The Sun.
London, England, 1822-07-17 00:00:00

JURY COURT, EDINBURGH, JULY 10.

ACTION OF DAMAGES FOR LIBEL.
LORD A. HAMILTON V. D. STEVENSON.
[Further Particulars.]

This cause came before the Court this day, upon a notice of
a motion for expences,' the Jury having. lately found for the
Pursuer in all the issues.—The notice being read-,
Mr. HENRY COCKBURN—It was unnecessary for him to
state the merits of the action. The Jury having found a ver-
dict for the Pursuer in all the issues, as some reparation for
the attack on his character, he now moved for expences.
Mr. M‘ISTEIL 1., for the defender, opposed the motion—He
contended that it was discretionary in the Court to give ex-
pences or not as they saw fit. The action did not conclude
solely for reparation of injury to the pursuer's character, it con-
cluded also for a large sum of damages, no less than 50001.,
and the Jury had only found the pursuer had sustained da-
mage to the amount of one shilling. Had the pursuer claims
ed reparation only for the actual damage he had thus been
found by the verdict of the Jury to have sustained, his client
would have been entitled to get out of the action for payment
of the sum found due by the verdict. If the action had been
brought solely for reparation of injury to character, it was not
competent in this Court, but in the Commissary Court
only. His client, Mr. Stevenson, had been willing to make
what reparation he could to the Pursuer, and had offered a refe-
rence to respectable Counsel to dictate what apology he should
make, but the offer had been rejeted by the pursuer, who had
sought his remedy in a Court of Law, and a respectable Jury
had given him only one shilling of damages. The action had
been laid for real damages, and. the Jury had found a verdict of
nominal damages. This was not a case in which expences
should be given.
Mr. JEFFREY replied that, in supporting the motion for ex-
penses, he would begin by conceding the proposition of the de-
fender's Counsel, that expenses did not follow as a matter of
course, where only one shilling of damages was given by
the verdict of a Jury., In all cases there was a discre-
tionary power vested in the Judges of this Court ' • and
I even where only one shilling of damages was given, the Court
might justly award to / the party full expenses. Here the
party were at issue on the true criterion of the case.—'
Now, was this an action which the Pursuer was entitled
to bring, or was it the reverse ? Was it brought on frivolous
I and captious pretences ; and did it conclude for imaginary
damages, and not for reparation of a real and substantial
injury ? The Court would recollect tke Jury had found for
the Pursuer on all the issues. The Pursuer did not com-
plain of intemperate language merely, or an unfair commen-
tary on his public conduct, but lie, complained of a wilful
misrcjoesentation and false statement of facts : not of an ex-
cess in language, in discussing a public question, but of
a series of imputations against the character and conduct of
the Pursuer, which were totally false, but which the Defender
had offered to prove in his defence to be true, and which he
had entirely failed in doing; not only so, but they had ac-
tually been completely disproved by the Pursuer. On what
ground, therefore, could the Defender resist the present motion
for costs ? Substantially on this, that the Jury had given a
smaller sum of damages than his client had claimed. But the
Court were not tied up, by that verdict, in the exercise of their
discretion as to expenses. He could not say his client was
satisfied with the verdict in respect to the amount of the damages
awarded, which he believed had been given merely because the
Jury had considered that pecuniary compensation was not
his object. Surely the smallness of the sum awarded as da-
mages was no reason why he should be refused the expences
he lied been put to in seeking redress in a Court of Law for a
gross injury, which had been proved to the satisfaction of a
Jury. If they were small, that was only a stronger reason
why full expenses should be given. The Court would not do
him justice if they did not award full expences, when there was
here a verdict of a Jury, containing a complete demonstration
of the falsehood of the charges brought against him.
The Loan ClifEr COMMISSIONER said, it was admitted
by, the bar, and it undoubtedly was the unquestionable right
of the Court to award expences or not in every case, accord-
ing to their discretion. As to the verdict of the Jury, he
thought it a matter of regret that so much stress had been
laid on the character of the Pursuer, as to have induced them
to give nominal damages, on the ground that they could not
measure the in)ury done to it by money. It would be better
if it could be laid on the party that is Claiming redress, merely
to prove the charges made against him to be false, and that
the damages should be fixed in some other way. The opi-
nion of the 'Court was, that the ordinary expences must be
made to the Pursuer, as the action had been fitly laid. As
to the amount of the damages concluded for in the libel,
5,0001., he thought the, gentlemen of the bar should not
allow a random sum of damages to be laid in such actions,
without considering fairly what would be a proper remune-
ration to the party; formerly in his practice it used to be
done with a dash. The party should put down the damages at
such a reasonable 'sum as might give the Jury a notion of what
was expected; for otherwise the Jury might so moderate the
damages, as the public would not be satisfied that it had
been considered their verdict was intended merely for vindicat-
ing the character of the party. The Court, however, could not
be regulated by that in Judging of the question of expenses.
The Court, in the present case, considered that the libels had
been proved not to be true, and, therefore, they were of opi-
nion that costs should be given.
Lord PITMILLY said, in this case the Court considered that
the Jury found for the Pursuer on all the issues, and yet the
verdict only gives one shilling of damages. The Defender
may therefore well afford to pay expences, and he trusted that
this verdict, the opinion expiessed by the Court, and the
judgment they were now going to pronounce, awarding ex-
peaces to the Pursuer, would have a tendency to check
such libellous attacks in future, which, against whomsoever
they were made, must ever be offensive to sober-minded men.
Lord GIL LIES entirely concurred with. their Lordships.
The COURT accordingly awarded full expences to the pur-
suer, and appointed an account thereof to be given into Court
to be taxed. ,

HOCK BETTER TI4AN MONEY.—The Edith)
Princeps of Virgil, now in the possession of a
Noble Earl, was some years ago discovered in a
monastery in Suabia. The gOod old Monks, to
whom this and several other valuable books be-
lohged, could not be prevailed upoil to part with
this copy for money. It happened, however, that
they were remarkably fond of old hock. This
was found out by an English connoisseur, who, for
seven guineas worth of hock, obtained this rare
copy of Virgil, which he afterwards sold to a
book colle,ctor for 501. To the present possessor,
it cost no less than 4001.

CROUP.—Dr. Reddelin, of Weismar, has com-
municated to the Royal Society at Gottingen the following suc-
cessful' treatment of Croup, after the usual remedies had
been tried without effect :—The patient was a female aged
nineteen, who on the third day after being seized with the
Croup, was unable to swallow, had begun to rattle in the
throat, and seemed approaching rapidly to dissolution. Dr.
Reddelin insinuated, by means of a 'quill, a mixture of
Spanish snufrand marrocco into her nostrils; and after,repeating
this mixture a second time, it excited sneezing and vomit-
ing ; this occasioned the discharge of two long membranous cy-
linders from the trachea (wind-pipe), upon which the rattling
immediately ceased, and the patient was rescued from instan-
taneous suffocation. One of the tubes, when split open, mea-
sured nine ,French lines in breadth ; they were quite white,
and bore a strong extension without injury to their fibrous tex-
ture.

About a month ago, a young man, apparently
about twenty-one years of age, and of genteel appearance and
manners, came to Mr. Banks's, the Bull and Sun, in •Myton-
gate, in this town, and after staying there about a week, without
appearing to be transacting any business,"Mr. Banks thought it
prudent to send him his bill, at the same time intimating that
he should expect payment before he provided any thing fur-
ther for his guest. On this intimation being given by Mr.
Banks, the young man paid his bit, and left the Bull and Sun,
in apparent ill-humour. He then went and took lodgings at
Mr. Fawcett's, in Queen-street, where he staid aboutia fort.
night, when Mr. Fawcett requested,to be paid for his)odgings.
To this request the young man replied he had no small cash by
him, and that he was going to Gainsbro' that day, (Saturday,)
but would return on Monday, and would then pay Mr. Faw-
cett. He accordingly went to Gainsbro', leaving a small
trunk at his lodgings. • During the time he had been in
Hull, he read several books from the Circulating Library. of
Mrs. Mowatt, in the Market-place. On his arrival at Gams-
bro', he went to a public-house there kept by Mr. Clark,
where he staid until Saturday last; and on that day he, asked
Mr. Clark to lend him his mare to ride to Retford, to see a
Gentleman whom he named, stating that he should return on
the 'Monday following. From the respectable appearance and
behaviour of the stranger, and from knowing the Gentleman at
Retford, whom he represented to be his friend, Mr. Clark, un-
suspectingly, lent him his mare. Early on Sunday morning
following he was seen riding through Worksop, on the road to
Nottingham, and neither the horse nor the'rider have since been
heard of by 'Mr. Clark or Mr. Fawcett.—(Dull Advertiser.)