The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-16 00:00:00

THE TRACEY PEERAGE.

The examination of witne,ses on behalf of the claim-
ant to this peerage was resumed to-day, and occupied
their Lordships the whole morning.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, June 15.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius at Westminster, before Mr. Jus-
tice WIGHTMAN and Common Juries.)
LIBEL.—HOUGHTON W. SILVERLOCE.
Mr. Humfrey, Queen's Counsel, and Mr. Charnock,
appeared for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Sergeant Talfourd
for the defendant.
Mr. HUMFREY stated the case to the jury. He said
this was an action brought by Captain Houghton, a half-
pay navy officer, to recover compensation in damages
from Mr. Silverlock, proprietor of the Nautical Standard

and Steam Navigation Gazette, for the publication of an
anonymous letter signed " Camperdown," which made
serious and utterly unfounded charges against him. It
was right that he should state that the plaintiff would
rather have brought his action against the author of the
document, but as the defendant refused to give his name
up, he had no other alternative than to bring it against
the defendant, whom he admitted to be a respectable
gentleman. Captain Houghton had been upwards of
forty years in the navy—he was a subscriber to a so-
ciety called the Royal Naval Charity, a society of
the most exemplary and excellent ki❑d
society to which all naval officers, from the admiral
down, he believed, to the lowest officer, subscribed. It
had been established for the purpose of affording assist-
ance to the widows and orphans of naval officers, and
even to naval officers, in the hour of need ; it could not,
therefore, be called a charity, but a mutual assurance
society, es it was supported by mutual subscriptions,
the officers payiug a certain sum, according to their
rank—some paying 55., and those in the higher ranks a
larger sum. He might also mention that some of the
highest officers of the navy had not felt themselves de-
meaaed by seeking aid from its funds. A Miss Hoare,
the daughter of a distinguished naval officer, and a lady
of highly exemplary character, sought aid from the
funds of this society, and her case was supported by Sir
Sir Edward Codrington, Earl Cadogan, and particularly
by the plaintiff. In the majority of cases of this kind
there were generally rivals, who sought, for the
purpose of promoting their own aggrandisement,
to depreciate the merits of their opponents ; and
much on such occasions was written which the
authors subsequently regretted having penned. (The
Learned Counsel then read the alleged libel, which
extended to great length. It simply impugned the mo-
tives of Captain Houghton in advocating the cause of
Miss Hoare ; charged him with having subscribed to
the society bat " five annual shillings ;" of having re-
ceived charity from it in the season of adversity, and
called it " no bad speculation," as he had received pounds
for every shilling he had subscribed, and expressed sur-
prise that the managers of the institution should allow a
person who had been a recipient of its funds to sit by
their sides and vote away its money ; and, further, that
a petition which he had presented with respect to Miss
Hoare had been refused. It was dated the 23d of

August last year, and was headed "The Royal Naval
Charity and Commander Houghton," and was signed
" Camperdown.") Now the plaintiff had sought the
name of the writer—he had said, " Give me the name
of the writer, justify the charges, or make an
apology ;" but when his application had been
refused, he considered it due to his character,
due to his friends and to his messmates, to
institute these proceedings. It appeared that Miss
Hoare had during the last four or five years been an
applicant to the society, but that she bad up to the time
the letter was published been unsuccessful. The sub-
scriptions were arranged on a graduated scale according
to the rank of the officers, in order to prevent any invi-
dious distinctions. It was true that the plaintiff had re-
ceived aid from the funds, but it was under the following
circumstances :—Upwards of 20 years ago he lent his
yacht to a friend, who steered to a foreign port, where
he took on board a quantity of smuggled cigars, but it
was captured by a revenue cutter and condem ed, and a
sum of 204 was voted by the society to the plaintiff for
the purpose of redeeming it, but no imputation could rest
upon him in this respect—in fact, his promotion, and
his long standing and unblemished character, were
a sufficient answer that no imputation rested upon him.
It was most discreditable for the editors of newspapers
to publish anonymous charges of this kind, and to re-
fuse to give the names of the writers; it was equally dis-
creditable to publish charges which he was not in a po-
sition to justify. _ _

The Learned Counsel having proved the publication
of the paper, and that the defendant was its registered
proprietor, called
Captain Redford, RN., who stated that he had been
fifty years in the navy, that he was an old subcrtber to
the institution, that he had met the plaintiff at its
meetings, and that ho was an active member of it. He
was ❑ot acquainted with him privately.
Mr. Eardley Hathray, clerk to Mr. Chard, the naval
agent, proved that his employer had paid the plaintiff's
subscription to the society for some ears; it was now
10e. 6d.
This was the plaintiff's case.

Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD then addressed the jury
on behalf of the defendant. He said no evidence
had been adduced to show that any application had been
made to the defendant to deliver up the name of the
writer of the letter, or that he had refused to justify
the charges it contained, or to apologise if they were
devoid of truth. It appeared that the lady, notwith-
standing she had the support of Lord Cadogan, Sir
Edward Codrington, and the plaintiff, had been unsuc-
cessful from year to year ; and as the plaintiff took part
in a disputed question, he must expect to be prepared to
bear criticism ; but the letter complained of was simply
a reply to a letter which had appeared in the paper
from Captain Houghton, referring to the case of Miss
Hoare : he had invited notice to himself as the supporter
of the claims of that lady, and ought not to have been
too thin-skinned when his motives were canvassed.
He had styled himself as one of the oldest and most
benevolent of the subscribers, and from what
had occurred it seemed that he was not so
much entitled to such a reputation as he
himself seemed to believe. Surely there could be no-
thing very wrong in stating that he had 3 received aid
from a fund which he had himself assisted to create ;
and it was true that he had received far more from
that fund than he had contributed to it. Then, no
doubt, the writer of the letter had seen a list in which
the name of the plaintiff appeared as a subscriber of 55.,
for at a former period he had subscribed that sum. Why,
if every publication of this kind were to justify an action,
an action might be brought for libel against the printer
of every placard or squib published at the ensuing
general election. He did not justify an editor with-
holding the name of the writer of a libellous article,
but if he refused to do so, or was unable to do so, he
was the person who should be held liable, and therefore
he did notcomplain that he had been proceeded against as
the responsible manager of the paper. The letter, how-
ever, did not appear to have been written by a person
of education, as it contained grammatical mistakes—the
word " adverse" being used for " obverse," for instance
—showing that the editor had not given it that attention
which it demanded, and that it was inserted inadver-
tently.
Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN having summed up and ex-
plained the law to the jury, they, after a few minutes'
consideration, found a verdict for the defendant.

JUDGES' CHAMBERS, June 14.
(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.)
num.? V. LIND.
In this action, brought by Mr. Bunn, of Drury-lane
Theatre, against Mademoiselle Jenny Lind, to recover
compensation in damages for an all. ged broach of con-
tract, a summons was obtained at the instance of the de-
fendant, calling on the plaintiff to show cause nhy
commission should not issuo to examine witnesses at
Berlin, and why, in the meantime, all proceedings should
not be stayed. The summons was granted on Saturday,
and to-day Mr. Lewis, of the firm of Lewis and Lewis,
attended to show cause, and Mr. Jennings appeared in
support of the application.
Mr. LEWIS informed his Lordship of the nature of the
action, and said he had to apply for an adjournment of
the summons for a period of three months.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE inquired the reason for an
adjournment, remarking that the parties whom it was
wished to examine by a commission might die in the
meantime.
Mr. LEWIS said the action had been set down for the
adjourned sittings after the term just ended, but there
was no probability of its being tried until the sitting
after next term, and therefore there could be no imme-
diate necessity for a commission. The plaintiff, as his
Lordship was aware, would have to join in the expense
of the commission, or he could apply for a separate com-
mission; but it was thought advisable, seeing that the
cause could not be tried some months, to apply for an
adjournment of the application for three months, and
for this additional reason—that the celebrated com-
poser, Meyerbeer, whom it was proposed to examine
by the commission, was confidently expected to arrive
in London in time to be examined on the trial of the
action.
Mr. JENNINGS, in reply, complained of the delay occa-
sioned by the parties on the other side. In January he
had offered to appear to any suit, but the action was de-
layed for some months, and now it was sought to occa-
sion a further delay.
Mr. LEWIS (interposing) said the defendant was not
within the jurisdiction of the Court till recently.
Mr. JENNINGS proceeded to remark that the declara-
tion was only delivered on the sth of June instant; the
pleas were delivered on the 9th, issue was joined on the
11th, and notice of trial was, on the same day, given for
the sittings in London about to commence. He (Mr.
Jennings) had therefore applied for the commission as
soon as he possibly could, and he had an affidavit show-
ing its necessity. It was requisite for the defendant's
case that the Earl of Westmoreland, her Majesty's En-
voy to the King of Prussia, and the composer Meyer-
beer should he examined, and, as his Lordship had
observed, if the present application was delayed for
three months, the defendant might be deprived of their
evidence.

His LORDSHIP intimated that the parties could be
examined, although the cause might not be tried for
some months.
Mr. LEWIS reminded his Lordship that there was no
doubt that one of the witness (Meyerbeer) would be
in London in time for the trial; and as the distancs? to
Berlin was now so short the Earl of Westmoreland might
arrive and thereby save the expense of the commission.
Mr. JENNixos further urged that the plaintiff had
delayed his action, and that he was not in a situation to
Ask for any postponement.
Mr. Lxwzs said there might be reasons for delaying
an action, such as ascertaining the success of a party
against whom it was to be brought.
Mr. JENNINGs remarked, in answer, that he had