of the fraud iiphn the Marquis-of fleadfort,
said that the plaintitlyassed far a SWedish Noble-
man, and had dressed himself np to act that part.
The se'con-libel was
,proved hyMr. flamer, the
attorney, to be an accurate report of Mr. Alley's'
speech on opening the indictment at tire Old
Bailey ; hut' no evidence vv%l,, called, as. Lord EL-
-1EN:10110UGH, who presided ;:t that trial, was of
6phijon,, that the learned Coansel's opening did
-not amount in point of law 'to a felony; the pri-
soners having agreed (as .the reader may recol-
lect); to exchange aceeptairees with the Marquis.
Mr. JEkYLL, for the plaintiff, insisted upon the
necessity of keeping the minds of jurors unPre-
indieed by ex parte statements of police 'transac-
tions, and that in question passed in a private
roorn, to which the public had no right Of ;recess.
Mr. frOPPING. for the defendant, proved that
two or three papers„in the hand-writing of Sedley,
were found upon the plaiatiff, at the time 'of hiS
apprehension, and relied, in midgation of da-
triages, upon the old maxim of Noseitat• a socio.---
The defendant could have no personal • feeling-
against the plaintiff, for be would think himself
disgraced by any'acquaintance with him : the ar-
ticles' fOund:their way into his paper among
others,' grid were proved to be fOlinded in haat!).
Lord Er...l..ENßotrouGn charged the Jury that,
although Courts of Jugtice were underthe ne-
cessity of inquiring into character with freedom,
yet that it became conductors of newspapers,
whose only office was to gratify public curiosity,.
to do it with caution. The present was riot a
libel of that 'malignant disposition which a great
many had presented. If the. object of. its author
had eenrollolcl span individual to detestation with
a view to prejudice him on his trial, it %you'd be to be
visited with very large damages; here the only mis-
chief that could be 'effected by the first libel, con-
sisted in his being represented to be concerned in
the conspiracy against the Marquis of Headfort,-
and there was nothing personal against him
yond this.. There was no justification on.the re-
cord, so that the Jury could not take the, libel to
be trite in fact ; and, indeed, after the plaintiff's
acquittal, the dzfendant could,not, with effect, have
pleaded a justification. ~This libel was, therefore,
to a.certajn degree, injurious to the plaintiff. As
to the libel in the report of the trial, it Was not
every thing that a CounSel was warranted in saving
thyat a printer had a right of publishing. But as
in this case the limits of fair reporting did riot'
seem to be exceeded, his Lordship recommended
the Jury to give only norniital:daagea for the se-
cond ; 'and- ,foe the first it was their's to sax,
how far the plaintiff had been injured by it, nut
altogether laying cut of \their consideration that
the plaintiff was implicated in this conspiracy
in a very equivocal manner (his 'Lordship hoped
not criminally, and he was warranted in saving
so because of the verdict), and appeared to have
mixed himself with thealefendants, one of whom
had been found guilty, and the other had fled
from justice ; and as the Learned Counsel for the
defendant. had justly oirserverl, if people will put
themselyes,into very had -company, they must not
expect to be treated- as if their reputation were
perfectly psiry arid imbleinished.

The Jtlry foulid their verdict (of Viaintiff.—Pa-
mages. 201.

THY NNE, V. _PiZOTHEROE.

This was an action on an agreenlent brought by
the Administrator of the .later Dr. Thyntw, against
the defendant, a. til•!teo.n. The contract
that the:defendant should pay to Dr: Thyrine 2000
guineas; on condition 'that he (Mr.- Protheroe)
shard in the yrofits of cerntin'Lectures on alid-
wifery, to be delivO'crl at St, Bartholomew's Hos-
pital, by Dr., Thynne and his son. The plaintiff,
however, was nol:isaited, on a point of law de-
Cided in the case of Hunt, Administrator; v. Ste-
phens (3' Taunton 113),,wcre it was held,' that
the plaintiff could not recover, beoause ,he
had not taken out letters of administration to such
an amount as Ivould cover the sought in the
action to' be, recovered. In tors Cas.e, the plain-
tiff had sworn, that Dr. Thymic died worth not
inure than I 001,. •

. In the. case •of lYason r kindon and others,
which was troves for goods of Dr. Thynne, seized
by the Sheriffi the plaintiff was also nonsuited,
because the sfarup of a deed did not •appear to be
ait ad valorea, duty, which is required by the 480
of the King. .

In Hampton V. Deburg-h, a feigned issue, to try
whether the holders of burgag.e tenures were en-
titled to commonage. upon waste lands, near Ux-
bridge, the plaintiff was likewise nonsuited, not
being able to prove his case