The Sun.
London, England, 1833-11-18 00:00:00

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

Mr. Justice PARK, ➢lr. Justice TAUNTON, and Mr.
Justice PATTFSON alone took their seats on the Bench.
The Loan CHI EF JUSTICE was absent.

The new trial paper having been called on,

Mr. Justice J. PARKE said the Lord Chief Justice had
directed that no new trials should be taken to-day which
had been before him on the Circuit, or at the last London
Sittings.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL inquired if it was likely that
his Lordship would be in Court at all to-day ?
Mr. Justice J. PARKE—No ; be has gone to Brighton,
to attend a Council ; he gave notice on Friday, that none
of the cases which he tried should be taken to-day.
The new trials belonging to the Oxford Circuit were
then taken, none of which possessed anything of the
slightest public interest.

BAIL COURT.--(THIS DAY.)

PALMER V. TILE HUNGERFORD MARKET COMPANY.

Mr. WORDSWORTH applied for a rule calling on the
Hungerford Market Company, to show cause why a man-
damus should not issue commanding them to summon a
jury to assess the value of the interest of John Palmer in
the Globe public-house, and certain tolls taken by him
at the stairs leading to the river Thames, all which
were required by the Company under their Act of
Parliament. The application had originally been
made by Mr. I-Iw, when the Court ordered the rule to
be enlarged as to certain points, and to be granted as to
others. The Learned Counsel now moved either to amend
that rule, so as to extend to every part of the claimant's
loss, or to have a rule calling on the Hungerford Mar-
ket Company to show cause why the mandamus should
not issue. The applicant was one of the tenants at will,
under the Rev. Mr. Wyse, the proprietor of the Hunger-
ford Market Estate, and it was formerly contended that
the good-will of such tenants was not such a vested
interest as called for compensation, but since then the con-
trary had been decided in several cases. The Company
had latterly, however, so far recognised the applicant's
claim as to offer 100/, but the demand of the claimant
was 9001.

His Lordship (Mr. Justice LITTLEnaLE) granted a rule
Nisi.

GLINNON V. LORD RANELAGII.

On a former day a rule was applied for in this case,
permitting a copy of the declaration to be di-emed good
service on the defendant if it were stuck up in the King's
Bench office, in consequence of Lord Ranelagh having
left his regiment, which was stationed at Knightsbridge
Barracks, and gone abroad, and having no town residence.
The rule was then refused owing to a non-sufficiency of
inquiry as to the probable residence of the defendant.
Mr. fluTcHEsoN now renewed the application. The
defendant bad been personally served with the original
process at his barracks, and was now abroad, no one
knew where, and it was not known when be would re-
turn. Oa the first application at his mother's residence
no information could be obtained of him, and on a sub-
sequent application it was ascertained that the mother
had also gone abroad. An inquiry was then made at the
Adjutant-General's office, where no information could be
obtained, except that the defendant had leave of absence
from his regiment.
His LORDSHIP said, as the case came under the new
rules of practice, the motion had better be made before
a full Court.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

(Sittings in Banco.)
HAYME It V. REDSDALE.

This was an action by the endorser of a bill of ex-
change against the acceptor, tried on Wednesday last
before Mr. Justice Park and a Middlesex Jury, when a
verdict was bad for the plaintiff for 650/.
Mr. Sergeant LUDLOW now moved for a rule
to show cause why that verdict should not be
set aside, and a new trial had, upon payment of
costs, on the ground of the verdict being against the
presumption to be raised upon the evidence adduced on
both sides. The parties to the cause were all well known
in the sporting world, and the bill on which the
action arose was given by the defendant for the ac-
commodation of another sporting character of the
came of Ford, who was the drawer of the bill, which was
dated Aug. 8, 1828, and became due on the 11th of Nov.
in the same year. The evidence for the plaintiff was
confined on the trial to the proof of the acceptance of the
bill being in the handwriting of the defendant, but on
his behalf the drawer, Mr. Ford, was examined,
and proved that the bill bad been accepted for his
accommodation, and that he himself had been in the habit
of accommodating the plaintiff with his acceptances, and
produced bills to the amount of 1,7001. He also deposed
that he had settled his account with the plaintiff, and in
that account he had included the bill in question, and, in
fact, had on that settlement given the plaintiff his bond
for 1,000/., with the collateral security of a policy of
insurance on his life, both of which he produced on the
trial. The Learned Sergeant stated, that Ford said that
the bill in question was most decidedly included in that
settlement.
Mr. Justice PARK—But the Jury did not believe a
word that the witness said. Though he waa at first de-
cided as this and saveral other facts, yet when he came
to be sifted, his decision was completely shaken. I have
no hesitation in saying that if the trial should come on
again before me, I would tell the jury not to believe
him on his oath.
Mr. Sergeant LUDLOW said that he did not think the
evidence of the witness was falsified by anything that ap-
peared in evidence, but rather shaken by his manner of
giving his testimony. But putting his evidence out of the
question, he would rely on the great lapse of time during
which the demand had laid dormant, and upon two

documents which he bad proved on the trial which went
to raise an inference that the defendant was d stbarged by
plaintiff from all liability on toot of the bill. TI ose
documents bore date some time in 1831, and were re•
apectively a receipt in the handwriting of the plaintiff to
the defendant for the sum of 4751., the purchase money of
a race horse and a filly, and the other was a bill of ex-
change for 700/.

The COURT considered that the question was one en-
tirely for a jury, and had already been fully commented
upon before a jury. It did not appear either that the
verdict was wrong, or that any new facts could be adduced
before another jury, and on these grounds the rule must
lie refused.--Rule refused.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

(gittings in Banco.)
PENNELL V. I.nWSON.

This case came before the Court this morning upon a

demurrer to the defendant's plea.
Mr. PLATT read the plea, from which it appeared, that
;n an action tried before Lord Tenterden, in which

Johnson was plaintiff and the late Lord Foley was
defendant, when sitting at Nisi Prizes, Mr. Camp.
bell, now Solicitor-General, appeared as counsel for
the defendant, and made a motion for the postponement
of the trial, in support of which lie read an affidavit
from Lord Foley, stating that the action was brought for
the recovery of a bill for 2501., of which he was the
acceptor, but which, along with other eight bills, had been
got from him by a person named Alvis, from whom he
received no consideration further than 8001., the amount
of the bills being upwards of 6,0001. ; that the bills had
gone through various hands, none of whom had given
value for them; that among others who had had them was
the present plaintiff, who he stated to be a notorious swin-
dler, and that he was keeping out of the way for the purpose
of avoiding being subpcened by him, Lord Foley. A reportof
the application appeared in the Times, in which the state-
ments of the affidavit were contained, and for that the
present action was commenced. The defendant pleaded a
justification, and th tt the report was a fill, fair, and
impartial one of what was said in Court on the occasion.
Mr. HUTCHINSON appeared for the plaintiff, and took
several objections to trifling variations between the justi-
fication and the libel, which were overruled by the Court,
who said, it might be a full, fair, and very impartial
report, and yet such slight discrepancies appear. It was
in the nature of the thing that such should happrli.
Mr. HUTCHINSON then said the libel, after setting out
Lord Foley's affidavit, stated that he was supported by an
affidavit from the attorney to the same effect.
The LORD Cum' BARON read over the plea delivered

in to the Court, and decided that " to the same effect"
applied merely to the last branch of the affidavit of Lord
Foley.
Air. HUTCHINSON—Then we come to the principle
which the Court has now to decide—whether the defendant
had a right to publish such defamatory matter, even though
it was said in Court. The report might have been fair
had all the facts in the case been reported, and those gra-
tuitous slanders with which Lord Foley had thought it
proper to interlard his affidavit. Even if a party was
before the Court, it was a question whether any slander
spoken of him could be reported, but he conceived that as in
this case where the party spoken of was merely a third
party, and not before the Court, so as to have an oppor-
tunity of replying to it, the question was clear, that no such
right existed. Coun,el and other parties in Court were
privileged to say anything that properly belonged to

the cause, but he contended that that privilege
ceased with the occasion, and even the Coun-
sel had not a right to repeat any libellous or
scandalous matter after the cause had been disposed
of, and if such was the case, hew much stronger
did it apply to the case of a reporter who gave it to the
whole world. In the King's Bench, in the case of the
King v. Carlile, their Lordships had decided that it was
not justifiable to publish anything that was said even in
open Court that was at all either defamatory, slanderous,
or blasphemous—that case was reported in the 3d Barn-
well and Alderson, page 167, and it decidedly said that
even a correct account of a case of such a nature was
unlawful, The Learned Counsel also cited the cases of
the King v. Levy, and Flint v. Pike; the latter was
reported in 4th Barnwell and Alderson, 476, and there
Mr. Justice Bayley said, assuming that it is lawful to
publish such reports, is it so to publish anything which is
injurious or hurtful to an individual ? He knew no case

that his Learned Friend could cite but that of Currie v.
Walter, but there, though the Chief Justice Eyre had
expressed a strong opinion of the legality of such reports,
still no decision had been come to. That, he believed, was

the only authority on thst side.
The Lulu) CHIEF BARON inquired whether there was
not a case in the Bth Term Reports where Mr. Justice
Lawrence had recognised that decision, and was not the
opinion delivered by Chief Justice Eyre also recognised
by the full Court?
Mr. HuTcHiNsorr said that certainly that case existed,
but in bis opinion it did not amount to a decision. Even

if it were lawful to publish the facts stated by a
witness, still it could not be allowed that statements

like those which were quite extra judicial should be put
on the s,me footing ; fur if so, every man would be at
the mercy of the vilest creature on earth, who made an
affidavit to stay the trial of a cause in which he might be
engaged.
Lord LYNDHURST—Suppose a witness were to say
that he would not believe a man on his oath, that was
the strongest libel that could be uttered—would it be a
libel to report such a case as that? If the arguments
that you have advanced are to be held good, every re
porter will require to be a sound lawyer, in order to
decide whether he was reporting what was material to the
cause or not.

Mr. HUTCHINSON said, if a reporter put himself in such
a situation he must take the consequences. No witness
could have asserted such statements as were contained in
the affidavit, theret,it he hope:: their Lordships would
allow the d,murrer. _

Mr. PLATT said, the question involved one of the most
important points relative to the administration of justice
that bad ever been argued in that Court. He would ad-
vance it is a general rule, that whatever took place in a
public Court, to which the whole of his Majesty's sub-
jects had the right of access, was a fair subject for publi-
cation. For the publication of those proceedings was no
more than, as it were, extending the results of
that Court to all the readers of the paper
in which it appeared. If their Lordships were to say,
that what took place in that Court was not to be pub-
lished, it would be the same as to say, that all his Majesty's
subjects, who lived without the verge of that Court, were
never to bear anything of their proceedings. The
proceedings in question took place in a public Court
sitting at Nisi Prius, and the questio❑ now to be decided
was, whether the trial should be reported or not; for
here the affidavits on both sides were read ; they were quite
relevant to the case, and came before the Court sanctioned
by the oath of the parties making them. Then as to the
question of the materiality of the report relative to
the case; as to that he would only ask, whe-
ther a reporter was expected to be a hater lawyer
than many of their Lordships; for if their Lordships
decided against him, if it did not er.iirely put a stop to re-
porting, it would require the reporter to decide questions
which sometimes gave great difficulty to the Judges, and
supposing he was required to do so, would his report be
either full, fair, or impartial ? It could not be so. if he
was required to select those parts of a case, which,
in his judgment, would save him from the law
of libel. It would be a garbled report, and as
such open to be much found fault with. A report of
a public Court bore no analo:.y at oil to that of the two
Houses of Parliament. The puhiic had no right to enter
them, but to be present in that Court their right was
clear. That disposed of the two cases cited by his
Learned Friend. In the case of " Curry v. Walter,"
it was quite clear that the Court was satisfied of
the legality of reporting. The full Court had entirely
concurred in what fell from Chief Justice Eyre, and
the case, on demurrer, only fell to the ground on
some technicalities. He would suppose the case of one
man saying of another he has picked my pocket. That
case comes on to be tried in Court, and the plaintiff gets
damages. Yet the reporter must not touch that
case, for he cannot give a full, fair, or impartial
report without repeating the libel. In that case the
reading world is to be deprived of what to them
would be both amusement and instruction, and the
man whose character was attempted to be taken away
has been now avenged by the damages ; still, if their
Lordships decided against him, the papers must
not touch one single word of it. In the case of
Flint and Pike, it was the form of the plea that
was principally objected to ; it was not objected
that the libel was in substance a true and faithful account
of the proceedings of the trial ; the defamatory matter
of which the plaintiff complained was part of the speech
of Counsel.

Mr. Baron BAYLIY—Yes, there the libel was
not written but oral, and might have died away very soon.
Mr. PLATT—Counsel were privileged in uttering de-
famatory matter, yet their privilege did not extend so far
as to allow him to impute crimes to any man, entirely
arising out of his own head. The case here was very
different, the very matter complained of was necessary.
Publicity of ithe proceedings of Courts of Law were

of the first importance, not only to the pablie, but
the administration of justice. Suppose any reporter
was present that day in Court, whose duty it woul
he to report that c,igir, if their Lordships should
decide that his Learned Friend's argument was right,
he could not give publicity to one word that had been said,
nor would he dare to publish their Lordships' judgment on
the occasion. Their ought to be some known law, by which
parties might know how far they might go. The rule ought
to be laid down in one way or another, then the press would
know what they could do with safety. There was no
pretence set up that any malice existed in this case,
for if the report was fairly done, it, rebutted that. H
trusted their Lordships would dismiss the demurrer, and
set at rest one of the most important privileges of the
public.
Mr. HUTCHINSON replied, and

The Loan CIIIFF BARON, after consulting a short
time with the othcr Jud,,,Q, said the question wa.
one of very general importance and extreme difficulty.
They would consider the point, and give judgment on
a future day.