The Sun.
London, England, 1840-06-30 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(THIS DAY.)

MIANCELI.OIt V. DENNE.—LIBEL.
(Before Lord DENMAN and a Special Jury.)
This was an action brought by Mr. Stephen Sackett
Chancellor, a gentleman holding several public situations
in the town of Margate, against Mr. Donne, a printer re-
siding in the town, for the publication of a handbill re-
flecting on his character.
Mr. THESIGER stated the case to the Jury. The plaintiff
bad been originally a baker, residing in the town of Mar-
gate, and now he held several public offices in that town.
He was collector of Steam-boat and Harbour Dues, and of

Assessed Taxes. It appeared that as far back as the year
1816, the walls of the house of a Mr. Thomas John Tay-
lor were painted with words imputing to Mr. Taylor the
most horrible and disgusting crimes. This palatine- on
the walls was repeated three several times, and the
effect produced upon Mr. Taylor by these repeated
anonymous attacks was such that at last Mr. Tay-
lor had been driven to commit suicide. At that time Mr.
Chancellor and another gentleman had been accused of
having written these words on the walls of Taylor. An
investigation had taken place, nothing was proved against
them, and they bad denied the charge. The matter had
subsequently rested until 1835, when it appeared that the
plaintiff and a Mr. Waddington, of Margate, commenced a
series of attacks on each other, and this accusation against
Mr. Chancellor was revived. The hand-bill, which was
the subject of the present action, repeated the charge by call-
ing upon the plaintiff to clear himself from the charges
brought against him by Mr. Waddington. The charge
was reiterated in the Age newspaper, arid the defendant was
also accused of peculation in the same paper, and in the
month of December last Mr. Chancellor bad brought an
action against the proprietor of that paper, and had reco-
vered 1001. darnr.ges for the publication of the libel. The
present action was brought against Mr. Denne, a printer,
of Margate, who had printed and circulated these hand
bills, having supplied 400 of them to one person, to recover
compensation from him for the damages sustained by him
in consequence of the publication of such hand-bill reflect-

ng on his character.
The publication of the libel having been proved,
Mr. F. KELLY addressed the Jury for the defendant,
and said that this was not a case calling for considerable
damages. Mr. Waddington had for years reiterated these
charges, and yet Mr. Chancellor had net applied for any
criminal information, or brought any action against him ;
but when naked why he did not purge himself upon oath
of the charges brought against him, by applying to the
Court of Queen's Bench for a criminal information, he
brought this action, not against Mr. Waddington, the
person who had over amid over again brought these charges,
but against the present defendant, who was merely the
printer of the bill asking these questions; besides, he had
already recovered 1001. damages from the Age newspaper,
for the publication of these imputations on his character,
and therefere the present could not be considered a case
for very heavy damages. It was most extraordinary that
the present action should have been brought in December,
1838, and not have ben kreught to trial until the pros-nt
tine. The action against the Age had been commenced
in October, 1838, and had not been brought to trial until
December, 1839 ; that was a most extraordinary circum-
stance, and it was nonsense to attribute these delays to any
ccunsel, or any special pleader, because the cases might
easily have been brought to trial before.
Lord DENMAN, I.^. SLlMllliilZup the case, said that the
defendant had pleaded Not guilty, which meant either to
deny the publication, or to say that the hand-bill was not
a libel. There was no doubt as to the publication, and it
was for the Jury to say whether the hand-bill was a libel
or Lot. It was for the Jury to consider w hether the call.
iig upon the plaintiff to purge himself of these charges
upon oath was or was not imputing to the plaintiff that he
had been guilty of those charges. If they were not satis-
fied of that their verdict must he for the defendant, and
if they were satisfied that such was the case the verdict
must be for the plaintiff. As to the question of damages,
the case came before them under very extraordinary cir-
cumstances. These accusations had been brought against
Mc. Chancellor repeatedly, and this appeared to be but a
small addition to those already in circulation. It had been
said that the defendant was merely a printer, and had only
published this hand-bill in the way of his trade. Now,
he thought that such a ground of defence was
utterly untenable. The bad feelings of mankind
towards one another, would evaporate almost harmlessly, if
those printers did not, in the way of their trade, lend
themselves to the diffusion. This ques ion had nothing to
do with the liberty of the press. It was an abuse of
language to make such an assertion. It might so happen
that for a great and public purpose, the publication
of something which was actionable might occur,
but what private good or public benefit could ac-
crue from the publication of any private slanders.?
A printer who, in the way of his trade, sold himself to gra-
tify the malignity of his employer, was in much the same
situation as a chemist who should sell poison to a customer
for the purpose of having it administered to a third person.
And he hid this down as the law, and if the Learned
Counsel (Mr. Kelly) objected to it, could tender a bill
excepting to his directions, that every printer who lent
himself to the circulation of slanders of that sort
was responsible for every circulation of such printed
slender& which might take place even by other
persons without his knowledge, and that he laid
down as the undoubted law of England. With regard
to the method taken by any individual to clear his char-
acter from any imputations that might be cast upon it, that
might be done by various methods. A party might say
that be would indict the party for the nuisance for the
provocation to the breach of the peace, and that was done
in some cases; there was also the mode adopted in the
present instance, of bringing an action, and giving the
defendant an opportunity of pleading the truth of the
libel, and proving it if he could ; and there was
also the method of applying to the Court for a criminal
information, in which ease the party making the applica-
tion distinctly denied upon oath the truth of each of the
charges brought against him. This, in many cases, was
the most satisfactory mode that could be adopted, because
there might be facts which could only be known to the
plaintiff himself, and which he would thus have an oppor-
tunity of bringing before the notice of the Court ; and, in
adopting this course, he thought the plaintiff ought not to
be too anxious as to the rule being made absolute, es it was
the undoubted privilege of every English subject to come
before that Court, and clear his character upon oath.
The Jury then retired, and after an absence of a quar-
ter of an hour, returned with a verdict for the plaintiff—
. Damages, 801. ; costs, 40s.
tO