The Sun.
London, England, 1846-07-30 00:00:00

LIBEL-HAMILTON V. HOUGHTON.

Mr. NORMAN opened the pleadings. In this case
Alexander Hamilton was the plaintiff; and John Hough-
ton the defendant. It was an action of libel. The li-
belous matter was a letter published in the Times paper,
on the 6th of April, 1846. The defendant pleaded the
general issue, a general justification, and also a special
justification. The damages were laid at 2,0001.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, who was brought down
special, stated the plaintiff's case. He said he was coun-
sel on behalf of Mr. Alexander Hamilton. Mr. Hamil-
ton was born in this county. He acts occasionally as
chairman at the sessions in the barony of Banagh. He
has been several times a grand juror of the county, and
he derives a livelihood by acting as agent for several
properties. He is agent to Mr. Brooke. He is agent,
also, to one of the most extensive landed proprietors in
the county—to Colonel Conolly, M.P. He believed
that none appreciated the service of Mr. Hamilton more
highly than Colonel Conolly ; but, high as he stands in
his estimation, if he is guilty of the foul deeds laid to his
charge in the I.bel, he would be compelled to scout from
his service, with ignominy and disgrace, the individual so
acting. Mr. Houghton was also known to them. He is
an Englishman. He resides in England, but, having an
agency in this county, he occasionally and periodically
visits Donegal ; and, according to the statement in the
libel, he is himself one of the largest occupiers of land in
the United Kingdom. On the 6th of April last there
appeared in the Times, in England, the publication which
his client complained of as a libel. It was headed "Irish
Jobbing," and it was addressed to the editor of the
Times. [The Learned Attorney-General then read the
letter.] The imputation appears to be distinctly this,
that Mr. Hamilton has, as a magistrate, in conjunction
with his principal, Mr. Brooke, drawn 651. a year of the
public money for six years, for roads that were never in
existence. Mr. Houghton also states that Mr. Hamilton
and Mr. Brooke were unworthy of the commission of the
peace. Mr. Hamilton was of course astounded when
this appeared in the newspapers, and he thought it was
the duty of a gentleman promptly to take notice of it.
He, of course, immediately determined to take proceed-
ings. But he first endeavoured to ascertain if it was
written by Mr. Houghton. Mr. Hamilton immediately
consulted his law agent ; and, on the 11th of April, five
days after the libel appeared, Mr. Wallace, the respect-
able solicitor, wrote to Mr. Houghton, to know if he
avowed the authorship. There being no reply from Mr.
Houghton, on the 27th of April Mr. Wallace wrote to
Mr. Murdock, defendant's solicitor, desiring to be in-
formed whether Mr. Houghton was the author of the
letter or not ; but there was no reply to that letter from
that day to this, and though they were prepared to prove
the fact, yet they were put to the enormous expense of
bringing over from London persons connected with the
Times office, to prove a fact which ought to have been
admitted if Mr. Houghton's motive was an honest one.
Up to the present hcur, nothing has been done by the
defendant to indicate regret for his conduct. On the
contrary, he has taken the course of perpetuating on the
record the charge he has made. This is an additional
aggravation of Houghton's guilt. His attention was
called to the matter. He was threatened with two ac-
tions, and he puts on the record that he has said nothing
but what is true.
Several witnesses were then examined on the part of
the plaintiff, amongst whom were Mr. A. Dobie, solicitor
to the Times, and Col. Conolly, M.P.
Mr. BROOKE then stated the case of the defendant at
considerable length. The Learned Cnunsel canvassed
the merits of the case very minutely, and denied that
there was any imputation cast on Mr. Hamilton, except
preferring Mr. Brooke's interests to the public good.
He likewise read two or three petitions and memorials to
Mr. Houghton, complaining of the mannerwhich the
nd
co of nAtnhft
the very
vreeetrhsyse
dweafseee t
vpe ended
stn
examinationte
of
oi the
wtheitnb
era
set.
saoedns
sy.
for o f
th the Banagh,
dae defence,
f
Judge Torrens charged the jury.
The jury then retired, and after remaining in delibe-
ration for about twenty-five minutes, returned into
court with a verdict for the plaintiff of 5001. damages,
and 6d, costs.

ROBBERY OF AN INSURANCE COMPANY.--The City
and Metropolitan police have been for the last two or three
days busily engaged in endeavouring to apprehend a clerk
belonging to the Imperial Fire and Life Insurance Company,
who has embezzled a very considerable amount of property
from the Company. Up to the time of this discovery the
accused had borne a most respectable character, and his
absence from the office was the sole cause of the Company
ascertainin their (yet unknovn) lose!