The Sun.
London, England, 1849-11-20 00:00:00

_fey*

•
IA) VI?ON,'TUSI3AY NOVEMBER 20, 1849.

. Mr.. Justice COLERIDGEf on Friday, pronounced.
u lgrrient on the spplieation for a new tlial in the
extraOrdinayy and important,,case of the. Duke of
BausiswicK is Hanatax, to which We have already
directed the public attention on several cccasions. I
will be in the recollection of our readers that the
motion was made on three distinct grounds—one on
the facts, the others on the law of the case. It was
asserted that no copy of the Dispatch of the 19th
September, 1830, had been sold to Captain RENNAULT
at the Dispatch-office, as deposed to by that person,
and which constituted the alleged republica-
tion, without which no action could have
been maintained, as the plea of the Statute
of Limitations would have been fully made
out. On this point very strong affidavits were brought
forw zrd to show that the evidence produced was alto-
gether erroneous. It was sworn by two
respectable witnesses that no paper of that
particular date could have been sold at the office
without their knowledge, and that, in fact, no such
copy remained there. Strong circumstantial evidence
was also produced to identify the paper produced at
the trial with one which formed part of a file of the
Dispatch of 1830, which had been sold through the
agency of a newsvender named PLUMMER to Mr.
Hoopla the secretary of the Duke of BRUNSWICK, in
the July or August following the alleged sale to
Captain RENNAULT ; the other copy having unques
tionably been procured from the British Museum.
Under such circumstances it was of course essential
that the entire case should be submitted to a new
jury, who might take the disputed facts into their
consideration, and pronounce an opinion on the
credibility- of the several witnesses; and on this
ground the rule was granted. So a stringent and
searching investigation will probably take place.
So far, no injury will be inflicted on the respected
proprietor of the Dispatch, for, provided a new trial
be granted, the reasons by which the Court might be
influenced in arriving at that conclusion could be but
of little consequences to him personally. It is, how-
ever, otherwise to the general body of journalists
throughout the entire kingdom, and on their behalf,
and as one of themselves, we feel called upon to pro-
test, in the strongest and_most earnest terms consis-
tent with our high respect for the tribunal by which
that decision has been pronounced, against the danger-
ous and objectionable precedent established by the
refusal' to grant the rule on the legal points put for-
ward by the Learned Counsel for the defendant.
" Qui facit per (Ilium facit per se," is
of the oldest and best established
maxims in law. For centuries it has been
received without argument or dispute, and has
maintained an authority equal to that conferred
by an Act of Parliament. The common law is, in
fact, entirely made up of similar maxims, the pro-
priety of which can no more be questioned than the
statute law itself. By that common law, then, it is
declared that "he who does an act through the
agency of another person does it himself." Now it
was not denied that Captain RENNAULT applied at the
office of the Dispatch, on behalf, and at the request of
the plaintiff. The re-publication, if any such took
place, was, therefore, to all intents and purposes, the
same as if it was made to the plaintiff in person,
and at his special instance and request. If a
civil injury was inflicted upon the ex-Duke
of BRUNSWICK by the sale, he himself was
the person by whom it was instigated, and he could
not justly complain of the unpleasant consequences,
if any, that might result from his own act. How
could he claim damages for an act to which he was
himself a consenting party ? It has been wisely
held that a libellous publication to a party himself,
although it may be sufficient to sustain a criminal
charge, as being calculated to provoke a breach of the
peace, would not be sufficient to give a claim for
damages, because his character could not be injured
by any statement to himself, of the truth or false-
hood of which he must be well aware. Mr. Justice
COLERIDGE, however, while admitting the justice Of
this principle, and acknowledging that in some
respects the sale might be regarded as being
virtually to the plaintiff himself, declared
that "it was also a publication to the
agent, for that a person to whom a libellous
writing was delivered was just as capable of being
affected by it, though the agent of the party libelled
in it, as a stranger, and it was therefore a publication
to him ;" and he added, " that this was a publication
to the plaintiff was not, however, material to the ques-
tion under consideration." Now, with the utmost
deference to that Learned Judge, we respectfully
contend that it was the most material part of the case.
It did not appear that the agent had perused or even
opened the paper. It was most probable that he did
not wait to read through a journal that had been
printed eighteen years before. Ile got a certain com-
mission from his principal to obtain
a copy of the
publication of the 19th September, 1890, and if
his statement be correct, having accomplished
his mission, he hurried to this anxious
Duke, to recount his unexpected success. No injury
was, therefore, inflicted upon the Duke's character,
even in the estimation of the gallant Captain REN.
NAur.T. He did not relinquish the friendship or ac-
quaintance of his illustrious friend—nor did he refuse
to participate in the princely hospitalities, of Bruns•
wick House, or to undertake similar commissions
when a fitting occasion should arise. No evidence
whatsoever was given of any such injury, and even if
thqe were 500/. might be considered rather a high
estimate fel the loss.

one

ntit the Learned Judge wholly lost sight of the
fact, that the Duke himself was at hmt partly
responsible for that serious injury. It was at his