The Sun.
London, England, 1824-07-16 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY; JULY 15.
JOHN BULL NEWSVAPEB.
RIACKELL AND OTHERS V. MACAULAY.
This case was before His Honour the Vice-Chancellor soma
time back. The plaintiffs in equity, who are defendants at law,
filed a bill for the discovery of evidence in Africa and America,
and for a Com Mission to examine witnesses. This bill stated
that the plaintiff's were proprietors and printers of a weekly Paper
called the John Bull. Oil the 2fals October and the 9th Nov.
they published in that Paper two articles on 'the subject of
Shivery, in which the present defendant, Mr. Macaulay, con.
sidered some unfounded and libellous aspersions to have been
cast on him, and therefore brought kis action for libel in Jan.
uary, 1824.
T. this bill Mr. Macaulay demurred, and the demurrer was
allowed by his Honour the Vice-Chancellor on the ground that
the bill was multifarious.

_ ......
Mr. Sun DEN now addressed the Lord Chancellor and said that
he wad obliged, through the illness of His Honour. to mention to
his Lordship a case with which he believed his Lordship to be
hitherto unacquainted. It was that of Shackell and Macaulay,
arising from an alleged libel published in the Julia Bull News-
paper. Two actions at law had been instituted by different
persons against that Paper, for two several alleged libels. The
cues were brought into the Vice-Chancellor's Court by bill,
praying a commission for the purpose of examining witnesses
in Africa and America as to the truth or falsehood of the
allegation charged to be libels. A demurrer was pleaded by
the other party, and beard on the 16th of June. The Vice-
Chancellor allowed die demurrer, on the ground of multifa-
Hominess. The other case is that of Shackell and Thorpe,
which is to come by appeal from his Honour. the Vice-Chan-
cellor to his Lordship. Two separate bills were then filed
by the John Bull proprietors on the Ist of July, one in each
action. The case lay by till yesterday, when two demurrers
were filed by the adverse parties. The trial of the action at
law was to come on mixt Saturday. Mr. Sugdon's present
application was for an ad bileriaa order to stay that trial
until the demurrers should have been previously beard.
Loan CIIANCELLOD—If you apply in my name to the
Chief Justice of the. King's Bench, and get hun to postpone
the trial. from Saturday to some day towards the end of next
week, 111 hear the demurrers on Saturday.
Mr. SUDDEN declared his intention of following his Lord-
ship's directions.
Mr. SnanwELLresumed the case after a (porter of an hour,
and complained of Mr. Sugden's application ft; an irregularity.
Mr. Shadwell's client had received no noticeof it.'
The Loan CHANCELLOR said, he sent a simple request to
the Chief Justice to put back the trial.
Mr. t.t. submitted that it was but a sort of,untr.
twos prohibition ; Lis clients were ripe fir trial. The opposite
party ought to have tiled a proper bill at first. ' His Lordship's
present order was but giving them the benefit of their own mis-
management.
The Lout) CHAN crt Lo a said, that ell the benefit which
he intended to give them was an opportunity to justify their
allegations. No doubt truth itself may be a libel ; but every
body knew that the truth or falsehood of the objectionable al-
legations had always much influence in regulating the amount
of the damages. The applicants prayed an opportunity to jus-
tify their assertions. If the question of libel were tried without
their haring been allowed the means of justification, a verdict
found against them at Common Law could not stand a moment.
The plamtificould not, under the circumstances, get a penny
of damages. If the Chief Justice should consent to defer the
trial till Monday, his Lordship would hear anti decide the de-
murrer on Saturday morning. It should also be understood,
that though he bad granted a delay to the applicants here, he
intended that they should pay forit.