The Sun.
London, England, 1834-11-07 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

DICAS V. HARMER AND BELL.
• This was an action for libel, tried before the Lord Chief
Justice, at the late Assizes for Surrey, held at Kingston, when
a verdict was found for the defendant.
Mr. PLATT now moved for a rule to show cause why the
verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial had, on the
ground of its being perverse. The Learned Gentleman said
the plaintiff had been grossly libelled, for a long time,
in a Sanday newspaper, in order to put a stop to which
he found it necessary to bring actions against several
newsvenders. From that time the press generally
made a set at him, and none were more virulent in
their abuse than the paper belonging to the defendants. In
the Dispatch, they published what purported to be a report
of the trial of Dicas v. Onwhyn, and then they took occasion
to give circulation to several most gross and foul libels upon
the plaintiff. For that an action was brought, and the only
plea put on the record was the general issue, so that in fact
they, by so doing, admitted that the report of the proceed-
ings were not fairly given. On that occasion the jury gave a
verdict for 501. They again published what they called a re-
port of the proceedings o the day at Kingston, in which the
libels were all most carefully set out. The plaintiff was spoken
of as the " well known Dicas, an attorney and gentleman by
Act of Parliament," Mr. and gentleman being printed in italics.
they also further said, " they were very much obliged to the
poor devil Dicas, for through him and his actions they would
most undoubtedly obtain a mitigation of the accursed libel
laws. Thus great ends were sometimes brought about by the
most unworthy instruments." The defendants in that case
had not dared to plead that the report was fairly given. They
again pleaded the general issue, yet the Jury had found that
these were not libels upon the plaintiff. He doubted whether
the Court would agree with them in opinion, and trusted they
would send the case again before a Jury.
The COURT inquired in what way the Lord Chief Justice
directed the Jury ?
Mr. PLATT said the Learned Judge asked the Jury whether
in publishing these things the defendants intended to defame the
plaintiff. He contended the Jury had mistaken their powers,
for the act which gave them the right to judge of the law as
well as the matter Of a libel, was confined to criminal cases,
and did not extend to civil actions. He further contended
that the verdict was a severe one, and ought not to stand.
The COURT consulted a short time and examined the paper
containing the alleged libel.
Lord LYNDHURST then asked the learned gentleman whether
it would be worth while for the plaintiff to pay the costs of the
former trial, in order to have the case sent to another jury.
Mr. PLATT trusted that the Court would not think he ought
to be bound by such a condition, for there could be no doubt
of the verdict being a most perverse one.
Lord LYNDHUNST said the Court were of opinion that the
better way would be for both parties to agree that a juror
should be withdrawn.
Mr. TUESSIGER, for the defendants, said at that time he was
not instructed either to agree or dissent from the suggestion
thrown out by the Court.