The Sun.
London, England, 1847-12-07 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 6.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE
and a Common Jury.)
GIBBS V. JOHNSON AND ANOTHER.

The plaintiff in this action was the well-known civil
engineer, and the defendants were some of the original
promoters and provisional committeemen of the Northern
and Southern Connecting Railway, one of the schemes
got up at the time of the mania of 1845, for uniting the
South-Eastern, the South-Western, and Brighton lines
with the Great Western and the London and North-
Western Railways. The action was brought to recover
6,6911., being at the rate of 73/. per mile, which the
plaintiff claimed as the engineer of the line, for preparing
the plans, sections, and surveys. The scheme was
thrown out upon the second reading of the Bill, at the
instance of several of the shareholders, who, repenting
of having connected themselves with the concern, got up
a strong opposition to the Bill, and the result was that
the scheme never found its way into a committee of
merits.

For the defence it was contended that the charges
were excessive and unreasonable, while the bills of costs
which the plaintiff had delivered contained items for
work and services that had never been performed. No
evidence was adduced in support of the defence, but
it was elicited on cross-examination that at the present
time the work could be executed at something like 15/. or
201. per mile. The defendants had therefore paid up-
wards of 3,0001. into court, which they considered would
amply remunerate the plaintiff for his labour and ser-
vices, and the only question to be decided now was
whether he was entitled to the full amount of his claim.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, awarding
him 2,0001. above the 3,0001. already paid to him.

HOARE V. SILVERLOCK.

This was an action of libel against the pro-
prietor of the Nautical Standard. The plaintiff Miss
Sarah Hoare appeared in person and stated, in opening her
case, that she was the daughter of the late Lieutenant
Hoare and grand-daughter of the late Admiral Sir George
Rook, but being in very reduced circumstances, she was
unable to fee counsel, and therefore she hoped the Court
wou'd grant her the indulgences which her unfortunate
situation demanded. The libel she complained of arose
out of her connexion with the Royal Naval Benevolent
Society, upon whose bounty she bad repeatedly been de-
pendent for the means of subsistence, but through the
representations of Commander Dickinson, the Executive
of the institution passed a resolution refusing her further
assistance. This occurred so far back as 1842,
and since then the statements of Mr. Dickinson, who
filled the office of secretary to the society, had debarred
her from obtaining many excellent situations, amongst
which were those of amanuensis to the daughter of a
bishop, and companion and teacher to the children of a
, clergyman ; and all the naval papers up to January,
1846, concurred in pronouncing her to be an injured
woman. About that period, however, the Nautical
Standard was commenced, under the auspices, as she
understood, of Commander Dickinson, and the editor-
ship of Mr. Churchward, the naval editor of the
Morning Herald, and the libels complained of, which
stigmatised the plaintiff as a worthless and immoral
woman, appeared in the former paper at various times
during the first year of its existence. The libels were
contained in leading articles and reports of the meetint,s
of the Royal Naval Benevolent Society.
The papers containing the alleged libels having been
put in, witnesses were called to prove that the charges
of immorality preferred against the plaintiff by
Commander Dickinson, and upon which the libels were
founded, fell to the ground upon an examination before a
committee of the Royal Naval Benevolent Society, ap-
pointed to inquire into the subject, and that the articles
complained of were not only calculated to injure the
plaintiff in the estimation of the public, but had actually
induced naval offi..ers to vote against her when her
ease as a candidate for relief was before the Royal
Naval Benevolent Society. One witness said the
plaintiff was an authoress, and had written religious and
mural works.

Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD, for the defence, complained
of the plaintiff having adopted the course of stating her
case in person rather than of suing in forma pauperis,
because it gave her the opportunity of stating circum-
stances which could not be proved, while her doing so
could not be gracefully objected to by the counsel
who was retained to appear for the defence.
She had stated facts connected with the proprietor-
ship and editorship of the Nautical Standard
which could not possibly be proved, because they were
not true, and she had applied to herself remarks ,e hich
related not so much to herself as to the fact of the Royal
Naval Benevolent Society making so much of a case
that was unworthy being made the subject of some
of their most prominent proceedings. The next
libel complained of was contained in the report
of a speech reported at one of the quarterly meet-
ings of the Royal Naval Benevolent Society, but as the
report was a faithful one, the proprietor ought not to be
held responsible for the statement it contained. The
other articles mentioned in the declaration did not, as
the plaintiff had stated, stigmatise her as an unworthy
object of charity, but only insist,d that there were more
worthy objects of the Royal Naval Benevolent Society
than the plaintiff. These articles did not insinuate that the
plaintiff was an unworthy person, but that her cla;rns
upon the funds of the Benevolent Society had become
unworthy by her importunities, and it was quite evident
that there was no libel in such a statement as that.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Da-
mages 403.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. G.
(Sittings in Banco.)
BROWN V. DE WINTON, AND DAT V. LA.NDER.

The Court was occupied the greater part of the day in
!nearing the
.argumencs in these two cases, the only point
in which is-, whether a promissory note, payable to the
maker's own order, and indorsed by him, i 3 a negotiable
instrument under the statute of 3 and 4 Anne, chap. 9.
The COURT took time to consider their judgment.
The only other case argued to -day was one in which
the question was, whether an agreement between mister
and servant was void for want of mutuality. The cir-
cumstances were of no general interest.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Westminster, befere the LORD
CHIEF JUSTICE and Special and Common Juries.)