The Sun.
London, England, 1834-02-14 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, FEB. 14.

(Before Lord LTNDH U UST and a Special Jury )
COLBURN ?ATMORE.

Mr. FOLLETT stated the case. This was an action to
recover compensation for the injury which the plaintiff
sustained in consequence of A libel which appeared in the
Court Journal, of which the defendant W,IR editor. Mr.
C lburn, well known as an extensive publisher, estahlished
the Curt Journal in 1829. Shortly afterwards the
defendant was appointed editor of it ; but, after some
time, in consequence of a disagreement between them, be
ceased to he editor, and, in the spring of 1831, an agree-
ment was entered into between them that the defendant
should contribute articles towards the New Monthly
,Ifayazine, and receive six guineas a week for 12 months.
This agreement was entered into in May. In the
Oetotp-r following, in consequence of a vacancy having
..ecurred in the editorship of the Court Journal,
the parties entered into another agreement whereby

the defendant undertook the various duties of editor
if the Court Journal from the 12th of November
f, llowing, and devote all his time towards that object,
except such hours as were required to edit the County
Press, a weekly newspaper, of which he had then been
editor. He undertook to prepare the Court Journal for
the press, with due diligence, and to the satisfaction of
the plaintiff, and to supply one original article weekly, for
which be was to receive 101. a week, payable quarterly.
It was also part of the agreement that political controversy
or party politics should form no part of that journal, and,
of course, the plaintiff was anxious to avoid all libels of a
personal nature. In January, 1832, a paragraph appeared
in that journal, reflecting on the character of the Duchess
of Richmond, representing that she had eloped with an
officer of the Guards. From the Court Journal it
was copied into several newspapers ; and, as the pro-
prietors of such publications were responsible, both ci,
villy and criminally, for whatever appeared in thern,
a rule for a criminal information, at the instance of
the Duke of Richmond, was made absolute against Mr.
Colburn, whereby he was sentenced to pay a floe of 100/. td
the King, besides costs, which amounted to 93/. That libel
was printed from the manuscript of the defendant. The
excuse which he advanced for it was, that he had received
it from a Mr. Merle, who had been engaged by Mr. Col-
burn to furnish articles for the Court Journal. But Mr.
Merle did not send the article in question as news or fot
insertion; be merely sent it as a rumour to Mr. Patmore
in a letter, containing paragraphs for publication, and that
paragraph was headed private to distinguish it from the
rest. As the plaintiff had put confidence in the defendant,
and paid him liberally for his services, he had a right to
expect care, attention, and proper management from him ;
and as he bad incurred damages by the fine and costs,
through the mismanagement of the defendant, he had a
right to be indemnified.
Wm. Thomas was publisher of the Court Journal.
Heard the plaintiff cautioning the defendant to be careful
about inserting any libels in that paper.
Mr. Merle had been three or four years in the habit of
contributing political articles to the Court Journal.
Always sent them to Mr. Patmore. On the Friday even-
ing before the publication of the Court Journal he sent a
letter to him, containing this paragraph—" I suppose you

•
have heard the rumour of the unfortunate Duchess of
Richmond. I heard that she has eloped with a Captain
of the Guards. I fear that there is too much reason to
believe that it is true." This was headed private, which
implied that it was not intended for publication. Some
time after the publication I saw the defendant, who said
what a scrape you have brought me into. I replied you
had no business to publish the paragraph ; it was headed
private, which implied that it was not intended for publi-
cation. Mr. Patmore replied that he did not blame me.
I failed in dissuading the Duke of Richmond from pro-
secuting.
Cross-examined—Heard the rumour contained in the
saragraph from a person of high respectability on the day
I sent it to the defendant. I should not insert the para-
graph in question if it had been sent to me, without pre-
viously ascertaining the truth of it, particularly in the
present state of the law of libel.

Lord LYNDHURST—Without reference to the law of
libel, you should not publish such a calumny without
.atisfactory grounds.
Mr. Merle—Certainly not, unless it greatly interested
rule public. I was then editor of the Courier, and did
not insert the paragraph in it.
Mr. LEE submitted that the plaintiff should be non-
suited, as it appeared from the record put in that the plain-
tiff had been guilty of a criminal act, for which be was
tined.

The Jury, having deliberated for a short time, returned
a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 1931.

Lord LYNDHURST reserved leave for Mr. Lea to move
o enter a nonsuit.

PATMORE V. COLBURN.

Mr. PETERSDORFF opened the pleadings.

Mr. LEA, stated the case.—This was an action to re-
cover the sum of 207/. 125., being a balance claimed by
the plaintiff for literary services done for the defendant,

under a contract entered into between them on the 28th
of May, 1831, whereby they agreed that the plaintiff was
to perform various literary works to be thereafter indicated,
for the New !fonthly Magazine, fur which he was to
receive six guineas per week ; and, in case the plaintiff
should not perform his engagement by not contributing
towards the New Monthly Magazine an equivalent
to six guineas a week, the matter was to be referred

to two indifferent literary persons. The agreement
W3B binding on both parties for twelve months.—
Tne plaintiff continued to discharge his duties, pursuant
to the above agreement, until October, 1831, when a

vacancy having occurred in the editorship of the Court
Journal, the parties entered into another agreement,
whereby the plaintiff undertook the various duties of editor
of the Court Journal (to commence on or before the
12th of November following) and to devote all his time
Ind attention to the said publication, except the hours he
had already engaged to devote to the superintendence of
the Hertford County Press. This agreement was to
hind both parties fur a year from that period, and the
plaintiff was to receive 101. a week payable quarterly, as
a compensation for his services. The plaintiff continued
editor pursuant to the last agreement until January,lB33,
when he was dismissed in consequence of the libel against
the Duchess of Richmond. While he continued to edit
the Court Journal, he occasionally performed works for
the New Monthly, at the request of the defendant ; and
the real question in the present action was, whether he was
entitled to receive six guineas a week from November,lls3l,
when he commenced to edit the Court Journal, until
May, 1832, pursuant to the first agreement. The defendant
paid 311. 14s. into Court, so that the sum in dispute
as 1771.

The Jury having heard evidence, returned a verdict for
the plaintiff—Damages 1771.

PATMORE V. COLBURN.

We are requested to state that Mr. Colburn intends im-
mediately to move for a new trial in this cause.

CAUTION TO INNKEEPERS AND THE PUB-
Lic.—A person calling himself Pemberton, aged 25 or 26,
representing himself to be a traveller in the iron trade,
has been at various places (Derby, Burton-on-Trent, and
Unculn), and from whence, after incurring a bill at the
inns, he has decamped without paying. There is a strong
suspicion that at Lincoln he attempted other proceedings
at the Saracen's Head Inn, the waiter's drawers in his
bed-room being forced open, and eleven shillings stolen
therefrom. It is a singular circumstance that this money
is marked with the letters W. V., and numbered. This
took place on Sunday last about three o'clock, and he
went away immediately afterwards. He stands 5 feet
S inches, dark complexion, prominent nose and chin, thin
visage, dark whiskers, slender in figure, slightly marked
with the small-pox, and a small scar or other mark on one
cheek ; is dressed in black coat and waistcoat, and dark
grey trousers. He had leeches applied to the right foot at
Lincoln.

At the Sheriffs' Court, in Red Lion-square,
Wednesday, au action was brought by a fashionable tailor
against an auctioneer's apprentice, to recover 41. IU for
work and labour done in making him a pair of trous:rs
with " silk linings and padded calves I" It was stated,
in evidence, that the thin-legged and very hopeful ap-
prentice was only in his sixteenth year ; and his frittds
resisted the claim on the ground of his minority, and that
the padded trousers were not necessary for him. The
Jury, however (having viewed the lad's legs, probably),
returned a verdict for the tailor for the full amount.

ABSENTEEISM.—It is most lamentable to
o',serve the extent to which aristocratical emigration is
at this particular time going. We happen to know that
the letters of credit granted to English continental tra-
vellers by the to o provincial Linking houses in the west
eod of London, exceed this year, both in number and
v rine, by more than a half those of any preceding year !
—Quarterly Review.
On Saturday the appeal of M. Armand
Carrel to the Court of Cassation against the competency.
of the Court of Assizes to decide upon the question of
the identity of the National with the Notional de 1831
came on to be argued. The Court took four hours to
deliberate upon its decision, and delivered a judgment
against the appeal, and confirming the comp,tency of the
C mill of Assizes in the matter in que-rii,n.—Fren.li
Paper.