The Sun.
London, England, 1831-06-18 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE-('I'MS DAY).

CO URT OF KING'S BENCH.
LIBEL.---HOWE V. OAUBIGNY.
This case was ofened by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, who
stated that the plaintiff was a Lieutenant in the Revenue
Service, and the defendant an attorney in Great Grimsby.
The action arose out of the election for that town i❑ July
last, and was for libels on the plaintiff, published in the
Courier and Globe Newspapers, under the name of the
defendant. The letter complained of was published in
the Courier of the 20th August last, and charged that the
plaintiff led on near seventy of the sailors belonging to the
revenue cutters Greyhound and Lapwing, wearing red
favours, and caused a serious riot by assaulting some of the
opposite party, or blues; that he canvassed fur his friend
Capt. Harris wearing his uniform, with a red ribbon in Lis
button hole ; that he lent the flags belonging to his vessel
to the red party, and that he had carried off two of the
blue voters and kept them in his vessel till after the elec-
tion was over, and concluded by calling on the Govern-
ment to institute an enquiry into his conduct. The
Learned Gentletnan said that these were serious charges,
and, in tke profession of the plaintiff, likely much to in-
terfere with his promotion, as it was most natural if
Lieutenant Howe was a candidate among others for pro-
motion, for the party having the patronage to say,
" Oh, this is the man whose conduct was so much
found fault with in the newspapers." And unless
the Jury were to show by their verdict that these charges
were unfounded, the plaintiff would be very seriously in-
jured for the remainder of his life. It was not, said the
Learned Gentleman, as if this had arisen out of the heat
usual on contested elections, but the libels complained of
appeared several weeks after the passions had had time to
cool. That was, perhaps, the best reason the plaintiff
had for asking reparation at the hands of a Jury of his
countrymen. The Learned Gentleman concluded by ex-
pressing his conviction that they would give such damages
as would again set the plaintiff right in the opinion of the
world. He then called
John Wyburn, Commander in the Navy, examined by
Mr. PLATT. Knew Lieutenant Howe, who was in com-
mand of the Greyhound, revenue cutter, in July last, and
then lay in the Humber.
Cross-examined by Sir JAMES SCARLETT—The crews
of the Greyhound and Lapwing consisted of seventy
hands. The Greyhound arrived in the Grimsby Roads
on the Tuesday in the week of the election in that town.
The Lapwing and Adelaide tender also came into the
Humber that week ; they were all under his orders. Saw
Lieut. Howe with the favour of the red party, and said to
bins he thought it might give offence to the other party.
Is Inspecting Commander of the coast guard, and was
applied to to send the sailors on board on the morning of
the election, in apprehension of a riot, but he could not do
so as the men had leave to cotne on shore from their
Commander.
Re-examined by Mr. PLATT—The Greyhound came
into the Humber at the time of the election, in her usual
routine of duty, to be inspected, and supplied with pro-
visions—was kept there by his orders, anti Lieut. Howe
had no controul in that respect. The person who applied
to him to have the sailors sent on board wore, at the time,
blue favours.
I3y Sir JAMES SCARLETT—Proved a letter that he sent
to the Comptroller-Genoa' of the Coast Guard. He did
not receive the facts contained in that letter from Mr.
D subigny.
John Gordon examined by Mr. Is editor of the
Globe; received a letter from Mr. Daubigny, which he
published, striking out some parts which he thought too
strong.
The letter was then put in, and the hand-writing ad-
mitted. (This is the letter referred to in the opening of
the Attorney-• General.)
John Holman, bought a copy of the Courier newspa-
per of the 20th August, which contained the letter com-
plained of, and one of the Globe of August 6.
Sir JAMES Scanarrx then addressed the Jury for the
defendant. He said the single question was, what preju-
dice the plaintiff had sustained from any of the statements
that were proved to be not true. His Learned Friend had
made out a statement of the likelihood of his losing the
support of Government, but it was a most unlikely thing
in Isis (Sir James Scarlett's) opinion, that he should do
so for supporting the Government candidate. He would,
however, say nothing wkatever to impeach the honour
of Lieutenant Howe ; he had no doubt but that he was
an honourable man, but he would say there was
nothing in any of the statements complained of at all to
affect his character, and it was scarcely worth while for
Lieutenant Howe to bring an action for what was merely a
charge of indiscretion, and lie could not see that it would
at all interfere with his prospects of promotion. He
would not impute a criminal intention to Lieutenant
Howe, but he would prove that he did lead a riot, at least
what was called one, in Grimsby; but it was an every day
thing at the time of elections, when two parties meet in
a street that a little scuffle should ensue, and very naturally
Lieutenant Howe, being in such a situation, should encou-
rage his own party. It was also charged that Lieutenant
Howe had canvassed for the red party, but was that a libel
surely there could he no imputation on his character in
that. The Learned Gentleman would also prove, that two
voters in the blue interest were conveyed on board the
Greyhound, and were confined till the election was over,
but even this could be no imputation on Lieut. Howe, as
every one was aware that he was under the orders of a
superior officer. Sir James closed a long address, by
characterizing the whole of the charges as more of a gene-
ral nature against the Government, than as libels on an
individual, and thought that the time of the Court could
have been much better employed that in discussing as
grave charges these effusions of a contested election ;
nevertheless, he was in a situation to prove all the facts
charged, and then he would be entitled to a verdict,
"He then called—
C. Wood, who was private secretary to Earl Grey, and
a candidate at the election at Grimsby in July last. Saw
the plaintiff there wearing a red ribbon in his button-hole,
and saw what he was told were Custom-house flags,
carried in a procession of the red party. Part of the pro-
cession was driven forward by a party of reds, amongst
whom were a great many sailors, and a great many people
were knocked down and hurt. He was also knocked down.
Thomas Flasket, harbour-toaster in Great Grimsby,
saw Lieutenant Howe on several days in the undress uni-
form, with a red ribbon in his button-hole, walking at the
head of large parties of the reds, and a great number of
sailors among them. Saw two of the sailors erecting a
mast and a booth, could not say where the materials came
from. The reds used to speak from the booth, and a red
flag displayed from the mast.
Thomas Barker—ls a freeman of Grimsby, and was
there at the time of the election. The plaintiff came to
him and canvassed him for Captain Harris.
William King—Looks after the arms in the Greyhound,
brought the flags of that vessel on shore by order of Lieu-
tenant Howe ; also some fire arms. Brought a sail on
shore and left it at Captain Harris's lodgings.
The case was still going on when we went to press.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
WOOD V. PARNELL.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a lady
named Wood, against the defendant, Mr. Samuel James
Parnell, an esta'e-agent, in North Audley-street, Griv-
venor-square, to recover the sum of twenty-five pounds
upon a bill of exchange drawn by Samuel Parnell upon,
and accepted by, the defendant, and indorsed over by Ho-
ratio Parnell to the plaintiff.
It appeared that Mr. Laporte having a house to let in
Cecil-street, Strand, was applied to by the plaintiff to look
at it, having been sent there by Horatio Parnell, the
brother o f the defendant, by whom she was told be
had been employed as agent for Mr. Laporte to let
the premises in question. The plaintiff closed with Ho-
ratio Parnell for the possession of the house, and, at
his desire she paid him down twenty-five pounds as a
deposit. Subsequently Mr. Laporte refused to give up the
keys of the house, and told the plaintiff that Horatio Par-
nell had no authority from him to let the house, and that
he was a total stranger to him. Parnell was sought after,
and when found he was called upon to refund the 251. to
the plaintiff, and the bill now in question was give❑ co the
plaintiff in payment of the money. Upon its being pre-
sented for payment it was dishonoured, and this action
was now brought to recover the amount.
Witnesses were called who proved the handwriting of
the defendant.

Mr. Serjeant RUSSELL, fur the defendant, then said
that his client would never have thought of defending the
action, were it not that the acceptance purporting to be
i❑ his handwriting was a forgery. He was sorry
that he was put to the necessity of proving that
to be the case, but he felt it to be his duty so to do,
but in doing so he would not, from certain motives, call
the father to prove in whose hand-writing the bill was
supposed to be accepted. He would, however, call other
persons who would distinctly shew that the acceptance
was not that of his client, Mr. Samuel James Parnell.
The Learned Counsel then called
Mr. Thomas Sturt, who said he had been clerk to the
defendant, who was an estate-agent and auctioneer, resid-
in North Audley-street, for the last five years. The ac-
ceptance to the bill now produced was certainly not in his
hand .writing.
Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Burtros--The de-

lendant was a house and estate-agent; he is now in Whi.e-
cross-street prison. lie had sold a house to Mr. F.
Pollock, about ten months ago, in Queen-square, but had
not sold an estate since about four years and a half ago.
When the notary presented the bill in question for pay-
ment, he (witness) told him Mr. Parnell knew nothing
at all about it.

Thomas Sturt, the father of the last witness, had seen
the defendant write several times.—The acceptance to the
bill now handed to him was not in his hand-writing.

. „.
Mr. Charles James Forrest, the defendant's attorney,
said he told Mr. Hill, the plaintiff's attorney, before this
action was brought, that it would be defended upon the
ground that the acceptance was not genuine ; he always
had told him so. . .

.....
Mr. Serieant BUMPUS, in reply, said that he had not
the slightest notion that the acceptance was to he attacked
as a forgery, and he was sure that had Mr. Hill known
that such a defence was to have been set up he would
have instructed him to that effect. The Learned Counsel
said that the defence had been got up between the Parnells
and their party, and that it was as clear a conspiracy to
swindle his client as ever came before a Court and Jury.
The LOAD CHIEF' JUSTICE summed up the case, and the
Jury almost immediately found a verdict for the plaintiff,
with costs.