The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-10 00:00:00

HEWETT V. TURNER.

This was an action in which the plaintiff, who was the secre-
tary to the Tring and Reigate Railway Company, sought to
recover of the defendant, Mr. Turner, M.P., a sum of money
alleged to be due to him for services rendered to the railway
in question, the defendant being at the time the debt was
contracted a member of the provisional committee.
Mr. llumfrey and Mr. T. Saunders were counsel for the
plaintiff: Mr. Martin and Mr. Pearson for the defendant.
It appeared that the managers of this company came to
a resolution to wind up the affairs of the company, and for
this purpose it was agreed amongst themselves that each
party should subserib.: a sum of 1751. towards a fund, to be
placed at the disposal of a committee for the purpose of li-
quidating the outstanding claims upon the committee. The
defendant, however, did not pay his share of the liquidation
fund until some time after the resolutions were passed. Two
actions had been brought against the defendant, of which:the
present was one, the other being set down for trial
at the Guildford assizes in the last term. A few days before
the day appointed for the hearing of the cause the defendant
made an arrangement by which, upon payment of his pro-
portionate share of the fund agreed upon among the di-
rectors, the action was to be stayed.
The defendant now pleaded• that the arrangement made
upon payment by him of the sum of 1751. was in satisfac-
tion of the present as well as the former action. It appear-
ing, however, from the evidence of the solicitor to 'the com-
pany, and several other witnesses, that it was only the pro-
ceedings upon the first action that were to be stayed, the
jary,,after a short consultation, returned a verdict for the
plain-tiff for the amount claimed.

WILLINGTON v. GOURNAY.
This was an action brought for the purpose of recovering
compensation in damages for a libel uttered by the defendant
in a letter, which was calculated seriously to affect the
character of the plaintiff.
Sir F. Tliesiger appeared to conduct the case on behalf of
the plaintiff, Mr. Martin for the defendant.
The plaintiff was, it appeared, a surgeon, residing at
Twickenham, who had recently established himself in that
town. The defendant, who had previously been an intimate
friend of the plaintiff, was also a member of the medical
profession, carrying on business at Madeley in Shropshire.
The action arose out of the following circumstances:—The
defendant addressed a letter to a Mr. Lichfield, a surgeon of
considerable practice in the same town as the plaintiff, re-
questing to be informed whether the plaintiff was then
him,residing
beingin thatperfectto wn, as dt
rdainn
gge, ratso ah reasonat
tforh eh
pi si
atroublings
indebted to him in a considerable sum of money, which
he had advanced to him when at Warwick, and that since
the time of the plaintiff leaving that town, he (the defendant)
had not been able to hear anything as to his whereabouts.
The letter concluded by stating that any communication on
the subject addressed to him, would be considered, as he
wished his own letter to be considered, as strictly confiden-
tial. Upon the receipt of this letter, Mr. Lichfield showed
its contents to several persons in Twickenham, which coming
to the knowledge of the plaintiff, a writ was served at the
suit of the plaintiff upon Lichfield, who subsequently de-
livered up the letters of the defendant, and further proceed-
ings in the suit were stayed, and the present action was
brought against the defendant, as the writer of the letter in
questi.m and the originator of the libel.
Mr. AlawriN, on the part of the defendant, contended that
there was
nothingtion was
libellousentirelyprivileged
contentsand confidential,of te
letter,
that communication
and the sole object the defendant had in writing was to ob-
taM information of the residence of the plaintiff.
The Loat) Ciller BARON, in summing up, deprecated the
practice of laying actions for libels simpy because a ground
of actit-m. existed. It would be for the jury, however, to
consider whether the letter was perfectly bond Me; if so, the
verdict must be for the defendant; if. however, they thought
that the defendant wished to Injure the character of the
plaintiff, then their yudict would be for the plaintiff.