The Sun.
London, England, 1834-02-10 00:00:00

LIABILITY OF NEWSVENDERS FOR THE CONTENTS OF A PAPER

DICAS V. ONWHYN,

The pleadings in this case were opened by Mr. GUNNING.

Mr. Sergeant BOMPASS stated the case. He said that though
the case was one of libel, it was brought against the defendant
for publishing merely, but as he proceeded to lay the case be-
fore the Jury, he trusted they would discharge from their minds
all notice of any former actions, and try that case as it stood
on the record. If it had been the case of a newsvender
selling a paper in the ordinary course of his trade, he
(Mr. Sergeant Bompass) would have considered it a very
hard case; but here it was the case of a man still conti-
nuing to sell a paper after he had received notice of its
general character for libelling, nay, he had sold a particular
paper after notice had been given him that it actually contained
a libel, and therefore, having thus made himself liable to the
penalties of the law, must abide by his own acts. The libels now
complained of were to be found in the Satirist. Had that paper
been one of merely a political character, that action would
never have been heard of; but the very name of the paper
told what it was, and ought to have rendered defendant cautious.
If it had been confined to satire, in the proper acceptation
of the word, to a fair and just satire upon public men, then
there would have been no cause or ground of complaint. But
the word bore another meaning, and if any one read the libel,
they would at once see that that was the one which the editor
of this paper put upon it. It was, in fact, a paper started
upon a speculation, and it had forced for itself a very large cir-
culation by base and cowardly attacks, without limit, upon the
character of private individuals. If a man willingly sold a
paper of such a sort, and after a notice given him to that effect,
he had no right then to complain of hardship in being brought
before the Court. The libel complained of, was contained
in the Satirist of the 9th September, 18.32, and arose out of a
transaction in which the plaintiff had no more to do than
merely his duty. Sometime before the present• libel appeared,
a person named Bluck had felt aggrieved at some attacks upon
him in the same paper, and employed Mr. Dicas as his attorney
to prosecute the parties at the Westminster Sessions by indict..
ment for the libels. It was for merely doing his duty in his profes.
sional character, which he was bound to do, that a series of the
most atrocious libels appeared against him from week to week.
He (Mr. Sergeant B.) had already had his share of abuse
from them; no doubt his Lordship, if his conduct should not
please them, would also come under the lash, and if the Soli-
citor-General should fail in obtaining a verdict, neither would
he escape. The Learned Sergeant then read the libels of
the 9th of September, in which the prosecutors of the paper
were called " our worthless and degraded enemies, whose stock
in trade was perjury, conspiracy, plunder, depravity, &c."
It was a very long article and all in the same strain, and was
headed " Ourselves, the Gamblers, and the Black Sheep."
The Learned Sergeant continued—lt was easy by a little
perjury for the Editor of a Paper to escape—in that in-
stance, a man of straw, not worth a farthing, was found,
who was put forth as the responsible person ; formerly a person
named Thompson was the ostensible man, but when a verdict
was found against him, then to prison he went and not a
farthing of reparation was ever obtained—the paper changed
hands and the same abuse was carried on; now a woman was
put forth as proprietor, he supposed in the hopes that
she would not be sent to prison. It might be said, " You
have the property to seize," but no, there again things
were so managed that that was impossible—the paper was
printed by hired type that was not available, the paper was
sent in over night, and before the morning was distributed
amongst the newsvenders. Then what other course had the
plaintiff open to him than to put a stop to the sale of the
paper in which he was so abused? For that purpose, on the 31st
Aug., he had caused a printed handbill to be distributed amongst
all the venders of papers, warning them of the consequences
of selling a paper containing libels, and telling them of the
bills which had been found at Westminster ; yet, o 4 the very
Sunday after, the defendant had up by the side of his door
what was called a broadside, which was the placard of contents,
announcing the Satirist for sale, and in it, in large letters,
was this, " Law devils, Dicas again and again." The defend-
ant, and this was after the notice, could not have gone out
of his door without seeing that libel. The parties had always
plenty of money to defend themselves, but when compensation
was awarded by a jury, there was not a farthing
forthcoming. What other course could the plaintiff take after
such repeated failures in getting redress, and while the libels
were still continued, than to do as he now did, bring forward an
offender who had so grossly insulted him in sending forth
such gross libels after such repeated warning as had been
given him? The question then came to this, " What compen-
sation would the Jury give to that man who had been so held
up to the world as plaintiff had been—a man who had acted as
defendant had done ?" for no other way was left for a stop
being put to the series of libels which the paper weekly sent
forth. The Learned Sergeant then read and commented
upon the other libels which were contained in the same
paper of the 14th July, 1833, and the 26th January of
the present year. He concluded by calling upon the Jury to
give such exemplary damages as would put a stop to so vile a
persecntion, the more especially as from all former verdicts, the
plaintiff had never recovered a single farthing either of the
damages or costs.

John Dicas, sworn—Was son of the plaintiff, whose family
at the time of the libels consisted of four daughters and two
sons. On the second of September last year he went to the
" Satirist" office and distributed the printed caution to every
one who went in, and served one on the defendant about eight
o'clock that morning. On the 9th he went to defendant's shop,
where he saw a broadside of the Satirist on the front of the
shop, and he bought from a woman in it a paper which con-
tained the libel complained of.
Cross-examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL—Knew that
plaintiff was a general news-vender, and had seen all sorts of
Sunday papers in his shop, and there were many broadsides
put up alongside of that for the Satirist. He bought the
Satirist on that day, by his father's directions, from four or five
other persons. His father had not brought a tenth part of 84 ac-
tions, but had heard him say so. On the Monday went round to
all the newspaper-venders with notices not to sell the Satirist,
but he did not attempt to buy any. His father had prac-
tised in Holywell, in Flintshire, before that in Manchester, and
again afterwards had come to practice in London in 1825 and
1826. Never heard him say that he had spent three years in a
particular building at Lancaster. A newsvender named Goldwin,
also one named Warne, were in goal for this libel. The latter
hadbeen five months in prison, and Goldwin went up to-day to
take the benefit of the Act. His father had been once bank-
rupt and once took the benefit of the Act. Mr. Lewis had lent
plaintiff 1001., and the judgment against the Satirist had been
left with him.

Re-examined by Sergeant BOMPASS —His father had suc-
ceeded in three actions, but had never got one penny of the
verdicts.

Frederick Pont purchased the Satirist of the 14th of July,
at Mr. Onwhyn's shop.

Cross-examined--Was an attorney. There was no connec-
tion between him and Dicas. He had known him twelve or
fifteen months.

Benjamin Crowther purchased a Satirist of the 26th of Jan.
last at defendant's shop. Had been at the shop since, and he
continued to sell the Satirist.

vv
Cross-examined—Was a coal and potatoe merchant. Mr.
Dicas had a case of his in hand, and he asked him to buy
the paper.
Napoleon Aldridge proved that Dicas was an attorney on
the rolls of the King's Bench since 1803. It was also proved
that he was admitted of the Exchequer and the Pleas.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL then rose to address the jury for
the defendant, lie said he was under considerable embarrass-
ment, fur he had never addressed a jury in a more Important
cause. He agreed with his Learned Friend the Ser-
geant, and rejoiced to hear it from him, that there
was no tribunal so fit for the case as a jury ; and he also trusted
that that he had the honour of addressing would show to the
country a display of right feeling. When he heard the stre-
nuous exertions of the Sergeant, he almost blushed for
him, for there was not a more honourable man at the bar
and but few more talented—but yet he appeared there as the
representative of a man, and a cause, for whom and which, in
his heart, he must blush. He was acting in the discharge of
his duty as became an advocate, but he (the Solicitor-General)
was sorry that that duty had been as painful as it must have
been—as it was to him, to see any member of. the profession to
which he belonged so engaged.

Mr. Sergeant Bompass interrupted the Learned Solicitor_
General, and avowed that his feelings were in perfect unison
with the case.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was still more sorry that it had
come to that pass, that a man who was so honourable shou'd
feel it his duty to enlist his feeling in a cause which every man
but himself must consider infamous—that an advocate shoul,
so entirely absorb himself in a cause as to forget both the feel_
ings of a man and a gentleman, and pledge his own private
sentiments for those of his client, and that in a cause which,
if he was not engaged in, he would be the first to spurn at and
condemn.

Mr. Sergeant BOMPASS very warmly appealed to the Court