The Sun.
London, England, 1824-06-30 00:00:00

BUSINESS OF THE COURT.•

His Lordship informed the Bar, that he had bestowed con-
siderable attention upon the state of the business then before
the Court, and he had arranged the seals during and after the
term, so as to allow three days for the purpose of hearing mo-
tions ; on the other days he should take, in the order in which
they stood, all the old bankrupt petitions; and should then
proceed with the cause-paper until the 19th of August, beyond
which latter day he had made up his mind not to set his foot
in that Hall.

Mr. HEALD applied for permission to bring on an appeal in
the matter of a charitable institution, which did not stand in
the paper.
His Lonnsuip refused to grant the application. He com-
plained of the frequent practice of counsel, who did not hesitate
to interrupt the order which had been laid down by the Court
for disposing of business, and of the time which had been con-
sumed since January last, in debating what should and what
should not come on. He was resolved that the arrangement
he had made should not be broken through, at least during the
period he had mentioned,
Mr. HEALD said, he hoped his Lordship would enforce the
same regulation for a much longer period ; and so entirely.con-
vinced was he of its utility, that he would not press his appli-
cation, for which he, however, had some peculiar grounds, lest
it should interfere with so wholesome a regulation.
Some appeal cases, which were partly heard, occupied the
remainder of the sitting.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Ju 29.

LII3EL.
SIR GREGOR aIcGREGOR V. THWAITES.

This was an action brought by tbe plaintiff; designated
as the Caziciue of Poyais, to recover from the defendant, one
of the proprietors of the I/laming Herald newspaper, a com-
pensation in damages, for a libel which appeared in that paper
upon the plaintiff. The alledged libel purported to be an ac-
count of certain statements made before the Lord Mayor, at
the Mansion House, relative to the plaintiff having induced
certain persons to emigrate from Scotland to Poyais. The de-
fendant pleaded a justification, and in other counts, that the re-
port was a true, fair, and correct account of what took place
at the Mansion House. The Jury found a verdict for the plain-
tiff, damages one shilling on the first count, and on the other
counts for the defendant.

On a former day Mr. RICHARDS obtained a rule to shew
cause why the verdict should not be entered for the plaintiff;
notwithstanding the verdict found by the Jury.
Mr. SCARLETT this day sheaved cause against the rule, and
contended that the allegation of libel set forth, was insufficient
to maintain an action against the defendant, and therefore that
judgment should not be given against him, and that the de-
fendant was justified in publishing what occurred at the
Mansion House, inasmuch as the report did not state any-
thing, within the knowledge of the defendant, but in state-
ments made by Captain Ancrain and Mr. Prince. The
Learned Counsel cited the case of the Earl of Northampton,
in which it was held that no action would lie against a per-
son who stated, that he heard 'I. S. say of I. 0. that he
was a scoundrel and a swindler, &c. Here the principle
of this decision strongly applied, and there was also here no
ground whatever to charge malice against the defendant, on the
contrary, his object was a virtuous object; it was to prevent
other persons being seduced from their homes upon pretences
which, as in this case, were attended with such Innentahle re-
sults. HeSMr. Scarlett) was aware, that slander could not
legally be vented under the cover of a third person ; and in this
case the names of the utterers of the libel were handed over to
the plaintiff; and all charge of malice was rebutted, by the
truth and fairness of the report of what occurred. The object
of the publication was altogether to prevent persons being again
imposed upon by the plaintiff.
Mr. E. LAwEs followed on the same side, and contended
that the publication of that in writing, which was orally made,
if fairly and correctly published, could not be considered a libel ;
and in this case he thought, as some of the pleas were bad, the
verdict should be for the defendant, as in fact all damage to the
plaintiff was negatived by the verdict of the Jury.
Mr. Justice BAlLEY—Suppose a man, in company of twenty
or thirty persons, say
s of an absent person that he is a robber,
or a swindler, would that justify a person in giving it to' the
Editor of a newspaper for publication in his paper? With
respect to the allegation of bad pleas, you are aware that the
Court can pronounce no judgment upon them.
Mr. COMMON-SERJEANT, in support of the rule, contended
that if the indictment in the declaration were altogether left out,
that there was libel enough left to justify the verdict of the
Jury. He did not mean to enter into the question of the right
of publishing judicial proceedings, because in this case nothing
was said on the record to shew that the Lord Mayor elect, before
whom the statements were made, was acting as a Magistrate.
The question here was simply this, can the slander said of a
man be afterwards published by writing or printing in a news-
paper ? Moral guilt was attributed to the plaintiff, which the
verdict of the Jury negatived. Then with respect to malice,
lie contended that a correct report of a malicious statement in-
eluded malice. This case did not come within the rule laid
down in Lord Northampton's case ; and in conclusion he sub.
mitted, that what might not be actionable as words would be so
if reduced to writing.
Mr. P. POLLOCK and Mr. RICHARDS followed on the same
side.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE was of opinion, that the rule
should be made absolute, and a verdict entered for the plaintiff,
' non übstante veredicto. His judgment must be formed upon
what appeared on the face of the record; and in looking to the
record, it did not appear that the libel for which this action was
brought was an account If what occurred before a Magistrate,
in his capacity of Magistrate. It was therefore now unneces-
sary to pronounce any opinion respecting the right of a pro-
prietor of a newspaper to publish a report of what took place
before a Magistrate, as a Magistrate : and this libel could not
be supposed to be a report of what took place before the Lord
Mayor elect, as a Magistrate, because it imputed to the plain-
' tiff practices which could not be submitted to the jurisdiction of
the Lord Mayor. It was said for the defendant, that lie did not
relate facts within his own knowledge, but merely gave a fair
statement of what others said; mentioning their names to the
plaintiff; and so far that such editor was protected by the rule
laid down in Lord Northampton's case. But in that case the ac-
tion was for words, and Words only:- in this case the slander is
printed and published in a newspaper, which every one knows
must produce much greater mischief than words or oral slander;
altogether this case fell far short of that of Lord Northampton.
In looking at this libel, it would be seen that some of the mat-
ters stated, if stated in words, would not be actionable. If they
were merely spoken, no action could be maintained, without ,
the allegation of special damage. This case also fell short of
that of Lord Northampton, for there J. S. -who heard A. B.
use slanderous words of I. B. and call him a robber, heard
what was uttered, and was ready to be a witness to their utter-
ance ; whereas in this case, the editor did not say that he heard
it from the person or persons uttering the slander. (ha these
two grounds his opinion was, that the rule should be made
absolute.

Justice BAY LEY was of the sam:: opinion, and observed,
that there was a great difference between slander contained in
words and in writing. There could be no doubt but that the
representation made against the plaintiff was calculated to bring
him into hatred and contempt, as it charged him with induc-
ing persons to go to a foreign land, where they were completely
deceived, and reduced to a state of destitution, in place of the
comfort and luxury which they were promised. Another part
of this representation would be actionable if merely spoken ;
but in case' of written slander, it was evident that there must be
an action against some one or other, as in the case of Davis and
James, and in others, to be found in fifth Term Reports ; the
reason stated why no action could lie against a person relating
the slander was, because the right of action was given by such
relator against another person. But here no action could lie
against Captain Ancram or Mr. Prince, who spoke orally, and
this defendant was not exempted from liability because he gave
up the utterers, inasmuch as there was no other person than the
defendant against whom the plaintiff had a right of action.
Mr. Justice Ilor.RoYD and Mr. Justice LIT TLEDALE were
of the same opinion..--Rule made absolute.

JOB-TIORSES.
The Court was immediately after occupied wisti a Cat" of
some interest'to gentle Men hiring job-horses. Mr. Poynder
having hired a pair of horses from a person named Briant, or-
dered the coachman who came with eiem to drive him to the
city. The man in the way to Clkapside negligently drove
against a horse and injured the animal. An action was brought
against Mr. Poynder, and the plaintiff was nonsuited, on the
ground. that the defendant was not liable far the negligence of
the driver, who was not his servant.
Mr. MannTaTT moved to set aside the nonsuit, and obtain.
ed a rule to spew cause.
Mr. Sc AitLETT this day opposed the rule, and contended
that the nonsuit ought to stand. The defendant stood in the
situation of a passenger in a boat or mail coach. if any injury
' was dome by the rower, or driver, the master who derived a be-

nefit from the business undertaken by his servants was liable for.
all negligence and mischief.
31r. MARRYAT was heard in reply.
The Court took further time to deliver their
,judgment.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUNE 29.
RICHARDSON' V. MELLISH.
This was an action for a compensation in damages for the
loss sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of the non-Per,
formance of an agreement by which the defendant stipulated to
allow the plaintiff, Captain Richardson, to go as commander of
the ship Minerva to India, for the four ensuing voyages, two
only of which he performed.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff', Damages--.,
7,5001._

Serjeant PELL last term obtained a rule to show cause
why a new trial should not take place.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN appeared to show cause against the'
rule, but the Learned Judges having read Lord GifFord's re.
port of the trial, called upon Mr. Serjeant Pell in support of
his own rule.

Mr. Learned Serjeant said, he moved for this new trio
on five separate grounds. First, the illegality of the agte,o
ment. Second, that this agreement was--not only v°4
as illegal per se, but void as illegal. between Mellish ail;
the oth9r part owners of the vessel. Third that it 'vat'
part of the agreement that 2,0001. was to be paid 'to 1144'
lish in case the exchange did not take place. Fourth'
with reference to the question of evidence, whether
not the extract of the book, containing an account of thi
passengers, was evidence, is against Mellish, for the Put 4
pose of showing what must have been the profits of the voyagel,
if Captain Richardson had gone ;—and lastly, upon the
ground that the verdict was most monstrous and preposterous,
with reference to the way in which the Learned Judge statetl
the extent of the damage to the Jury ; for although he had not
made it part of his report, he had stated to the Jury, on theft
asking the question, in most distinct and pointed terms, L'at
they must, if they gave a verdict for the plaintiff, give a
very
diet for the supposed loss on the two voyages which were then
to be performed by the ship, and in consequence, they gave a
verdict for the before-mentioned sum. The Learned Se jeans
then proceeded to enlarge upon the different points he ht,t_d.
stated to the Court, but the Chief Justice being obliged to time
Common Juries at London, at one o'clock, the remainder of
the argument was deferred till this day.

HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY, JUN 29.. ,
This Court sat for-only a few minutes, all business being
journed to the next Court day.

POLICE INTELLIGPINCE.

SHOCKING DEPRAVITY.
Uzirox-HALL.—Yesterday Thomas Pierce was brought to
this office, charged with having robbed and threatened the life
of his parent, a respectable tradesman.
The father of the prisoner stated, that the present was no
the first time his incorrigible son had robbed him, and threaten
to be his murderer. At about two o'clock that morning hi...
son, who had been out the whole of the night, came home i 11•1
a state of intoxication, bringing with him two vagabonds out
of Kent-street. On the door being opened for him, he and
his companions reeled into the passage. The complain an ci
seeing the company he had introduced into the house, said he
would not allow strangers to remain there; adding, that such-
acquaintances should note stop under his roof, and ordered
them to quit. During these proceedings the prisoner ran at
his father, and aiming a blow at his head, insisted thathis two,
" friends" should have a bed in the house, and that neither:
father nor mother should dare to oppose him in his wishe
He then ran up to his father's bed-room, desiring the two black
guards by whom he was accompanied to stop in the pasmag
until he came down. He remained up stairs a short time, anti'
on joining his companions again he remarked, that "he Karl,done the thing;" and then addressing his father, who remained`
all the while watching the two fellows whom he had introduced,
said, " You old scoundrel, I'll knock your brains out one of,
these nights." He and his associates then left the house, and'
the complainant, upon going up to his room, discovered that his
son had robbed him of all the cash that was in his pockets. Ile
added, that he had tried every means in his power to correct the
desperate propensities of his misguided son, who was in the
' constant habit of using those vile houses in Kent.street, which
were frequented by none but the most depraved and abandenc4
of both sexes.

Mr. CHAMBERS said, that he had never heard of a more
wicked and vicious boy in his life, and observed, that the gal
lows was sure to be his portion if he still persevered in his bad
courses. He was then held to bail for threatening the life of
his
nrzif_:tlivie:rs,;a:cElEberil.g(uln,.easbtelredtaoyi.);_oc,.ulreintialen necessaryname of
he was committed
Mffiatetehcoron Rsuedspnizet aosfuhnadle.ringognebeseveralconcerned examinations
in
a ri:tbbtehrvis
O
to the amount of 5051. in the house of Mr. Charles Tetsalf
the Coach and Horses, in Conduit-street, Bond-street.—O/:
Wednesday last Mr. Tetsall was at the dinner of the Li-
censed Victuallers' Society at Cumberland-gaidens in the cii,
pacity of Steward. About seven o'clock in the evening
Tetsall was engaged for some time in her bedroomwhQll
she left it every thing was safe, and she locked the' door. At
half past eight she had occasion to go to the room again, and
~ was surprised and alarmed upon putting the key into the '`)at
to find it unlocked. She had courage sufficient to peep mat
the door, and she found ever thing strewed about the floor ip
confusion. She ran down stairs and ordered the doors to Le
closed, and officers were sent for. Every person in the boost
was searched, but nothing found. Mr. Tetsall was sent for,
and he ascertained that he had lost in Bank-notes about 450 e:
and in gold about 551. besides some articles of plate. The
prisoner, who is a servant out of place, had been in habits of
intimacy with Mr. Tetsall, and knew where he kept his money,
and that he had a considerable sum then in the house. He had
not been seen there on the evening of the robbery, but about
twelve o'clock he came to the door and was let in.—He was
remanded till Friday.
Yesterday John Fellowes, the old' man who was etamined last
week upon a charge of obtaining 30/. from Mr. Gurley, under
pretence of procuring him a Government situation,
up for a final. hearing.
It came out in the course of some further questions _put
td
Mr. Gurley that at the time the prisoner received the +.1,.*
gave Mr. G. his acceptance for that amount at two months `11:
That bill however was not paid when it became due.
Gurley went on to state, that since the last examination he had
received the assurance of some respectable persons that the •
would be repaid to him, and he had therefore no wish to Pre'l
the charge further. vial; brougt.t
be
Mr. HALLS asked the defendant when the money wovA
refunded ?

The defendant said in ten days or a fortnight.
Mr. HALLS said he feared the money would come 31)00 ale'
same time with the promised appointment. Under the cirewn"
stances, however, he would not discharge the warrant until I,le
knew that the matter was properly settled. The prisoner could
take a fortnight, and he (Mr. Halls) should expect, at the ea-
piration of that time, the parties to call upon him and infer
him of what had been done. In the meantime the defendant
would be at liberty.—Thus the case terminated for the present

METEOROLOGICAL JOURNAL.

BY R. BANKS.
PHILOSOPHICAL INSTRUMENT bIAKEH

Thermu-
meter.

«'catbkr•

r.
211. W 1 11
(~ r.„ .w., %-:
.. . , . 7
1- -----
~. 0 u Inches
June 16 55 62 52 29.60 Liodtly _CtOdY
17 54 62 53 .Si •241 Rai" Fair
18 55 63 54 '3O ." I Fair Do.
19 55 e.. 2 53 i "32 •1S I Rain Ram
2021 5564 V 5'2- , ..6522 , .43 . llFacti.r .l-,1,a9,,.
22 •=--1 60 52 .54 Do. . Cloudy
nal"
23 156153 51 I .51 .18 Rain i

1.03

of Rain

)e rnil en
It. i 3.

it the .abare

eigh

t clays.

•
BIRTHS.
On Saturday, the 19th inst., the lady of FlinPoff heattan:,
Esq.,. of Pontefract, of a daughter:
On Monday, the 2lth inst.,. in. Hontr4r..strevts Drunswick.
Nuare, the lady of Arnold lArallinger, Esq., barrister-at-law, cf
a son.

DIED.
On Sunday, the 20th inst., Frances, the wilb of John Perry,
Esq., of lllynety, Wiltshire, deeply lamented by her.numerout
family and friends to whom she had endeared herself by her
most generous and affectionate disposition.
On the 25th inst., Humphrey, second son of I'h. IL Chinn.
berlain, of the Royal porcelain manufactory, Worcester.

Printed and Published for the PROPRIETORS, (t the til7n•
OFFICE, 112, Strand, by J. B. CAUST AIRS.