The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-23 00:00:00

HEARNE V. STOWELL.

In this case, which was an action for libel, brought by
the plaintiff, a Roman Catholic clergyman, against the
defendant, and in which a verdict was had for the plain-
tiff, a rule in arrest of judgment had been obtained, on
the ground that the allegations in the matter charged as
libellous could not be considered as such, and were not
calculated to lower him in his profession of a clergyman.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL now appeared to show cause
against the rule. He submitted that it was the duty of
the Jury to decide what was libel and what was not, and
they having decided that the matter charged was a libel,
unless it could be shown that their verdict had been
against the evidence, although that might have consti-
tu:ed a ground for a new trial, there was nothing upon
which a motion in arrest of judgment could be made.
The Judges were not to decide what was libel, because
that was a question solely for the Jury, and had in the
present case been found by them in the affirmative. He
submitted that it was not necessary to refer to the trade
or profession of a party in order to publish what might
be considered libellous. It was enough if the matter was
calculated to degrade or injure him in his character; and
that certainly was the object of the libel in question.
The question had been fairly left by the Judge to the
Jury, and the Jury had found these facts: first, that the
article was libelous; and, secondly, that it was intended
to apply to the plaintiff, and there could be now no pre-
tence for arresting the judgment.
Mr. HOGGINS and Mr. MURPHY followed on the
same side.

Mr. CRESSWELL, for the defendant, understood that
the question to be argued before the Court was, whether
there should not be a new trial, as it was arranged when
the rule was moved for that, if it should be found that
there was ground for an arrest of judgment, then there
might be an application for a new trial on the ground of
misdirection. He wished his Learned Friend would
direct his attention to that point.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL then proceeded to address
the Court upon the manner in which the question had
been left by the Learned Judge, Mr. Baron Rolfe, to the
Jury, and submitted that there had been no misdirection
whatever.

Mr. CaEsswELL contended that the verdict ought not
to stand, because there was nothing to show that Mr.
Hearne had ordered the penance which had been-made
the subject of the libel, nor anything to show that it was
contrary to his duty. Mr. Stowell's remarks were more
directed as to the propriety of any further grant to the
College of Maynooth, than to any imputation on the
character of Mr. Hearne. He apprehended that it was
the duty of a Judge at nisi prius to call the attention of
the Jury to the questions upon the record. The ques-
tions which had been submitted to the Jury in the pre-
sent case were not i n issue at all—they formed no part
of the record, and there could be no ground, therefore,
for disturbing the verdict. The observations of Mr.
Stowell were directed to the injurious tendency of the
Roman Catholic religion generally, and not to the pri-
vate character or conduct of the plaintiff. There was
no allegation that the penance had been ordered by Mr.
Hearne, and he submitted, therefore, that the plaintiff
had no good cause of action against the defendant; that
the verdict ought to be set aside, or that at least the
judgment ought to be arrested.
Mr. WATSON followed on the same side.
The COURT took him to consider its judgment.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 22.
The Court was occupied the greater part of the day
with a case of some interest, but in which the names
of the parties have not transpired, although it has been
several times before the Court. The circumstances
were these :—The mother of an illegitimate female
child, caused the latter to be brought up .by writ of
habeas corpus some time ago, when the case was heard
by consent in Chambers, before Mr. Baron Vaughan, when
an arrangement, was come to, according to which the
child was placed in a boarding-school, at the expense of
the father, a man, we understand, of high rank in the
army ; the mother to have free access to her. She was,
however, since removed from the school and placed as an
apprentice with a milliner, in Manchester.
Mr. Sergeant LUDLOW on the part of the mother again
obtained a writ of habeas, under which the infant was
this day brought into Court by the milliner, and the
Learned Sergeant moved for a rule to order her restora-
tion to the mother. He referred to several cases,
the principal of which were the King v. Hop-
kins and White (2d East), and the King in the case
of the Hottentot Venus, to show that the Court
had no option but to order the child to be rendered up to
the mother, who was in law her only parent. This view
was strengthened by that enactment in the New Poor-
law Bill, by which a man who married the mother of
illegitimate children, was liable to the parish for their
support—the putative father being in no degree recog-
nised as having either authority or responsibility.
Mr. Sergeant ATCRERLY submitted that as the child
was perfectly contented to remain where sheeli
capable
bleanodf
was unwilling to go to the mother, being well
judging what was the more to her advantage, their
Lordships would not i interfere—above all, would not
compel the child against her will to forego the provision
which her father was willing and able to make for her.
Mr.• Sergeant LUDLOW said that the mother was
in good circumstances and perfectly able to maintain
the child

Their LORDSHIPS having consulted for a long time,
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said it was painful to
the Court to be compelled to decide in such a case,
in which it would be far the best for the feelings of all,
and for the interest of the little girl, that the parties

EVENING SUN