The Sun.
London, England, 1841-08-17 00:00:00

TITE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, AUGUST 17., 1841.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME CIRCUIT—Croydon, August 16.
(Before Lord-Chief Justice Tindal and a Special Jury.)
BOGLE U. LAWSON.
Mr. Thesiger, Mr. Platt, and Mr. Petersdorf, were for
the plaintiff; Sir William Follett (who was specially
• retained), Mr. Platt; and Mr. Peacock, were for the
' defendant.
Mr. Petersdorf stated that the action was brought by
'Mr. Allen George Bogle against Mr. John Joseph Law-
son, for a libel published in the Times newspaper. The
defendant liad.pleaded, first, not guilty, and, secondly, a
justification.
Mr. Thesiger said the plaintiff came forward under
very great disadvantages ; he had to contend with a
powerful adversary in the person of the representatiTo of
the Tidies; but his actual calumniator was unknown.
His motives could not be discovered, neither, could his
c meter be examined into. Great, however, as were
the disadvantages under which the plaintiff laboured, he
(the' Learned Counsel) hoped it would eventually be
fining that he stood upon equal terms with his adversary.
The plaintiff had for many years been an active officer in
, the navy, and was allied to a family of great respecta-
,ability. Some years ago his father died, and subse-
-qnently his mother married Mr. Cunningham Graham,
a gentleman who at that time resided in Scotland. Pe-
cuniary.circumstances, however, compelled Mr. Graham
to take up his residence in France, where he remained
with his family for some time, but eventually went to
reside at Florence. In the year 1835 the plaintiff retired
from the service upon half-pay, and went to live in
the neighbourhood of his friends at Florence. Being
a gentleman of active habits, he engaged himself to a
merchant at that place, and officiated in the counting-
house, where he remained for some time. Having be-
come known to the inhabitants, he commenced busi-
ness on his own account as a banker, and was shortly
after joined by two gentlemen of the names of Kerrick
and M-Carthy, and the business was conducted under
the firm of Bogle, Kerrick, and Co. Their establishment
met with success, and was supported by most of the inha-
bitants of Florence. The plaintiff was living in affluence,
and enjoyed the esteem and respect of all who were ac-
quainted with him, when the unfortunate circumstance
which gave rise to the present action occurred, by which
his prospects were blighted, and his happiness destroyed.
In the year 1840 a number of foreigners—some of them
persons of high respectability—entered into a conspiracy
to defraud the continental bankers. The scheme was to
be carried into effect by means of forged letters of credit,
which were to be presented simultaneously at the dif-
ferent banking-houses, and by that means a consider-
able sum would be raised. The plaintiff was totally
unconnected with the scheme, and was perfectly igno-
rant of anything of the kind being contemplated.
When, however, some of the parties concerned were
brought to justice, it was found that some of his
nearest relations had been engaged in the conspiracy—
his stepfather, Cunningham Graham, and his son, Alex-
ander Graham, were active participators in it. As soon
as it became known that those parties were concerned,
the plaintiff became an object of suspicion, and some of
the conspirators had the audacity to couple his name
with theirs. Under such circumstances the plaintiff felt
that the only course for him to pursue, in justice to the
respectable gentleman with whom he was connected, was
to withdraw from the concern, and not involve them in
the consequences. He had no opportunity of vindicating
his character in the Tuscan States, and consequently he
returned to this country, and on his 'arrival he had the
mortification to find that the calumnies had followed him,
and were circulated in the Times newspaper. The Learned
Counsel then read the article complained of, which ap-
peared in that journal of the 26th May, 1840. It was
headed " Extraordinary and Extensive Forgery and
Swindling on the Continent," and purported to be from
their Brussels correspondent. The article went on to
state that a conspiracy had been discovered on the Con-
tinent, by which it was intended to plunder the con-
tinental bankers by means of false letters of credit on the
bank of Messrs. Glynn and Co., of London, that the
parties as far as could then be ascertained were fourteen
in number, whose names were then given, amongst
them were Cunningham Graham, an anonymous partner
in the house of Bogle, Kerrick, and Co., and Allen Bogle,
son-in-law of Cunningham Graham, and chief partner
in the house of Bogle and Co. ; there was also the name
of the Marquis de Bourbel. Then followed the exami-
nation of some witnesses taken before the authorities at
Florence, and copies of some letters found upon some of
the conspirators, directing the manner in which the
money so raised was to be disposed of. In one of those
letters it said, " That Bogle would get his share of the
money easily, as he would not have much to do in the
affair." The Learned Counsel would ask then, whether
under those circumstances the defendant was justified
in asserting so serious a charge against a person,
who, up to that period, had sustained an =blem-
ished character. What could Mr. Bogle do but
call upon the printer and publisher of the paper to state
upon what authority the charges were made, and to
require a full and unqualified contradiction. A letter
was accordingly written to the defendant, and his soli-
citor on the 24th of June, wrote in answer that a commu-
nication had been made to the gentleman who furnished
the article, and requesting that proceedings might be
stayed till his answer had been received. Six days were
given for that purpose, and on the 30th ofJuneMr.Bogle,
being most anxious to vindicate his character, com-
menced these proceedings, and the trial would have
taken place long ago, but bed been delayed at the insti-
gation of the defendant, who had from time to time had

it postponed in order that witnesses on his behalf might
be examined abroad, for which purpose no less than 15
commissions have been issued. The plaintiff was now be-
fore them, and trusted that his character would ulti-
mately be vindicated. Undoubtedly a conspiracy did
exist throughout the Continent,and equally true it was that
persons of high character were engaged in it, but the
defendant, in publishing the particulars, when he was
informed that he was in error in connecting the plaintiff's
name with it, ought at once to have given it an unquali-
fied contradiction. Had such a course been pursued, the
de7fendant's character would have been restored, and he
would have been satisfied. 'That, however, had not been
done, and therefore he threw himself into the hands of
the Jury, trusting to their judgment, and relying upon
their protection—trusting that by their verdict they
would restore his reputation—restore his peace of mind,
and enable him again to look round upon his friends and
associates.

Hutton Monkhouse, clerk to Mr. Fyson,
the plaintiff's
solicitor, produced a certified copy of the register from
Somerset House, and stated that the writ was issued on
the 30th of June, 1840. Before it was issued he received
a letter from the defendant's solicitor, in which he stated
that the gentleman who furnished the article had been
written to, and requested that the writ might not be
served till an answer had been received. Not receiving
any further communication, a wait was issued on the
30th of June, and the pleas were put in in November.
There were several commissions issued for examining
witnesses on the Continent.
Cross-examined—On the day the writ was served he
wrote a letter to the defendant's solicitors, stating that
it was necessary that the action should be tried as soon
as possible, and for that purpose the venue had been laid
in Surrey, the Assizes having been fixed for the sth of
August. Was aware at the time that the libel corn.
plained of related to a conspiracy said to have existed
on the Continent. When
.the defendant applied for a
commission to examine witnesses, he (witness) opposed
it. There were fifteen commissions issued for different
towns on the Continent. The plaintiff joined in two of
the commissions which were sent to Brussels and Flo-
rence. That was in February last. He believed the com-
mission from Florence was not yet returned. He joined
in that commission which was to examine a person of the
name of Charles Roster.

Colonel Allcock stated that he resided at Florence for
some time, and knew the plaintiff, who carried on a bank-
ing establishment there, in connection with Messrs. Ker-
rick and M'Carthy. Was not intimately acquainted
with the plaintiff. Merely knew him in business, but was
on intimate terms, and associated with the other part-
ners. Had seen the article alluded to in the Times.
Had no doubt that the plaintiff was the person referred to.
Cross-examined--II ad frequently conversed with the
plaintiff. Had met him at the Grand Duke's. Knew of
the forgeries on the continental bankers. Everybody
heard of them. Never heard from the plaintiff that he '
was present when one of the forged papers was presented.
Believed that he saw the plaintiff at the bank after he
heard of the forgeries. Messrs. Kerrick and M'Carthy
occupied one office, and the plaintiff another. The cash
was kept in plaintiff's apartment. Witness had a letter
of credit which he drew money upon. When he drew
money the amount was endorsed on the letter of credit.
That continued till the whole sum for which the letter
was given was exhausted. his letter of credit was upon
Messrs. Glyn and Co. He was there long enough to
run through more than one letter of credit. Believed he
destroyed it after it was done with. Had met Cunning-
ham Graham, but never associated with him. Did not
know Alexander Graham. Believed they left Florence
shortly after the forgeries vvere discovered. Knew a
person of the name of Phillipson there. Believed the
letter of credit now produced he had previously seen in
Florence. It was shown to hini by Mr. Phillipson.
This was the case for the plaintiff.
Sir Wm. FOLLETT then addressed the Jury, and said
his Learned Friend complained that the proprietors had
not given up the name of the author of the statement,
but he considered the course they had adopted was the
most honourable and proper for them to have pursued ;
and the defendant's ease might also rest upon the alleged
libel itself, for he should submit that it afforded almost
direct evidence of the guilt of the plaintiff ; and his
Learned Friend did not attempt to deny that Perry, one
of the actors in the conspiracy had, before the Authori-
ties of Antwerp, openly accused Mr. Bogle of being con-
cerned in the conspiracy. The letters also were not
denied, but he should be able to prove that they were
actually written, and that they were seized by the
i French authorities ; and n those letters the plaintiff
was also charged with being an actor in the conspiracy,
and his conduct was expressly referred to. Why should
, the author of the statement be accused as an anony
mous slanderer ? These documents were in the hands
of the authorities ; the contents were known, and
they were furnished to the Times, and published by
, that Journal for the information of the public, who were
so deeply interested in the disclosure of such matters,
Mr. Bogle was not a public man ; to the proprietors of
the Times, at all events lie was entirely unknown ; they
could have had no malice towards hill:, audit was only
in the course of their strict duty that the matters were
made public. The statement was published upon the
authority or a correspondent in whom they placed con-
fidence, and it would be shown that they were justified in
the confidence they replaced in him. They still believed
the statement to be true, and they were there that day to
prove it to be so. When the complaint was first made
to them, they considered their first duty was to see whe-
ther the statement was false, and if they had found it Co
be so, they would at once have
;admitted it, and have
made compensation to Mr. Bogle; but the the result of
their inquiries led them, unhappily, to form a very differ-
ent conclusion, and they could not help feeling that Mr.
Bogle was really a guilty party in the transaction, and