The Sun.
London, England, 1840-03-02 00:00:00

LA W IN I.II,I4LiGENC:II.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. Frs. 27.
(B.tore Lord DENMAN and a Special Jury.)
(Sittings at Guildhall)
LIBEL.—KNIBLE v. BUNNY.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a Bap-
tist Missionary in the Island of Jamaica, again•t the
defendant, the proprietor of the Jain Bull newspaper,
to recover damages for the publication of a libel re-
flecting on his character.
Only ten
__„..entlemen answering to their names the
ATTORNEY-GENERAL on bebalt of the plaintiff prayed
a tales.
The Jury having been sworn,
Mr. COCKBURN opened the pleadings.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said this was an action

I for one of the most; wanton and malignant libels ever
put in print. It appeared in the John Bull newspaper,
of the 9th of May, 1839. The plaintiff was born
at Kettering in Northamptonshire in 180-2, and was
bound apprentice to a printer in Bristol, where he re-
mained until the year 1821. During his residence in
Bristol he became acquainted with the Rev. Robert
Hall, an eminent Baptist minister ; and such were his
acquirements, that the congregation of that Rev. Gen-
tleinan recommended him to the Society in London for
an appointment as missionary to the island of .Jamaica ; he
was appointed accordingly, and had continued labouring
as a preacher and teacher in that island ever since. But
he unfortunately had enemies, and this libel was pub..
fished, which, if true, rendered him literally unfit to be
tolerated in society. The ►ibel commenced by an ex-
tract from a Jamaica Newspaper ; then the Editor
went on with certain original matter of his own, which
was the libel complained of. The Learned Counsel then
proceeded to read the libel ; the extract from the Jamaica .
paper attributed to the Baptist Missionaries the refusal
of the people to work for such wages as the planters
could afford to give, and the editor proceeded to say
in his own character, that he had submitted this extract
not only on account of the encouragement afforded to
those Missionaries of the saintly underlings of Down-;
ing-street, and the hypocrites of Aldermanbury, but
because he was enabled to lay before his reader,
an affidavit exhibiting the character of the Rev.
William Knibbs. There was, said the Attorney-6e-
neral, something new in the character of libel in placing
the libellous matter in the form of a supposed affidavit
—nothing could be more ingeniously malignant. It
purported to be the affidavit of Thomas Jones, and set

forth that Mr. Knibbs was the half-brother of the de-

ponent's mother. This was a falsehood. it then set forth
that Mr. Knibbs had been an apprentice to a baker
at Devizes, had run away, become stage-coachmen, and
been discharged by his employers for upsetting the
coach when drunk. This Wtt3 false from beginning

to end. It then went on to accuse Mr. Knibbs of
having stolen a jowl of bacon from a person named
Goodwin, at Frome, in Sotners,tshire, and of having
afterwards denied it, in consequence of which de-
ponent's father had turned Knibbs out of his house,
and that he had subsequently gone to Jamaica. That
19 deponent had :peen in an hospital in Jamaica,
lad applied to Knibbs for assistance, and been refused !
Such was the libel, and if there were any truth in it,
Mr. Knibbs was utterly unworthy to he eiv:rusted with
the education of :Iny sect of Christians, This action
:tad been brought to give the defendant an. opportunity
of justifying, if he could. He had not da.re_d to do so.
He had not attempted to prove the truth of his
assertion, but had contented himself with saying
" Not guilty," thereby meaning either to deny the
publication, or to say that this was no libel. He should
prove, from the Stamp-office, that the defendant was
proprietor of the paper. He should call) Mr. Fuller,
the printer, with whom the plaintiff had served his
time, who would speak as to his high character while
with him ; and he knew not bow it could be contended
that this was not one of the most wanton, unprovoked,
and malignant libels ever put in print, and it was for
the Jury to say to what dainatres he was entitled.
The clerk to the plaintiff's attorney produced the
affidavit from the Stamp-office, of the defendant stating
that he was the sole proprietor of the John Bull
newspaper.
The libel was then put in, and read.
_ _ _ _

Mr. J. S. Fuller—Had carried on the business of a
printer at Bristol ; knows the plaintiff ; had knows;
nim at Kettering before 1816 ; he was apprenticed to
witness in 1816 ; he was then about thirteen ; he re-
mained more than seven years with witness ; he went
to Jamaica in 1824, as a Baptist missionary ; his
;nother's name was Mary Dexter.
Cross-examined by Sir W. FOLLETT—Doss not
know Jones, and does not know whether plaintiff has ever
prosecuted Jones in Jamaica ; first knew of this action
from Mr. Knibbs' attorney at Bristol ; has not seen
Knibbs since. It is a common mode to cut out slips
from a newspaper for the purpose of transferring them
to others.

Re-examined—ls a Baptist, and the plaintiff has never
been dismissed from that persuasion.
Sir W. FOLLETT, for the defendant, said that he did
not mean to say that the editor of every newspaper was
not answerable for everything he published, but there was
a great difference in.the malignity of a libel whether it
was an original invention, or only a copy. This was a
copy from a Jamaica newspaper, and an action had been
or might have been, brought by Mr. Knibbs against the
Jamaica paper, and they were now called upon, without
knowing the result of those prove, dings, if instituted, to
;Ivo a ver&ct against the editor of the Julio Bull. No
application had been made to the editor of the John Bull
remonstrance ; but the first notice he had of this
.action was the writ being sued out against him. He could
issurc the Jury that the whole was a copy from the
Jamaica paper, notwithstanding the Attorney -General

:,ad beeninstructed to state that such was not the case.
I'he editor of the John Bull had taken up the opinion
-hat the labours of the Jiissinnaries in the West Indies

vere not productive of good. Now he certainly had a
ight to hold his own opinion and comment upon their
proceedings. The commencement of the article stated
iistinctly that what followed was an extract from
the Jamaica Papers. The Learned Counsel then read
the commencement of the article, to show that it was
an extract from the Jamaica Despatch, and went on
:0 contend that if Mr. Knibbs had sustained any
damage it was ❑ot by the publication in the John Bull,
which had been made mevely for the purpose of showing
the people of Eagland what was the opinion expressed
by the Jamaica Papers on the subject. No one who had
any regard for the character of Mr. Knilahs could have
instructed the Attorney-General to treat the affidavit
as an original invention of the editor of the Jchn Bull,
while it was, in fact, an extract from the Jamaica paper.
He could not deny that inpoint of law the plaintiff
svas entitled to a verdict. But it was important, i■
considering the question of damages, to know whether
it was an original invention or an extract made

from a Colonial paper according to the ordinary
practice. Surely Mr. Knibbs' friends should have
given some opportunity for explanation to the editor of
the John Bull. Had Mr. Knibbs sustained any actual
damage or actual injury in consequence of such publi-
cation ? Certainly not. He was not attempting to
justify the libel ; he was not contending it was true ;
but he was contending that he had sustained no da-
mage ; and on the part of the defendant he was autho-
rised to say, that he would, if he had been applied to,
have done everything that could be suggested to remedy
the wrong which he had committed.
Lord DEN'IAN, in summing up, said he saw no rea-
son to doubt that this was an extract from a Jamaica
paper, but if an editor of a paper chose to make ex•
tracts from any other paper, reflecting on the character
of an individual, he must be held responsible for baying
done so ; arid it could not be supposed that any person,
not knowing the plaintiff, could read this article
without Mr. Knibbs' character suffering in his es-

timation. Had the matter related to- occurrences
in Jamaica, the observations of the Learned
Counsel, in mitigation of damages, might be en-
titled to some consideration, but when it was recol-
lected that the libel referred to circumstances supposed
to have occurred in England, and was couched in the
shape of a voluntary affidavit made before two justices
who had no right whatever to suffer any affidavit re-
flecting on a man's character to be taken before
them, he thought the editor of a paper ought to
have been very cautious how he admitted such an ar-
ticle With regard to any application being made to the
defendant for explanation, he could not consider that a
man who had been grievously injured could be called
upon to throw himself upon the mercy of hi% calumni-
ators, and give him an opportunity, perhaps, of repeat-
ing the calumny ; but he thought lie was fullyjustified
in applying at once to the laws of his country for re-
tirtss.

The Jury, having retired for half an hour, returnci.
with a verdict for the tiainiifi—Damages 701.
Siltings after Mbry Tc• Fra. 29.
before Lord DENMAN and a

Spi•r.i:+l Jury. )

REDMAN V THE CITY OF DUBLIN STEAM PACKET COMPANY.
In this ca:e the acton was hr iught to recover compen-
sation in &triages for an injury suvained by the Gil I3laA,
a vessel belonging to the pldintitT which had bs en run
down by the steam packet Adelaide, the property of the
defendants.
The Attorney-General, Sir W. Follett, and Mr. Martin
conducted the case for the plaintiff; and Mr. Thesiger,
Mr. Austin, and Mr. M. Smith appeared for the defen-
dants.

The evid, nee, Yi4 in all cases of running: down, was of a
very conflicting charactr, tho witnesses for each party im-
puting blame to the opposing vesse;.
Lord DENMAN summed up the whole of the testimony,
and left it to t'r.e Jury to sa•; to which set of witnesses
they were inclined to attach the greater degree of credit.
The Jury, after an hour and forty minute;' deliberation,
brought in a verdict for the plaintiff for salvage, repairs,
and incidental expenses; amount subject to a referee.

It is rumoured that Prince Albert is very de.
sirous of seeing her :Majesty's Marine Palace at Brighton, and
that it is not unlikely that her INlajesty and her Royal Consort.
may honour us with a visit at Easter.—Brighton Gazette.
CH ICII ESTEEt POST-OFFICE.—The number of
letters received at this post-office under the old rate was about
1,462 per week. On the fourpenny rate, the number inereaaed
to 1.808. In the first week of the reduction to one peony, the
number of letters received was 3,699. The numbers received
for the two weeks ending the 16th and February respectively,
were 8,375 iud 3MS. —Brighter, Gazette.