The Sun.
London, England, 1834-02-12 00:00:00

LIBEL.-EAGLE V. FROST.

The p!aintiff,-; gentleman Tit the bar, and a candidate
at the last general election for Bury St. Edmund's,
brought this action against the defendant, a printer in that
town, for the publication of handbills containing libels on
his character.

Sir J. SCARLETT said the plaintiff had to complain of
tw,) libels, but the first would not have been prosecuted.
It was published durial the heat of as el-ction, and would
not have been noticed if the defendant had not exhittited
a second after the election was over, and after a petition
against the return of the successful candidates had been
rjected by the House of Commons. The first libel was
dated the 3.1 of December, 1832. It charged Nlr. Eagle
with being a p reon of a litigious disposition. It stated
that he was at law with his brother, and was not ad-
mitted to the table of any respectable individual in
the county. Then, at the close of the election, when
Lord Charles A. Fitzroy and the Earl Jermyn had been
returned, the defendant published an article headed The
Portrait. It was disparaging, inasmuch as it charged
Mr. Eagle with having resorted to unworthy means to
become a representative. Sir J. Searlett did not con
rider these publica•ions in the light of common and ordi-
nary squihs at an election. which the good sense of every
candidate ought to consider a good joke. He was told
when he stood for Norwich that he had voted for the
Anatomy Bill (which he did not), and they said lie was
a " bloody Jemmy."—(Laughter.) He laughed at the
name himself. Such occurrences were common ; but in
this case th.ire was an attack on character which the
plaintiff was compelled to resist. The Learned Gentle-
man then called his witnesses.

Mr. KELLY, for the defendant, censured Mr. Eagle for
bringing this action. As a gentleman and a barrister he
must have known that his character miclit have been vin-
dicated at Bury St. Edmund's, yet he had thought proper
to tiling his cause into the county of Midiflesex. In the
articles published, at a time when Bury was inunilaeal as
it were by election squibs, there might be some words
which might appear in this C oat very strong ; but the
Jury were to consider that these papers were written in
moments of excitation, when one party attacked the other.
He should contend, that more severe things than any
found in these papers had been published by Mr. Eagle
against his Tory opponents. Publications sufficient to
fill a book had been arranged by Mr. Frost. It was im-
puted to Mr. Eagle, that he was riot qualified to sit in
Parliament—thiit he had not landed property to the
amount of 300/. a year; and that was not a libel. There
tea, another part of the paper which alluded to the fall or
Mr. Eagle ; but could there be any thing more absurd
than to notice such trash ? Suppose at the election fur
Norwich some one had called his friend Sir J. Scarlett a
pale, thin, ghastly-looking person—(Laughter)—would
his Learned Friend have notice I such nonsense? The
fact was, it was impossible this libel could have injured
Mr. Engle, who was as much respected in the town of
Bury as ever lie was.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages twenty shillings.
IMPORTANT CAiE.—CORDING V RALLANTINE.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is a
pawnbroker, against B dlantine, Esq., one of the
Magistrates of the Thames Police-office, for false im-
prisonment. This case excited great interest at the time.
Our relders will recollect that in the latter end of 1832
the house of the plaintiff, woo carried on business as a
pawnbroker at Ratcliffe-highway, was destroyed by fire,
as well as an immense number of pledges. Amon4st the
property so destroyed was a gun belonging to a Mr.
Courtney. Tne owner called on the plaintiff, who said
it was destroyed. Mr. Courtney then went before Mr.
Ballantine, and the case was herd at the Thames police
office, which ended by the plaintiff refusing to make any
compensation. Mr. nallantme then made an order for
!be payment of 3/. 9s. On Mr. Cording refusing to
comply, an order for his committal was made out, and
Mr. Cor.ling was sent to the House of C'orreetion, where
he remained from the 12th to the 15th of November,
when he was discharged by an Habeas Corpus issued
from the Court of King's Bench.

Sir J. SCA RLETT, for the plaintiff, contende'd that none
of the clauses of the various Acts telaiive to pawohrokerb
autli,r;sed the defendant to commit for non-payment on
an order, and al.o that it was the duty of the defendant to
allow an appeal to the Quart,r Sessions. An " amende,"
under the Act of Parliament for the protection of lagis-
trates, had been of .red but deelin,(l.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL addressed the Jury on be-
half of the detend int.

Mr. Justice PATrESON summed up, and the Jury found
a verdict for the plaiutiff—D.im.tges, 1301.

In the case of the " King v. Montprivat and Stock-
dale ' the judgment of the Curt wee postponed.

- - -
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FEB. 11.

VISCOUNTESS KIRKWALL U. FART.

This was an action fur libel. Mr. Sergeant STORMS
conduced the plaintiff's case; the defence by Mr. Ser-
geant WILDE.

The Learned Sergeant for the plaintiff said that his
noble client was the widow of the late Lord Kiikwall.
and had been living at the house of her mother, Lady De
Blaquiere, in Pall-mall. The defendant at that time was
a medical assistant to a Mr. Feggart in that neighbour-
hood, and by some means or other he contrived to ingra-
tiate himself into her Ladyship's favour, who subsequently
assisted him to acquire that knowledge of his profession as
to entitle him to become a member of it. Her patronage
was not withdrawn until she found the defendant un-
worthy of it, having discovered that he had been libelling
her character. The libel fur which the present action
was brought was contained in a letter addressed to Lord
Orkney, her Ladyship's eldest son. It was couched in
the following terms:—

" Bruton.street, Aug. 24, 1830.
"My Lord,—l owe it to your Lordship and myself to say,
that if your mother continues in her present line of conduct
she must, ere long, arrive at utter ruin. She is about to leave
her mother's house, and is about taking one with a woman
whose character is anything but respectable; in fact, she is
surrounded by very bad people. It would take up much time
and space to enter into the particulars of her late proceedings.
They call loudly fur the interposition or control of somebody.
It is ra nfal beyond everything to be obliged to write this, but I
see no hope of amendment ; on the contrary, she is pursuing
a mode of life now, that, to say the least of it, is far from re-
spectable in a female. It distresses me greatly, my Lord, to be
compelled to write this to you; but, failing in my endeavours
to bring her to a proper sense of her situation, I have no alter-
native. Her little maid is going to leave her. I know not
what to say. Is there a probabi ity of your Lordship being
soon in London ? If not, I shall in my next letter enter into
some particulars of her proceedings, but there is much I cannot
write.—l have the honour to subscribe myself your Lordship's
obedient servant. " E. J. FAIIY."

His Noble Client, on discovering this letter, telt it her
duty to institute the present proceeding, in order to clear
her character from the aspersions east upon it.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE, for the defendant, did not mean
to deny that the letter was not written by the defendant,
but it was the private and confidential communication of
the defendant, as the medical attendant on the plaintiff, to
her son, Lord Orkney, as to the state of his mother's
health. It was a m Ater of painful notoriety, that Lady
Kirkwall had been, since the death of her husband, in a
state of considerable excitement, or rather labouring under
a delusion respecting him. She fancied that he was still
alive, and that she was suffering under some great afflic-
tion, and that many persons in high authority had the
power of relieving her, if they chose. She had totally
alienated herself from her family. This delusion increased
to such a degree, that she constantly required medical ad-
vice, and Mr. Filay, the defendant, was in constant at-
tendance upon her, as well as in constant communication
with Lord Orkney, her Ladyship's eldest son, on the
subject ; anti the letter in question was not written from
malice, but in the kindest and most confidential character.
Mr. Sergeant STORKS was heard in reply.
His LORDiHIP was of opinion, that unless the letter
could be proved to be entirely false, er written from ma•
lice, the plaintiff must be called.
Anna Maria Viseountess Kirkwall was then called in
the usual form, and nonsuited.

On Wednesday week the first seam of coal,
three feet nine inches thick, was won at Toornley colliery,
the property of Sir Wm. Chaytor and Co., at the depth
of 86 fathoms.—Newcastle Courant.