The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-30 00:00:00

LONDON, WEDNESDAY' MOItistI.Sid;'IJITisTE 60, 1-847.

IMPORTANT LIBEL CASE.

CG IURT OF QUE S BENCH—Dublin, June 24.
TB] ; QUEEN, AT THE PROSECUTION OF THE EARL OF
LUCAN, V. THE HON. FREDERICK CAVENDISH.
!This was a criminal information, filed at the instance
t• 4' the prosecutor, for libels published of him in his ca-
) *city of Lieutenant of the county Mayo, and which ap-
'peered in the Castlebar Telegraph, of which the defendant
was the sole registered proprietor.
Mr. Napier, Q.C. (with whom was Mr. Holmes),
stated the case for the plaintiff. The libel complained
of consisted of three articles which appeared in the
Mayo Telegraph of the 14th of October. The first
article, which was headed " Public Works," after
alluding to the suffering of the people, went on to state
that their hopes of employment were frustrated by the
conduct of the Earl of Lucan, who, in his capacity of
lieutenant of the county, convened a meeting of
'the magistrates of the county, at which resolu-
"Lion s, prepared by himself, condemning the pro-
visions of the Relief Act, were carried, and
leputation was appointed to proceed to Lon-
don to remonstrate with the Government against
the provisions of the Act being carried into
effe, " This proceeding, suggested by Lord Lucan,
and , aided by the influence of other landlords throughout
Ire land, induced the Lord-Lieutenant to violate the pro-
vis tons of the Labour Act, by which the employment of
th, 3 people has been so long postponed as to drive them
in. some instances to acts of desperation which has caused
the shedding of blood." * * * "We do not hesitate to
say- that Lord Lucan has exercised the influence he pos
sess.es as lieutenant of the county to deprive the poor of
that 'prompt relief which the Legislature provided for
them. On bis Lordship rests an awful responsibility, as
his remonstrance against the provisions of the Relief Act
has endangered the lives of thousands who are now
sinking under famine and disease." The next article
rrferred to a letter inserted in another part of the paper
from M. J. A. Browne, J. P., D.L., and stated that the
wrier was entitled to public gratitude for the "expo-
sure of conduct extremely offensive, and of the most un-
heard-of nature, pursued by the Earl of Lucan ;
the power that is conferred on Lord Lucan, as
Lieutenant of the county, has been used by
him in a reanner insulting to the Roman
Catholic clergy, and to gentlemen of property, of rank,
and undisputed respectability ;" it concluded by recom-
mending a strong remonstrance to Government for the
removal of Lord Lucan from the office of Lieutenant of
Mayo. The third article complained of contrasted the
conduct of Lord Ltresn and certain magistrates in the
county of Cork, with respect to their anxiety to provide
employment for the people, and thus concluded :—" Hear
it, famishing Roman Catholics of the barony of Cerra—
three Protestants—the landlord, his Caleb Quotem, and
the rector of Aglish, sitting in committee, tor what pur-
pose may be easily inferred, from the fact that they would
transact no business while your reverend clergymen
Messrs. Geraghty and Curley remained in their
presence !"
The Earl of Lucan and some other witnesses were
examined, after which

Mr. BUTT, Q.C., addressed the jury for the defendant.
He dwelt forcibly on the circumstances of frightful ne-
cessity in which the country was situated at the time the
articles complained of were written. He thought the
jury ssould be of opinion that the charge of delaying
the relief operation was not too strong to have In en
brought against the Earl of Lucan, when the people
were dying of starvation. In these articles, written by
the Honourable Frederick Cavendish in his capacity as
the editor of a newspaper, there was not one word of
personal or private attack on the prosecutor. The charges
made against him were in his public capacity, and the
jury should not judge of those charges by the same rigid
rule that they would judge of charges brought against
private character. A justification had not been pleaded,
because it would be inconvenient, and in its nature very
difficult to sustain ; but they would remember that the
very moment he sought to show the circumstances con-
nected with the case, he was stopped by his Learned
Friend ; and he begged to draw their attention also to
the fact, that a letter of Mr. J. A. Brown, addressed
to the Earl of Lucan, complaining that he and
his father were excluded from a private meeting
held at his (the Earl of Lucan's) residence, was not in-
cluded in the indictment; because the matters stated in
it could be put in evidence. He begged of the jury to
consider the circumstances under which the articles were
written—they were written when the county Mayo was,
in common with other parts of Ireland, reduced to a
state of extreme destitution, when the people of that
county were in a state which was a stigma on a civilized
people. The Labour Rate Act—however inefficient it
might be in many respects—was at that time the only
means of saving the lives of thousands who were pe-
rishing with hunger ; and any step which tended to de-
lay the relief of the people then, no matter how expen-
sive the mode of relief might be, ought to be reprobated.
If the jury put themselves in the place of the defendant
when he wrote these articles, with the people perishing
about him, their indignation would not be more mode-
rate than his at the conduct of the Earl of Lucan. Mr.
Butt went through the various articles paragraph by
paragraph, and contended that none of them were
libellous.

The Chief Justice, in charging the jury, read several
passages from the articles complained of, and then said,
that if the defendant meant to impute to Lord Lucan
that he was actuated by mercenary views by postponing
the operation of the Labour Rate Act, that was in the
opinion of the court a libel. The question whether the
articles were, in point of fact, libellous or not, was entirely
for the jury. Upon that the court gave no opinion. The
Chief Justice concluded his charge by expressing his re-
prehension of the practice of counsel making appeals to
particular classes of jurors, as being of one religion, or as
entertaining particular political opinions. He adminis-
tered justice without knowing the opinions of any man;
and nothing was likely to be more prejudicial to the
calm and true discharge of justice than appeals to pre-
judices and feelings which were associated with the reli-
gion or belief of any man.
jThe jury retired at four o'clock, and in an hour re-
turned to ask if the articles imputed corrupt motives,
but there was no malice on the part of the defendant,
did this constitute a libel ?
The Chief Justice observed, that if corrupt motives
were imputed the law implied malice.
The jury retired, and a after a considerable time came
into Court, and handed to the registrar their verdict of
" Not Guilty."

TRIAL FOR EMBEZZLEMENT.
THE QUEEN, AT THE PROSECUTION OF BROWNE CLAYTON,
V. HENRY LANAUZE, STOCK BROKER.
Friday the Court of Queen's Bench was occupied the
greater part of the day in hearing the above case, which
arose out of the circumstance of the traverser havirg
been charged with obtaining money under false pre-
tences, and for embezzlement of moneys entrusted to his
charge by Mr. Browne Clayton, for the purpose. of in-
vestment in Government securities, which
.111012eYS the
traverser applied to his own uses.
The jury found the traverser guilty on two counts,
one of which charged him with embezzlement.
The judgment of the Court cannot be pronounced until
next term. The traverser in the meantime stands out
on bail.

The Foreman—Then, my Lord, we must find for the
plaintiff for 1001.

(This announcement was received by a burst of appro.
bation.)

CHIEF BArtoN—Gentlemen the pleas are not proved.
Some of them charge a conspiracy between all three
parties, for which they might be indicted. Would you
on such evidence as this convict them of conspiracy?
Foreman—My Lord, there appears to have been a
great deal of fraud in the transaction. We think that
the bills were obtained from the defendant by fraud.
CHIEF BARON—That has been plain long ago, but the
question is whether there is evidence to disprove the
right of a person to sue on them to the extent of 1001.
at least, who has been clearly proved to have sold out
300/. from the funds on the 11th of September, that loot
being paid to the agent of the defendant on the following
day. You had better consider your verdict, gentlemen.
The jury then laid their heads together, and remained
in close and earnest discussion for more than half an
hour, when they returned a verdict for the plaintiff
for 100/.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, June 29.
(Before Mr. C)mmissioner EvANS.)
CAUTION TO TRADERS ENTERING INTO DEEDS OF CON-
POSITION.—IN RE SOUTHWOoD.
This insolvent, who had carried on business as a brick-
layer and builder at Market-street, Paddington, came up
for his final order.
Mr. CooKE appeared on behalf of Mr. Lacy, a
creditor, to oppose, on the ground that there were no
assets to distribute.
Mr. BICKNELL, on behalf of the insolvent, said this
was not one of the ordinary cases of fraudulent disposal
of the property. The insolvent having found himself
involved, had called a meeting of creditors, at which it
was agreed that he should assign the whole of his pro-
perty to trustees, as a security for a composition which
they all agreed to accept except the opposing creditor,
who would not come in unless there was a guarantee for
the subsequent payment of the difference.
Mr. CooKE said the debt had been contracted very
unfairly, and therefore Mr. Lacy was determined to insist
on the full payment.
His HONOUR said that this was a disposal of property
within the meaning of the Act; if persons chose to give
up all control over their property they were not entitled
to come to this court for protection.
Mr. 13texivzia. said the transaction was bona fide,
and he thought it hard that an individual creditor should
oppose an arrangement made by the rest, and for the
benefit of all parties.
His HeNtOrrß tsaid the Commissioners had come to a
decision to refuse protection when the property was so
disposed. Creditors were not to be forced into those
arrangements. If a trader could not persuade all his
creditors to concur he had the power to come to this
court, which could and would protect him and his pro-
perty; but when his estate was being administered by
trustees over whom, or over whose accounts the court
had no control, the court would not interfere.
Protection was refused, and the petition dismissed.
The insolvent had suffered fatty days' imprisonment
or contempt.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
There was not any charge of the least public interest
before the courtlyesterday, the whole time of the ma-
gistrate being occupied in disposing of f,rty drunken
charges.

CLERKEIVWELL.
n ess r
nearas a watchmaker,th e
Scotch
and
ohrenstßderoswinn, wthheo carriesCaledonian road,
school, was charged with stealing seven pounds of bacon
from the shop of Mr. George Pummett, cheesemonger,
Penton-street, Pentonville.
It appeared that the prisoner was passing the prose-
cutor's shop when he was observed to take a piece of
bacon from off the window board, by the prosecutor,
who immediately pursued him, and raised the cry of
" Stop thief," when the prisoner was taken into custody
by a policeman.

The prisoner stated who he was, that he was a most
respectable person, and that he must have committed
the act while in a state of infatuation. He had plenty
of money about him, and had not the slightest induce.
ment to commit a theft, as he was in independent cir-
cumstances.

Waddington, the gaoler, confirmed the prisoner's
assertion as to his respectability. He had known him
for many years, and a more respectable man, or one
more skilful or esteemed in his business, he did not know.
Mr. COMBE said the evidence was so direct and con-
clusive that he had no other course than to commit the
prisoner for trial.
The prisoner was then committed to take his trial for
the felony, but
Mr. COMBE intimated that ho would take bail for his
appearance.

MARKET NEWS-(YESTERDAY.

HAY MARKETS
SnintnELD.—Meadow Hay, 2/5s to 3115 s ; Clover ditto
Si 5s to 4116 s ; and Straw, 1/10s to 11 14s per load. Supply
but moderate, and trade dull.
CUMBEULAND.—Meadow Hay, 2/ 8s to 31 16s; Clover
ditto, 315 s to 41145; and Straw, 11 its to 1/ 15s per load.
A full average aipply, and a sluggish demand.
IVfirrscuArEL.—Meadow Hay, 21 5s to 31 15s; Clover
ditto, 3/ 8s to 41 17s; and Straw, 1/ lOs to 11 14s per loal.
Trade dull at barely late rates.

business in Fludyer-street, Westminster, as a bill
discounter, under the style of " Rutter and C 0.," for
the purpose of being discounted, it being suggested
that they might be " done" for 10 per cent. The
defendant, however, never afterwards saw either money
or bills. Various reasons were interposed by Gardiner
by way of explanation of the delay, and at last the de-
fendant got tired, and suspecting that he was being made
a dupe of, inserted an advertisement in the papers, cha-
racterising the transaction as a " swindle," and caution-
ing the world against dealing with the bills. So
matters stood, with the exception of certain proceedings
in Chancery, till the present action was brought by the
plaintiff, who alleged that she was the bona fide holder
of the defendant's bills for certain bona fide consideratio❑
given by her on discounting the same. In the course of
his case the counsel for the defendant was obliged to put
Gardiner into the box, and he stated that having re-
ceived the bills from the defendant with the bona fide
intention of discounting them, he took them in that
spirit to his highly respectable bankers', Messrs, Cock-
burn, where they lay for three days. Being disap-
pointed there, he applied to one Coyne, a friend, who
undertook the charge, and on the 12th of September,
1846, brought to him a 1001. bank note, which he said
was all he could then get, but added that he would pro-
duce the rest when he had raised the necessary funds on
some securities. This 100/. note Gardiner swore was all
he ever received as part of the discount on the bills for
the defendant, and he excused the non-payment of it to
the defendant on the plea that when the obnoxious ad-
vertisement of the defendant appeared, Coyne told him
that in consequence of that he had been unable to get
the rest of the money. Besides this, it was shown by
the defendant that the bills were endorsed to and by one
Gadderer, who was a lodger in the house of the plaintiff,
and it was insisted that the inevitable result of all these
facts was, that all the parties had conspired together to
defraud the defendant, by cheating him out of his bills
first, and then suing him thereon afterwards.
This being an outline of the case set up by the de-
fendant, the plamtiff next undertook to prove that she
had given ac'aial bona fide consideration for the bills ;
and with this view it was shown that on the 11th of
September she had sold out of the funds 300/. LOs. worth
of stock standing in her name ; that the 100/. note, ad-
mitted to have been received by Gardiner on the 12th
from Coyne, was a part of that sum, and had been paid
over to Coyne by the plaintiff. It was also attempted to
be shown that another 100/. note, also realised by that
sale, had found its way to Gardiner's hands on the 17,h,
but in that respect the evidence broke down.
Mr. COCKBURN having replied on this evidence, re-
marking on the fact that the plaintiff had omitted to put
Gadderer into the box,
Mr. M. CHAMBERS replied on the whole case, contend-
ing that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the whole
amount, as it abundantly appeared that she had actually
parted with her money to the extent of 300/. for the pur-
pose of discounting the defendant's hills, that no con-
nexion was shown between her and Gardiner, and that
at all events she was entitled to a verdict for 200/..,
which he contended had been shown to have reached
the hands of the defendant's agent for the purposes of
the bills.

Sir F. PoLLocK, Chief Baron, intimated that in his
opinion the plaintiff could not recover more than 1001. at
all events. That sum, and no more, had been proved
to have come to Gardiner's hands as discount of the
bills, and the point for the jury was whether the plain-
tiff was entitled to that. That would depend on the
question whether the jury thought that the fraudulent
dealing with the bills was brought home to the plaintiff.
In his opinion, there was no evidence to bring that con-
nexion home to the plaintiff.
The jury having deliberated, asked whether they were
bound to find a verdict for the plaintiff for 100/.?
The CHIEF BARON—The verdict, gentlemen, ought
to be yours, not mine, and to carry that respect to which
the tribunal is entitled, it ought not to be a hasty and ill-
coesidered cne. I think that no one of the pleas is proved,
for Gardiner is not shown to be connected with or known
to the plaintiff, or even Gadderer, before the 12th of
September.

The CHIEF BARON—No, you need not do so unless
you please, but I am bound to tell you that I think there
is no evidence to sustain the pleas.
Foreman—My Lord, we are of opinion that the 1001.
was not paid for the bills, and that they never were in
the hands of Miss Potez.