The Sun.
London, England, 1841-01-18 00:00:00

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

(Sitting:4 in Banco.)
LYNCH V. NURDEN.
Lord DENMAN gave judgment in this case, which bad
been tried before Mr. Justice Williams, and in which
a verdict was had for the plaintiff. It was an action of tort
for negligence committed by the defendant's servant in
leaving his cart and horse in the street for half an hour,
while he remained in the house. It appeared that while
the servant was absent, the plaintiff; a child of six or seven
years old, was playing with several others by climbing in
and out of the cart. One of the children struck the horse
which moved on, and the plaintiff fell under the wheel, and
his thigh was fractured. For the defendant, it was con-
tended that the plaintiff must be nonsuited, inasmuch as
the injury was not occasioned solely by the defen-
dant's negligence, but that another party was the
moving cause, and that the plaintiffhimself was at the time
committing a trespass which disentilled him to recover.
The Learned Judge, however, thought the case:ought to go
to:the Jury, who found for the plaintiff,and a rule was then
moved for a new trial. The Court, however, was of
.pinion that the case had been properly left to the Jury.
If a man was guilty of negligence in leaving anything
dangerous in a place where he knew that some other per-
son might unjustifiably set it in motion to the injury of an-
other, that party would have a right of redress against bath
or either, but at all events against the first person. If a
gam..keeper left a loaded gun in a play ground where boys
were amusing themselves, and that one of them taking it
up maimed another by the discharge, damages could be
recovered against the gamekeeper. It had certainly been
held that a trespasser in a wood, where it was well-known
thst spring.guns were placed, could not sue for injury
occasioned by their explosion, but that was founded
on the plaintiff's previous knowledge of the dan-
ger. On these grounds it appeared to the Court
that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, and that the rule
for a new trial must be discharged.
WATERS V. THE EARL OF THANET.
In :,his case, which had been argued a few days since,
the Court granted a rule for a new trial.
THE QUEEN V. THE PROPRIETOR OF THE " UNITED
SERVICE GAZETTE."
In this case a rule to show cause why a criminal infor-
mation should not be filed against the defendant, Marie
A. Watts had been obtained in the course of last term for
a libel on Lieutenant Hart, of the 49th Foot.
Sir FREDERICK POLLOCK (with whom was Mr. Imes)
now appeared to show cause against the rule, and he
trusted that when the Court learned upon what grounds
the rule had been obtained, and the answer he was about
to put in on behalf of the defendant, they would discharge
the rule and with costs. If the whole of the facts had
been disclosed to the Court he was satisfied they never
would have granted the application. There were in the affi-
davit of Mr. Hart certain denials which were essential to the
obtaining of the rale, but which denials, it would appear,
were entirely untrue. It appeared that on the 6th Junc
there was a meeting of persons interested in the formation
of a United Service Benevolent Institution. The meet-
ing was adjourned till the 22d, and the publication com-
plained of appeared in the United Service Gazette of the
27th June. The libel referred to what had occurred "at
a late meeting" of that body, and the natural inference
their Lordships and every other person would draw was,
that it referred to the meeting of the 221, which was the
latest in point of date. Now Mr. Hart had chosen to
point his affidavit to what had taken place at the meeting
of the 6th, and entirely suppresaed all that occurred on the
22d. The affidavit of Mr: Hart set out that he had been
an officer of the British army since the Ist April, 1829,
when he joined the 49th Foot in India; that he was the
editor and proprietor of a new Army List, which bad very
considerable circulation in military circles ; that he bad at.
tended the meetings of the United Service Benevolent Insti-
tution, which he was a strenuous supporter of, and attended
that of the 6th of June. That, on the 27th of June, the de-
fendant had published certain libellous statements of his
conduct at said meeting, which statements were not true.
New, Mr. Hart had suppi eased from the knowledge of the
Court that the meeting was adjourned to the 22d June,
and he must have been aware that the defendant's remarks
applied to the latter meeting. The alleged libel charged
Mr. Hart with, " at a late meeting," renewing his at-
tempts to disturb the harmony of the meetings, and in-
dulging in low abuse „of the supporters of the institution,
more especially defendant's paper, but that be was obliged
to repress his venom. That at a former meeting he bad
acted in a cowardly and despicable manner in referring to
an absent individual (the defendant), without having given
hint ntitice of his intention to do so. The article then
charged him with falsehood, and with cowardly and ran.
corous malignity towards defendant. That he had ob-
tained an exteindon of his leave of absence on frivolous
pretexts, and in utter defiance of the rules of the
service, and had been placed upon the recruiting
staff, leaving his hard-working and more honour-
ably disposed hrother officers to do his duty under
the burning sun of a tropical climate. Now, Mr. Hart, in
taking the usual course of exculpating himself, denied the
truth of the allegations, omitted all mention of what had
occurred at the meeting of the 22d, but he had the:effi te-
ens of several persons who were present, who would prove
hat on that occasion the offensive language which formed
the ground of Mr. Watt's otsservations, had been used.
Lord DENMAN said that looked as if the affidavits had
taken a false point for the purpose of misleading the
Court.

EVENING EDITION

obtained an extension of his leave of absence on the plea
of continued illness.
1,,,
. .0e
Lord DENMAN—Your short ground is that .."- `')
'7 -.•,.7 7.-.:', v, b-,-n !,rant,,rl if t.hcL.,. fart? g . 'i'(;
, :•,. .1.,:i::.;..-+ ~.4.,,. etc.,,L ::. , . ...,., ,,..,; ,Lu1.'74!",1i
.
which tad been made by his Learned Friend wt"ia
removed if it ()Irk ly, la so to be. The Court would in ,
firt place hear in mind who the parties were. Lieutens7
Hart was a gentleman bearing her Majesty's Comil,66i;R:
and maintaining the unsullied honour of a gentleman. i,
Watts was the proprietor of the United .Sei vice GCIA"i;
which had a very extensive circulation in the army, and
complair4ed.that Mr. Watts had made use of his pa?o,,:ri
private and personal purposes; for although isle. 1501
was the proprietor of a new Army List, the alto,
could not be said to be one between two journalists. ll,
Hat had never written a word in any paper ageing t
defendant, who had endeavoured to inflict a mortal stab
the reputation of Lieutenant Hart. The defendant. is
not confine himself to the, personal quarrel betweeoll
parties, bat he attempted to charge Mr. Hart with 91111
ing front his duty, and acting in the roost dislionourg'S
in,rittA, namely, having used unqual,fied fal3ehond„:'
rigarled the United Service Institution, and with cog!arli
and rancorous malignity towards the defendant. Lj
gas nut alleged in the libel that Mr. Hart g.i.';
said anything disrespectful of Mr. Watts at
„11l
meeting of the 22d ; and the reference merely being ,
a late meeting," Mr. Hart was, in his opinion, fully PLI
tied in supposing it to refer to the meeting of the 6t°
June. Tue Learned Counsel then referred to a pal
in the libel reflecting upon the conduct of Lieutenantn a
at the meeting of the 13th of May, and which, it appearCi
was altogether unfounded, although his Learned Fri,. (
had prudently parsed it over as being wholly immetelw
It appeared that Lieutenant Hart had been sent borne fil
India in consequence of ill health, and had been fotilll
years actively employed in England in the re.:ruitiegtAler.
ba
d
given The question was, whether any answer had 'i,
given to the libellous matter as regarded Lieutenant Hai'
conduct on the 13th of May, or whether there 1,11,
justification of the introduction of totally irrelevant 0
grossly libellous matter, having no reference whateler,4
the personal controversy between the parties. After gm"
through the various charges in the publication, and 3
0
meeting upon them at some length, the Learned Co
concluthd by submitting that the rule ought to be' PI
60
absolute. . • L.

Lord DENMAN said that the Court would be sorS4 P'
give the least approbation to the tons and manner l'ej
publication such as that complained of, and he reg'ret:
that a paper connected with an honourable proles;
should hare so expressed itself, no matter what the prf,
cation was. But the question was, whether they ougui,d`
make the rule abst lute, and his reason for thinking „II
ought not was, that he was very confident if the
which must have been known to the prosecutor as the
tives influencing Mr. Watts in that publication had nit
disclosed, the Court would never have granted the 've
It appeared that Mr. Hart was about to make Fonle
marks on the defendant's conduct, which was :01
pzrmitted, and then it appeared that he addre
several officers, using the grossest and most
suiting language towards Mr. Watts as an indivit
The prosecutor should have clearly made it appear Pl'ol
his own conduct had been, and it seemed to him that
Court ought to show that they would not submit to Pr-1
such applications made, or any garbled and supprePri
statements, and if it was done it must be at the hazard„
the party making the application. When a motion
made for a criminal information, the Court expectedlji
all the facts which had come to the prosecutor's knowill
as to the probable motives of the defendant should APPL
On these grounds the rule must be discharged with 04.1-f
Mr. Justice PATTESON expressed himself of the Ttoi
opinion, adding that if the facts had been properly et
he never-would have granted the rule.

BAIL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
4,
THR QUEEN, V. P. IM S. WALLACE, AND M. S. S. WA-'
The arguments in this ease were heard on Saturdalr loi
on that occasion Mr. Justice Williams deferred gi,/01
judgment, and said he should in all probability have rnselso
his mind on the subject by this morning. On coming
Court his Lordship suggested that the parties 01110
come to some arrangement, and it was ultimately eraji
that the prisoners should be remanded on the uuderstig
ing that within four days they should be taken bele;ii
Magistrate, who should take down the depositions, 101
either commit them for trial immediately, or admit
to bail, as he might think fit.
CIA IN RE THE BIRMINGHAM AND LONDON RAILROAD
PANY. APPLICATION TO REMOVE THE PROCEED
BEFORE THE CORONER'S INQUEST, INTO THIS COURT',
CERTIORARI.
Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT applied to have the proceed
4161
held before the Coroner, on an Inquest on the bc4llloo
two persons named Simpson and Dawson, removed. 00
this Court by certiorari, on the ground of informality. f
persona in question had been killed in consequence psi
accident on the Birmingham and London RailwaYr.mt
the Coroner's Jury had returned a verdict of wilful niu"-so
in the case of ono of these persons, and of felo de se idaos
other ; they had also given a deodand to an 410;0
amount, on the locomotive engine, and this w
give rise to a very grave question respecting Jo
law of deodands, which would give rise to eonsider.A
discussion. Anciently a deodand could only bo levied
some living thing having the power of moving tsvf
the death of the individual, and grave doubts might berg
tertained whether a deodand could be levied upon a /09:
motive engine at all. The law of deodands had 00011,°y
dergone discussion before the Court, but the essiheta
gone off, and the Court bad given no decision. he Oa
were various other informalities, and he trusted b tbl
stated sufficient to entitle him to a rule nisi to relOw„
depositions into this Court by certiorari.
Rule nisi granted.

COMMON PLEAS.--(THIS

This

NORRIS V. STAMP.
•

is a special case, arising out of a commies vlO
bankruptcy. The Court was occupied the whole (410
the reading of documentary evidence, consisting of let',
and extracts from books of accounts, from which
interesting to the public, or explanatory of the case, cot
be 'gleaned. It is expected to occupy more than so°
day.

EXCHEQUER COURT-THIS
Tha Court was occupied the whole of the daY,.„pt
demurrers to pleas in cases in the special paper. 1.";,14
ptn ients related purely to matters of pleading, and
too technical for the general reader.