The Sun.
London, England, 1841-02-22 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUEENS BENCH, FEL 20.
(Sittings at Guildhall before Lord DENMAN and a
Common Jury.)
RICHARDS V. YOUNG.LIBEL.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated the case as follows :
Gentlemen of the Jury—The plaintiff in this case is a
respectable merchant of this city, and the action is
brought against Mr. Murdo Young, the proprietor and
editor of a newspaper called The Sun, a paper of con-
siderable circulation, and against the respectability of
which it is not my business to say anything, except
with regard to the conduct of Mr. Young in this par-
ticular transaction, which I am sure you will very
much condemn. Gentlemen, where a newspaper falls
into any mistake inadvertently the greatest indulgence
ought to be extended to it. We are all very much
indebted to the Press—looking at the great advantage
and benefit which the public derive from its labours,
it should be treated with the greatest leniency ;
but when the editor of a newspaper opens his
columns for the purpose of calumny, and makes
himself an instrument to gratify the malignity of others,
it becomes a case of great aggravation ; and when pro-
duced before a Jury, they well consider that very serious
damages should be awarded for a libel so published to
the world. Mr. Richards, in February, 1836, had the
misfortune to be persuaded to become a shareholder in
an undertaking called the Southampton Docks Com-
pany. His attorneys were Alliston and Locke, and they
asked him to become a shareholder in the undertaking,
respecting which there was a Bill before Parliament. Gen-
tlemen, one of the questions you will have to consider will
be whether Mr. Richards was the originator of the
scheme. Xpu will find there was not the smallest pre-
tence for tEat assertion. He took forty shares, and
paid the deposit of 1001. on them. Gentlemen, Mr.
Richards did not traffic in these shares, and speculate
on them, but kept them ; and the Bill passed and re-
ceived the Royal assent in the month of May, 1836.
Mr. Richards soon had reason to regret that he had
taken any shares at all. He found that it was a job.
He was called upon to support the Directors, who
wished to have a salary for themselves; he refused
to do so ; and from that time to the present
he has been continually in'opposition to the Directors,
for he found that it really was not a concern which
would prosper and could not be carried into effect.
But, gentlemen, there were others who had different
objects in view—the Surveyor had a bill to make up—
the Solicitors thought it for their advantage that the
concern should go on, and it did go on although ineffec-
reetlly. On the 28th of February last there was a
meeting of the Directors and Proprietors, and on the
following day, namely, the 29th of February, there
was published in The Suit newspaper the libel of which
‘.ee complain. It came forth in the shape of a report of
- a speech, supposed to have been delivered there by one
of the Directors of the name of Liggins. Now, gen-
tlemen, if such a speech had been made there would be
no justification to publish the calumnies uttered at a
meeting of the Proprietors of a Joint Stock Company.
But, gentlemen, you will find that Mr. Young lent
Idniself to the Directors—that he sent a reporter there
to take tlic proceedings, and published them on the
-.Settle of February, and again on the 2d of March,
which must be considered a great aggravation
of the injury. The libel is in these words, and is sup-
posed to he a speech of Mr. Liggins, one of the Die
rectors :—" Mr. Richards had complained of the litt'e
work that had been done (although he would observe
that they had hundreds of men employed), but he did
not pay his fair proportion of the expenses to
which he was legelly liable." Now, Gentlemen,
his name is there, as should have been the names of all
the psi ties who subscribed, because he had taken forty
shares before the Act was passed, but that he was the
originator of one of them is what I utterly deny. The
Learned Counsel then proceeded to read the libel :
" And notwithstanding that fact, Mr. Richards had
himself coolly gone into a Court of Law, and stated
in his affidavit teat he had reason to believe (he being
one of the originators of the Company) that such Com-
pany was a bubble Company, and that the Act was ob-
tained by gross fraud and misrepresentation, and that
there never existed any fair or reasonable intention of
carrying the pri,jected object to any useful purpose, or for
tie henefit of the Subscribers.—(Loud cr,e; of ' Hear,
near; ) Now Mr. Ikel ards way. a party to the appli-
cat:on to P.arlianient for the Act of Incorporation, and
it was t, be presumed that he was well acquainted with
all that hip] taken place, and it would Le for them to
determine whether they would receive the•e statements
from an individual who had gone into a Court of Law,
awe wing that to be true which he well knew to be false."
You have, therefore, Gentlemen, here brought forward
a direct charge of perjury, of judicial perjury, against
;Mr. Richards, that he made an affidavit in the case,
s,sating facts which lie wed knew to be talk, for which
he 'night be indicted, and, if convicted, would be liable
to be transported to Botany Bay. Gentlemen, a letter
was wrii`ten to the proprietor of The Sun, giving hire
nn opportunity, if he thought tit, of inquiring into and
correcting the misrepresentation which his publication
contained. No notice was taken of that letter. The
writ was sued out, and then, after the writ was sued
out, Mr. Young called at the office of Mr. Lowless,
the attorney for the plaintiff, and I should like to state
to you the conversation that then took place, and as I
believe it will be correctly proved to you. The de-
fendant, Mr. ;Young, said that he was an innocent party,
and had not published the libel from any malicious mo-
tives. Very well, if he had sent as he said, through in-
advertence a ieporter to the meeting, and if through
sonic indiscretion these calumnious expressions had been
introduced, and that Mr. Young was willing to- apolo-
gize, it might be a harsh thing to press the action against
him. Mr. Lowless required that the manuscript should
be given up, in order that the plaintiff might fix the Di-
rectors with the publication, and that then the action
would Lee stayed, as the plaintiff had no wish to put Mr.
Young to any expense. Nothing could be fairer than
such an offer. If Mr. Liggins had used these words
the plaintiff could not take an action against him for
having circulated such a slanderous matter all over the
empire, but he says to Mr. Young, give us up the ma-
nuscript and we shall let you go scot free. Mr. Young
said he would consider of the offer, and would call again
in a fortnight. Time was given him to consider of it and
to makeup his mind whether he would furnish the plaintiff
with the evidence, which would enable him to maintain
an action against those who were really the originators
of the libel. Gentlemen, Mr. Young did not call again,
and what is now the consequence. Is it that the libel
was published through inadvertence ? No, Gentlemen,
he now throws himself into the arms of the Directors,
and it is clear that we are now carrying on an action
against Limins, who is the real defendant in the cause,
and that Mr, Younhas been indemnified by the Di-
rectors. Instead ofieturuing in a fortnight he refused
to make any concession or explenatioe, and when
the action goes on he pleads a justification, which is in
reality en indictment for perjury against Mr. Richadre.
Now is that conduct in the proprietor of a newspaper
that deserves any indulgence. Mr. Young knew no-
thing of the disputes between Mr. Richards and the
Directors, and yet he came forward, when he had the
offer allowed to escape from the effects of the publica-
tion, to justify\it. Not only would he not give up the
means of tracing the libeller, but he himself became the
libeller in his own proper person, for he now brought
forward the charge against Mr. Richards. Now, what
do you think, gentlemen, is the justification ? It is no
less than this, that Mr. Richards had wilfully and know-
ingly take God to witness what he knew to be false,
and you are to say, gentlemen, whether he is guilty or
not. The justification amounts therefore to an indict-
ment
for w ifful and corrupt perjury on the part of Mr.
Richards. The libel stated that Mr. Richards was one.
of the originators of the Company. That was untrue.
It stated that &fr. Richards had made an affidavit that
the Company wag a bubble Company ; that the Act of
Parliament had been obtained by fraud ; and that there
never existed einy reasonable hope of carrying the object
out to the useful extent proposed. That was the affi-
davit which it was alleged .Mr. Richar,iS made, and then
here comes zhe assignment of perjury, w.hereas in truth
and in fact those statements were false, anel whereas in
truth and in fact the plaintiff at the time of making his
affidavit had no reason to believe that the Con. 'PeeY was
a bubble Company, or that the Act of Purlieu] IPt was
.
obtained by raise representation ; and whereas it 1 truth
and ia fact the plaintiff well knew that at the ti me he
made the affidavit in question, he was swearing ftslsely.
No indictnee nts for perjury could contain assign!. nents
more precise. than those—" He well knowing at the time
he made thee(' affidavits that he was swearing to that
which was false." Now I should like to know
whet lier
any attempt will be made to prove this justification. If 1
such an attempt should be made, I am prepared to mi ,et
it. I can show most distinctly, if the attempt is mac le,
that Mr. Richards was not one of the originators ,
the Company, that he was introduced, and took share
'S
while the Bill was before Parliament ; that front the 1;1
beginning he opposed what he considered to be the ism- ,
proper conduct of the Directors ; and with respect to
the manner in which the Bill was carried before 1-
Parli• I
merit, I am prepared to show how the subscription list ;s
had been woe up, who were the subscribers, and whethc r
they took .shares or not. lam also in a situation t:o
show how the subscriptions were filled up to com-
ply nominaly with the orders of the House of Lords ,
and I am pciepared to show that there were subscrib
•
who did this for the purpose of deceit. lam prepay ers
to show what amount was paid up, and what alsowa s
done with the money ; but at present I am content ,Ito
prove the conversation that took place between Air.
Young and :Mr. Loveless, and then we shall see whether
Mr. Young will prefer any indictment for the purpe see
of supporting • the charge he has had the hardihood to
prefer agaieest this individual. I really do think, with
great submission to the Court, that this is a case of
great aggravation, and I hope, gentlemen, that you will
think it to leg a case that ought to be visited with
MO, tig OA/Plat+
TherAdsd at the Stamp-office, showing that
tiv
...,
..., . , 747 A;,
.ci,l . proprietor of the newspaper, was
~,,, :s; ...,, ia,-,11; dfte d, and the paper of the 29th of
Fe
4,,hi:41 , _ .
5.,,..,-.ti 4 the
0 -teee es::: ee e,
xt,.....,
2d of March, -
ee were also proved
Awl a s