The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-22 00:00:00

sound as to the splice. We never supplied any
second-hand guns to the plaintiff before, but the
price was lower than we had ever received from
him before. We have had transactions with the
plaintiff for a considerable period. I have no doubt
the guns sent back have been damaged by salt water.
When Tower guns were ordered for the African trade I
should not understand that new guns were required.
That would depend upon the price. We call the old
Oovernment stores second-hand Tower guns. I knew
the plaintiffs were engaged in the African trade,
but I did not know the guns were wanting for that trade.
The guns may be about 15 or 20 years old. As they are
now they are fit for no market.
George Lovell—l am Government Inspector of small
arms for the army, navy, and ordnance. The condemned
arms have been sold of late years. Many of the arms,
about 30 per cent. of those that have been 10 or 12 years
in the service, are spliced. That was authorised by Lord
Hill. Even regiments in warm climates have spliced
guns, and they stand very well. I examined some of
these returned guns. I should say the greater portion
have been wetted with salt water. The barrel and lock
of the Tower gun is certainly a much better article than
the new.

Cross-examined—l should not send out spliced guns
as new ones to the regiments of the line, but I should
to the colonial militia and the secondary service. (The
witness was shown some guns, and he said that two had
their backs broken and two were doubtful.)
Re-examined—These broken backs might have oc-
curred four or five years ago by carelessness.
Mr. Foster—l have been extensively engaged in the
African trade, and in shipping guns. I have generally
purchased .from the present defendant. For 95., in 1838,
I should say you must expect an inferior gun. 1 have
frequently sent out of late 9s. guns to the African mar-
ket. I have heard no complaints.
Cross-examined—l do not recollect any guns being re-
turned two years ago by Mr. G. Smith, of Akra, on the
coast of Africa, on account of their being spliced.
Mr. Lacy—l have carried on the gun trade thirty-five
years, and have shipped guns for every part of the world.
I know Tower guns. Many me spliced and second-hand.
I have shipped such guns for the coast of Africa.
Mr. T. Stewart said he had been in the cavalry, and
that spliced guns were used in the regiment.
Mr. Priddie recalled, said he had found six, eight, or
ten of the guns in Court with broken backs, but they had
not been sent in that state from his house.
Mr. TIIESIGER replied.
Lord DENMAN summed up, and concluded by saying,
the question for the Jury was, whether or not the article
was a fit one for the African market.
The Jury returned a verdict that 110 or 116 of these
guns were not fit for the market in question, which was,
of course a verdict for the plaintiff:
Lord DENMAN then said, with respect to the question
of damages, the Jury must take into consideration, be-
sides the price of these unfit guns, all the other losses
which the plaintiff had incurred in consequence of this
breach of contract, such as the crippling of his trade, ex-
penses of delay, &c.
The Jury returned 1021. Is. 3d. damages.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 21.
(Sittings in London, before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE
and a Special Jury.)
LEGGE V. BOYD.
This was an action against one of the collectors of
Customs of the port of London, to recover the value of
25 hogsheads of tobacco, damaged by unavoidable acci-
dent, which the defendant refused to deliver up on the
tender by the plaintiff of a duty less than that to which
the tobacco as first imported was liable, but, as the
plaintiff alleged, equal to the whole price the tobacco
would fetch in the market. The action was commenced
in 1836, and in 1837 issue was joined on the defendant's
plea of " Not Guilty by the statute," but in conse-
quence of a motion to alter or add to that plea, the case
has been detained before the Court in banco, until the
present sittings.
The Attorney-General, Sir Thomas Wilde, and Mr.
Sergeant Spankie appeared for the defendant, and Mr.
Sergeant Channell and Mr. Martin for the plaintiff.
The Court was occupied almost the whole of the
morning in hearing evidence and argument as to what
should be taken as the actual state of the record. It
was ultimately decided that the case should go to the
Jury on the general issue, according to the plea of not
guilty by the statute. It was further agreed that instead
of raising a special case upon the clauses of the Act, for
decision, a full and special verdict should now be taken
on the evidence, subject to the direction of the Judge.
For the plaintiff, it was shown that the tobacco in
question was part of a cargo shipped from Plymouth for
Londonderry, on board a vessel named the Sarah, by the
wreck of which, off Torbay, the cargo was lost except
these twenty-five hogsheads in question, which were
conveyed to St. Katharine's Docks. They were valued
by two brokers, who were of opinion that the tobacco
would not fetch more than from is. 11d. to 2s. 9d. per
lb., the duty being 3s. per lb. Then, as the Ware-
housing Act makes provision for a. remission of part of
the duty in such cases, the plaintiff, by his broker, ten-
dered to the defendant, the collector, the amount of
duty at 2s. 9d. per lb., being the whole market value of
the article, according to the opinion of the duly qualified
brokers. Mr. Boyd refused ro accept the tender, or to
sign an order for the delivery of the goods, without pay-
ment of the full amount of duty.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for the defendant said, that
the action was improperly brought against the collector,
who, according to the 15th; 23J, and 27th clause& of the
Warehousing Act, had no discretion in the Matter, and
was bound to act by the orders of the Commissioners.
Further he contended that although the Act !ga,ye the
Commissioners the power of abating the dut3 4v:certain
cases, it left them expressly the sole judges of thltUabittipft
meat in all cases, by their ow.n.diseretion solely ; and it
was in no case imperative upon them to make any abate-
ment, be the evidence of the brokers what it might.
It subsequently appeared, that since the commence-
ment of the action the plaintiff paid the full duty upon
six hogsheads which were less damaged than the rest,
and the case went to the Jury in reference to the nine-
teen remaining hogsheads still in the warehouse.
The Jury found for the plaintiff, subject to the deci-
sion of the full Court on the interpretation of the Act.

LIBEL—PISANI V. LAWSON.
The defendant is the responsible printer and publisher
of the Times newspaper, and the plaintiff brought this
action to recover damages for alleged libels published in
that Journal, and maliciously and injuriously reflecting
upon the character and conduct of the plaintiff as chief
Dragoman or Interpreter to the British Embassy at
Constantinople. The defendant pleaded, first not guilty,
and secondly a justification..
The ATTORNEY. GENERAL, with whom was Mr. TAL-
FOURD, stated the case for the plaintiff. He premised
that a public Journalist had a perfect right in this coun-
try, freely to discuss and to comment upon the conduct
of public men in public matters, so long as they
abstained from specific charges which were false,
and from malicious attacks upon private character. Al-
though he disapproved of the coarse language, and the
vague and violent charges which were sometimes intro-
duced into those discussions, he had always recom-
mended, and always would recommend, that no notice
should be taken of writers who indulged in that way, un-
less they made some specific charge which admitted of
direct disproof. The libels of which the plaintiff now
complained conveyed distinct charges of incompetency,
dishonesty, and treachery on his part, in the discharge
of his duties as a dragoman to the British Embassy.
These libels were, to use epithets borrowed from the
language of the writer himself, "monstrous and
hideous." They appeared in the letters of the Times'
Correspondent at Constantinople, in March and April,
1837. The first article commenced with what professed
to be an exposition of injudicious and mis-
chievous policy. on the part of Lord Ponsonby, and
all preceding Ambassadors from this country to Turkey
in the choice of a medium of communication with the
Ottoman Porte. That was a fair and proper field of
discussion for a public journal, and, if the writer had
confined himself to it, without falsely attacking an in•
dividual, the plaintiff could have had no reason to com-
plain. But the article stated that the Peraotes, or
natives of the suburb Pera of Constantinople, were pro-
verbially ignorant, dishonest, and treacherous—who
made cunning and villany a trade ; that it was from
those persons the European States had all formerly been
accustomed to choose their interpreters, but that of late
years only the English and the Russian Embassies con-
tinued to employ them. The writer argued that the
consequence was, that the interests of England were
sacrificed, and the secrets of our Embassy were sold to
Russia. In conclusion, the writer stated that he had the
means Of producing facts to prove that the Peraotes, who
were then acting as the dragomans of our Ambassadors,
were incompetent and treacherous, and were sub-
servient to Russian interest, through the influ-
ence of their brothers and other relatives, who filled
similar situations in the employment of Russia.
In the article published in March, the plaintiff, already
clearly indicated in the former article, was expressly
named, and accused of ignorance and want of probity.
The Learned Gentleman, in conclusion, expressed his
surprise that the defendant, having pleaded a justifica-
tion, now declined to offer any evidence in support of such
heavy and injurious accusations. He then called—
Count Alexander Pisani, who said he was keeper of
the archives of the British Embassy at Constantinople.
The plaintiff was his brother. Their fatnilywas of Italian
origin, but for some time settled at Pera, where plaintiff
and witness had been born. Several of the family had
been, and some still were, interpreters to European re-
presentatives. Plaintiff's brother was in 1837 chief in-
terpreter to the Russian Embassy, and other relations
were in the same employment. There could be no,doubt
that the articles in the Times pointed to his brother.
That was generally believed by those who read the Times
It Constantinople. He could not say how many, or how
few, there were in that city who read the paper.
The Somerroa-GENERAL, for the defendant, the:t ad-
dressed the Jury, contending that there was nothing
in either of the articles in question at all re-
flecting injuriously upon the plaintiff. The only pas-
sage which alluded to him directly. was the last in the
second article, wherein it was asserted that an English
gentleman succeeded 'in obtaining the firman for the
English navigation of the Euphrates, after the plaintiff
had received a direct ref est.,' from the Divan. That was
a mere statement of fact, conveying no imputation upon
the moral character of the plaintiff.
The'LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said it was for the Jury to
say whether they believed that the writer of the articles
in question had confined himself to the fair discussion of
a subject, undoubtedly of very great importance to this
country, or had maliciously made that discussion the
medium of injuring the character of the plaintiff.
The Jury, without leaving the box, returned a verdict
for the defendant.

SE 30 ND AR IE S' COURT, Dec. 21.
(Before Mr. Secondary JAmEa.)
LEWER V. RENTAL L.
Mr; HUDDLESTONE said this eras an action brought
by the plaintiff, a furrier, to recover a balance of 121.
10s. al. for goods sold-and delivered to Moses Rental],
the defendant, a cap-maker. The defendant had