The Sun.
London, England, 1834-12-08 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DEC. 6.

(Before Lord Chief Justice DENMAN and a Common Jury.)
WINTER V. YOUNG, PROPRIETOR OF THE SUN NEWSPAPER.
Counsel for the Plaintiff, Mr. FOLLETT ; for the De-
fendant, the ATTORNEY-GENERAL and Mr. ALEXANDER.
Mr. FOLLETT stated the case. This was an action for
" by Thomas Winter, for many years keeper of
"-"'tern. He knew not whether the
-- formerly known by
• but he

libel

the CAstlo Tavern, riv.—

Jury We'fa MOO Aat the plaintitt _ •
the name of Spring, arid Wd§ at one time a boxe, ,
might state in the outset that it would appear from the de-
fence that the plaintiff was in a situation in which at 4 body
might libel him with impunity. That, however, was not
the law; and he was quite satisfied that the publication
complained of would be considered a libel, and that it could
not be justified by the laws of the country. Mr. Winter
was now between forty and fifty years old—
Lord DENMAN.—What is the libel affecting the plaintiff
in particular ? I see a great deal of abuse against boxers
generally, but nothing specific.
Mr. FOLLETT would come to that point presently.. The
plaintiff was married and had a large family, and he be-
lieved that in his present, as in every other situation, he
had borne a very respectable character as a man of integrity
and honesty, and in any station of life, either as a trades-
man, or as the father of a family, no man could impute any
thing improper to him. At one period of his life Mr. Win-
ter had been a boxer, but had since left off that profession,
or trade, or whatever it might be called. He now fills an-
other situation of life, and he was not to be libelled with
impunity, and held up as the companion of murderers,
thieves, and persons guilty of every species of enormity.
The libel complained of by Mr. Winter appeared in the
newspaper called 7%e Sun, and the article professes to be
copied from the United Service Journal. It sets out with
some account of prize-fighting, and nobody couldiread the
article without seeing that it imputed to Mr. Winter that
he was despicable in every situation in life ; that he had
been at least the companion of those who had committed
several crimes. It was, indeed, impossible to take the ar-
ticle into one's hands without perceiving that if the crimes
were not actually imputed to Winter, he was shown to be
the friend and companion of persons capable of any villany.
The learned counsel here read the introductory observations
of the Editor, which were prefiked to the article complained
of, as follows':—" The article on prize-fighting will be suffi-
cient to open the eyes of the few. dupes whom the cant of
its fostering English spirit' and manly courage' may still
impose upon. Tile whole is well worth reading, and the fol-
lowing extract, though long, will be read with pleasure."
Now he (Mr. Follett) would observe that it was no part
of his duty to contend that prize-fighting would foster Eng-
lish spirit and manly courage—on the contrary. At one
time prize-fighting was certainly much encouraged, but that
.
spirit was now gone by, and he (Mr. Follett) for one re-
joiced in the fact. But that was no defence of the course
adopted in the present case by the defendant. The learned
counsel proceeded to read from the article a " List of Prize-
fighters," which was headed, " Thurtell—hanged at Hert-
ford for the murder of Mr. Weare, his friend and brother-
gambler—was. a prize-fighter and patron of pugilism," and
concluded by stating that he was " the bosom friend of
Spring." There was no doubt that the plaintiff was the
person meant by the name of Spring. The article pro-
ceeds—" When under the gallows Thurtell turned from the
exhortations of the chaplain, and inquired eagerly if news
had arrived how the fight had gone (between Langan, the
Irish Champion, and Spring). Being told that Spring had
Won the fight, be replied, am glad of it, for Spring is a
good fellow.' What a complication of the ruling passion
and the honesty of friendship in the ring What a com-
pliment to the Champion of England" " If he rested his
case here; he thought he had stated sufficient to entitle him
to a verdict at the hands of the Jury. Here was a news-
paper of very great circulation, generally read and circulated
among the friends and neighbours of Mr. Winter, which
begins its article by describing the plaintiff as the bosom
friend of the murderer of his friend. The article goes on—
" The next murderers—convicted murderers—of the prize-
ring, are Bishop, the murderer or burker of the Italian boy,
his accomplices Williams and Harris, the attempting mur-
derer of a woman—all examples of the manly spirit pro-
duced by pugilism." The Jury must not suppose for a mos
ment that these charges were admitted to be true, but still
they were put as if they were true, and the plaintiff was
Charged with being the companion and friend of such cha-
racters. The learned counsel proceeded to read the alpha-
betical list, as follows :—" Adams, John, transported for
seven years. Allen, William, transported for seven years
for robbery. Ayres, Dick, twice transported."—(Laughter.)
Was it because these statements were so heedlessly made,
that the Editor of the newspaper should hold up the plaintiff
to public ignominy, as partaking of their crimes ? The
10-:,,ela tenor of the article was, if not to charge the plaintiff
with the; specific offences, at least to hold him up as des-
picable, wickea, And herding with the greatest mis-
creants. The learned co:7"11.
he came to " Spring, Torn, alias Thomas Winter, fought a
cross of notoriety with Painter. Vide'll.7t4ll* The "ob-
ject of this reference to Thurtell evidently was 1:0- connect
the• plaintiff with Thurtell and the crimes imputed to him.
It would be for the Jury to take the entire article into their
consideration, and he (Mr. F.) was quite satisfied they would
be convinced it reflected on plaintiff's character, and that be
was entitled to damages at their hands. It imputed to the
plaintiff a total want of all morality ; an indifference to all
right or wrong, and if it did not actually charge him with
having committed these crimes of murder and robbery, it
showed him as at least willing to share in the crimes im-
puted to his companions. The necessary inference would
be upon reading the article, that Spring was not better
than his companions. When this newspaper was brought
to Spring, and when the slander was read by his neighbours
and acquaintance, did it not become imperative upon him
to vindicate his character, more especially when he was
conscious that he had never been guilty of any of the
crimes imputed to him ? The plaintiff did not wish to bring
an action against the proprietor of the newspaper, and in
proof of this, he would state that he callel upon the pro-
prietor, and requested of him to publish an explanation,
stating that he meant no imputation upon the plaintiffs
moral character, but this was refused. Mr. Winter had,
therefore, no resource but to bring his case before that
Court, and he (Mr. Follett) asked the jury whether the
proprietor, having refused to make any apology, was not
bound to make him some compensation ? It would be for
them to say whether any newspaper Editor had a right .for
the purpose of selling his paper, to put forward articles,
charging respectable men with the commission of such
crimes. That the article was a libel they could not doubt
for a moment, and the only question was what amount of
damages they would award. The plaintiff's object in bring-
ing the present action was to make the defendant disclaim
having made any imputation on him—to convince the public
that an at ology was due to him,and to obtain that compensation
which he was entitled to for his wounded feelings. As the
defendant had refused to apologize, and had dragged the
plaintiff into a court of justice, the jury would, he trusted,
take care to make him pay proper damages for the injury
lie had inflicted upon the plaintiff's character. His learned
friend on the other side would probably allude to the ille-
gality of the profession to which Mr. 'Winter had formerly
belonged ; but be that as it might, the libel in question
was calculated to do the plaintiff, and his family injury,
in his present mode of living. He would ask the jury if
any one among them had seen his name among a
list of. murderers, pickpockets, thieves, &c., what would
their feelings be to, have such things said or written of
them ? Was not his client then entitled to some compen-
sation ? The defendant did not pretend to say that these
charges were true—he did not pretend to assert that the
plaintiff actually was the friend of the murderer Thurtell, or
ever even knew him—he had not ventured to do so—he dared
not do so.—He now left the case in their hands, and hoped
that they would give his client that fair and reasonable
compensation which would show the public that the elm-
ruler of a man in humble circumstances was not to be made
the sport of a newspaper Editor, and that he had as good a
right to seek for compensation as any other individual.
me ATTORNEY GENERAL, on the part of the defendant
admitted the proprietorship of the paper, and the copy of
the newspaper of the 3d January, 1834, in which the article
complained of had appeared.
The article, which was under the head " The Maga-
zines," was then read at length by the officer of the Court.
Thomas Stevens, sworn, and examined by Mr. Follett.
Is a -gun maker, resides in Holborn, and has been living
there for the last thirty years ; knows the plaintiff, Winter,
for seven or eight years past. Winter keeps the Castle
Tavern in Holborn. Visits Winter occasionally, and has
heard the article read. Believes that the article alludes to
the plaintiff. Winter is married, and has four children.
By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Witness knew Winter
when he was called the Champion of England.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then addressed the Jury for
the defendant as follows :—Gentlemen of the Jury, in the
course of my experience, I do not remember to have me.
with so vexatious an action brought against the proprietor
of a newspaper, as that which has just now been submitted
to you, and I am very much mistaken if you do not take
the same view of it as myself, and if you will not send
the plaintiff out of this Court without any imputation on
his character (for none whatever was intended), and de-
feated in his attempt to obtain damages where lie has sus-
tained no wrong. Gentlemen, I doubt very much whether
Mr. Spring knows any thing whatever of this action—l
doubt much whether " the Champion of England" cares
much for any thing that bas been said of hini in this publi
ca tion, and, above all, I doubt whether any damages you
m ight be induced to give would find their was into his
pc )eket. I very much suspect that there are other interests
ats work, and upon which the present action has been
tioundedi Unfortunately, by the law of -England as it now
stands, if an action for libel is brought, and that one far-
thing damages is given, that will carry costs ; it thus be-
/ MTLIPO a good job for the attorney, while the plaintiff is

none the better of it. Where an action is 1011017 ht f
slanderous words spoken, and only nominal damages are
given, no costs are obtained, and therefore improper actions
of that sort are discountenanced, but in actions like the
present a single farthing will carry costs, and may entail a
ruinous expense upon the defendant. Even if the publica-
tion before you had been one vilifying the plaintiff, I should
still say that it was most improper to bring the action
against the present defendant, who is the proprietor of The
Sun newspaper, and who, merely by way of literary criti-
cism, . copied this article from a magazine called the United
„ ---JOurnal. Gentlemen of the jury. I would ask, and
" ' t the same question to yourselves, why
en will prribau...,-,, , .
_
did not spring bring ~:s action against the proprietors
of the United Sereice Journal, -
Why did he not act in
the same straight-forward igne4 way 1n which Mr. Prud-
homme, in a case tried during the vessnt sn:ings, acted ?
He did not bring his action against the ngwspaii•ers that
copied the article of which he complained, but 450. inst Mr.
Frazer, the proprietor of the Magazine in which it first 6:lPear-
ed. No, gentlemen, the action is brought as an experimOt
against the proprietor of this newspaper, in the hope of
obtaining " a farthing damages, well knowing that that far-
thing will carry costs. My learned friend has stated,
although his instructions have deceived him, for it is utterly
without foundation, that an application was made to the
defendant to publish an apology. It must have been made
in some other quarter, and I again remind you, gentlemen,
of the action brought by Mr. Prudhomme, and the reply
that he received when he applied to have an apology pub-
lished—" We don't do these things in Magazines." There
cannot be a doubt on your minds that the present action is
brought to obtain costs, and if such be the case, - it reflects
Very little credit on the plaintiff or his attorney. Gentle-
men, where is the foundation for this action ? This article
appears in The Sun newspaper, not as an original article—
not on the authority of the Proprietor, the Editor, or his
Correspondent, but in a literary article such as I wish our
newspapers could more frequently contain—l wish, gentle-
men, that our newspapers would more frequently turn from
the asperities of politics, to literary pursuits, and present
their readers with selections which would improve and be-
nefit the public. This respectable paper, which, I believe,
never before had an action for libel broughl-, against it, has
generally an article of literary criticism, which contains re-
views. of all the literary publications Of the day. The pub-
lication complained of appeared on FridaY the 3d January,
and gave extracts from, and remarks upon the various
Magazines-of that . month. . The article is headed " The
Magazines," and commences with remarks upon the Par-
liamentary Review ;' which is conducted by Mr. Bucking-
ham, the Member for Sheffield. It then goes on to the
United Service Journal, and. reviews some of the articles
contained in that periodical. There is first the " Cruise of
a Revenue' Cutter," then an article on " the Prize Ring,"
and then extracts from the correspondence of a " Dragoon
Officer." Then follow the Asiatic Journal, the East India
Magazine, the New Sporting Magazine, Tait's Edinburgh
Magazine, the Ladies' Cabinet, and the Monthly Review.
There is here no vouching for the" accuracy. of the state-
ments these extracts contain—they are merely made for
the purpose of literary criticism, and for the purpose of .giv-
ingthe readers of this newspaper a specimen of what these
various periodicals contain, accompanied by the remarks of
the Editor upon their interest or utility. Gentlemen, will
you say that a newspaper review should be answerable any
more than another—l will take any respectable periodical
review, the Edinburgh or the Quarterly (because, whether
the Review be quarterly, or monthly, or daily, is altogether
immaterial), and I ask you; do you think it would be fair
to bring an action against the Edinburgh or the Quarterly
Review, because it had copied, with a view to literary cri-
ticism, or for the information of its readers, a passage from
another work, acknowledging at the same time the source
whence it had obtained it ? It will be impossible that lite-
rary establishments can be properly conducted. if you, by
your verdict, countenance such actions. What does The
Sun newspaper or its proprietor, know of Mr. Spring ? No-
thing at all ! his object is merely to extract those arti-
cles which may be most amusing or most instructive to his
readers ; and no one who reads this article can believe that
the Editor gave his sanction to any charge it might contain.
If there was any thing in it imputing improper conduct to
Spring, it was most improper to bring an action against the
newspaper instead of against the United Service Journal,
in which the article first appeared. Instead of doing this,
which would be the fair and honourable course—instead of
attacking the real offender (if offence has been committed)
without demanding explanation or apology, a writ is sued
out against the proprietor of The Sun newspaper, and this
most vexatious action is brought before you. There is not
the smallest attempt to say that this article. imputes any
offence to Spring—there is no imputation on his character
—none was meant. It appears by it that Spring fought a
cross, or a great battle with Langan, and that he was suc-
cessful. The article imputes nothing to Spring—it does
not say that he was like Thurtell, or Bishop, or any of
those infamous characters, and this I will readily concede,
for I have no right to say any thing to the contrary, that
Spring has always conducted himself in that decent and
manly manner which was consistent with his calling. Do
--v of the others alluded to in this article complain ?
all the alphabetical list from A to W,
lot on:: 41
iaaint..,...lf.aany one of them did complain, it
Ts were true, and the fact
there is no co,-..1
might be shown that ta charges
...
might be pleaded in justificataa'
But it was impossible
a
to justify with rcard to Spring,
u:soause no charge was
brought against him. Spring sets forth t`:NI,L.Iss ge at the
commencement of the article as part of the 110;11 • but re-
collect, gentlemen, that there are no inuendos ("
thereby the plaintiff") to connect this part of the publication
with him, and this is important, because if there is no impu-
tation against Spring, you must find a verdict for the de-
fendant.—[The Learned Counsel here read the introduc-
tory passage referred to by Mr. Follett.] My learned
friend, Mr. Follett, has rejoiced in the fact that the
system of prize-fighting had been discouraged of late. I also
rejoice in it; but from what does that better feeling.which
is now abroad arise, but froM such valuable publications as
these, which, while they hold up improper characters to
public execration, impute nothing to Mr. Spring ? It is by
the public being informed that instead of fostering English
spirit, prize-fighters are 'generally the most infamous of men
—it is by such knowledge being circulated that the present
amendment with regard to a.systein, which Mr. Follett says
has been a disgrace to the country, has been effected.
Where, then, is the libel when my learned friend Mr. Fol-
lett himself agrees in the accuracy- of the observation ?
He allows that it does not foster English spirit, and that it
confers a benefit upon society to show that it is mere
" cant." This is the first passage complained of. What
follows ? An•anecdote of Joshua Hudson, who was ac-
costed by a pickpocket at Moulsey -Hurst, who handed him
his purse, saying, " Mr. Hudson, here is your property."
Hudson smiled, thanked the thief, and put the purse in his
pocket. In a few minutes the thief again came up to him,
and touching his hat said, Mr., Hudson, here is your pro-
perty,' presenting to him the identical purse. The boxer
looked rather puzzled, but securing his purse well in his
breeches pocket, walked off, saying to the thief, I'll be
d—d if you get it again, if you shan't keep'it.' Before the
fight had well begun, the thief came a third time with his
how, and Mr. Hudson, here's your property,' holding up
the fated purse. Hudson merely took the latter, and swore
his friend was too much for him."—(Laughter.) Gentle-
men, is there any imputation here upon the plaintiff?
Lord DENMAN—The only imputation there appears to
be is upon Hudson, who did not keep his promise, and
give the purse to the thief.--(Great laughter.)

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL resumed—Gentlemen, whe-
ther Hudson kept his word with the thief or not is surely
nothing to the present action, and has nothing to do with
Spring. I now come to the next passage, which relates to
Thurtell ; and it is certainly stated by many respectable
people who knew Thurtell when he was in a respectable
calling, that when about to be executed for the crime of
murder, he did turn round and enquire the result of the ce-
lebrated Contest between Spring and Langan, and when he
heard that Spring had won, he exclaimed, " I am glad of it,
for Spring is a good fellow." Where is there any imputa-
tion here upon Spring ? Is it a necessary consequence be-
cause Thurtell is said to have been the bosom friend of
Spring, that Spring must have been a murderer ? I never
heard of a more absurd or a more alarming doctrine. You
are all probably acquainted with the fact of a Mr. Don-
nellan, a gentleman of respectability, who murdered
his uncle, and one of his most intimate acquaintances
was Mr. Jekyl, a member of the law profession, who was
I deservedly held in very high estimation. But will any per-
' son say that Mr. Jekyll could maintain an action against,
any person for asserting that he was the bosom friend of
Mr. Donnellon ? It is absurd to suppose that in the pre-
sent case any imputation is meant upon the character of
Spring by.saying that Thurtell was his bosom- friend. Is
there any tiling else in this passage but what is to the
credit of Spring ? The great glory of being " the Cham-
pion of England" is conferred tTon him ; he is represented
as having reached the highest honours of his profession—as
having conquered the Champion of Ireland, and thereby
established the superiority of England over Ireland.—
(Great laughter.) This anecdote of Thurtell does not, I
contend, in any manner implicate Spring—" Spring is a
good fellow." Is there any thing libellous in calling a man
a goad fellow ? Instead of saying that be is a disgrace to
his cloth, a ruffian, the article praises him, and for this the
action is brought. It concludes thus—,, What a oomph-
. td the Champion of England." Is it any libel to call a
Man '"the' Champion of England," any more than " a good
fellem There is not the slightest notice further taken of
Spring until his name appears in the alphabetical list among
the S's. In giving* list of prize-fighters, it could not be
supposed that the writer would omit the Champion of Eng-
. lad,--lie should give the good and the bad as they occurred,
and was it"to he supposed that there never was a man in
the ring who had committed a burglary or murder ? That
was not Spring's fault, of course, but surely he could never

be so ungrateful to the profession to which he belonged as 10
disclaim it now—to kick away the ladder by which he climL !d,
" Spurning the base degrees by which he did ascend."
In the list we find the words " Spring Tom, alias Tho-
mas Winter, fought -a cross of notoriety with Painter "
There is no inuendo in the declaration to show what "
cross" means—if it is any imputation upon a prizefighter's

character (of which 1 am utterly ignorant) the cross was
with Painter, not with Spring. The honour of Spring wa
never tarnished--the notoriety, the cross and all were
" with Painter."—(Laughter.) It seems to me, and I
doubt not you will take the same view of it, that this pas-
sage merely states the fact, that Spring had been a prir-e-
-fighter, and fought this among other battles, which conferre !
,no small share of glory upon Spring. The passage coy--
eludes with the words, "vide Thurtell." This reminds me
of what I read lately in Vesey's Reports, " Lunatics—vide
Lyrd Chancellor."—(Great laughter.) Now, gentlemer,
Tom Spring—vide Thurtell," is nut a more: alarming coin-
bination.than " Lunatics—vide Lord Chancellor."—(Re-
newed laughter.) It appears that Lord Erskine gave a de-
cision that the moon had no influence upon lunatics, and
Vesey, who wrote a very large collection, I believe
eighteen '7'olumes of law reports, gives the ruling of Lord
Erskine upon a contested point, and Lord Erskine might,
according to the case' before you, have brought an action
againt Mr. Vesey for call Nz him a lunatic, on the principle
of noscitur a sociis, although Ane was no imputation upon
his character or conduct meant, any more than in the
case of Spring. In the present instance, the writer For-
ports to give a history of eminent prize-fighters, and there
must be among them some. good, some bad, and some in-
different. We have histories of painters and of celebrated
divines in alphabetical order—l don't know, however, that.
the world has yet been favoured with a dictionary of lawyers;
it is perhaps a bad speculatica and would not circulate very
w:deiy. In this case we Lave a dictionary of prize-fighters,
we lave them all good and bad, and I am sorry to say the
had predominate. None of them, however, have complained
of the pictures drawn of them—some of them, indeed,
could not, for several have been hanged—(great laughter)
—and we all know that " dead men tell .no tales," and
bring no actions.—(Continued laughter.) Many, however,
still survive, and make no complaint—why, gentlemen ?
Because these charges are true. Spring has committed no
crime, and no charge is brought against him, unless you
say that calling him the Champion of England, and saying
that he fought battles, is a libel, I am entitled to your ver-
dict. If on the contrary there is any one among you udio
will say that that is a libel, then you must find a verdict.
for_ the plaintiff. The writer is merely stating historical
facts, without comment or observation. Does net Spring
still carry on his trade in as flourishing a manner as ever ?
Does not his friend the gun-maker still visit him, and fre-
quent his house ? Is lie not esteemed as much as ever by
his neighbours--and has he, therefore, sustained the smal-
lest possible injury ? Those against whom crimes might
be proved are held up to public contempt., but of the plain-
tiff nothing is said nor meant. Under these circumstancs,
Gentlemen, I leave the case with confidence in your hands
—you will say whether .such articles as the present are to
be discountenanced, and whether this action should have
been brought by that individual, who in a long list of prize
fighters is treated with the greatest consideration and en-
comium. If you view the case as I do, you cannot hesitate
to give a verdict for my client, more especially when you
are aware that a verdict against the defendant in such a
case as this will only have the effect of suppressing all pub-
lications which may be useful to society, or honourable to
the writer.

Lord DENMAN then addressed the Jury. This was an
action brought by Thomas Winter, who had formerly been
a prize-fighter, against the Editor and Proprietor of The
Sun, for what he says is a libel. To this the defendant has
pleaded that he is not guilty. As some observations had
been made upon the circumstance of the party having
brought an action against the proprietor of The Sun instead
of against the United Service Journal in which the article
originally appeared, he thought it right to tell them that
such a defence was idle, and that parties must, if they wish
to avoid the consequences, abstain from what reflects upon
the character of any individual. The publication of an of-
fensive article by any one individual, is no justification for
another copying that publication. Persons who are in the
habit of making extracts from other publications, should
draw a line between what was fair literary criticism, and
holding up individuals as of infamous character, as they
must be aware that they are liable to the individual whom
they bad slandered. A person is liable to any individual,
if he has given publicity to any statement affecting the cha-
racter of that individual. Ile thought it right to make
that statement generally, as it had been put as a sort of
justification for the defendant that he had copied the article
in question. It did not appear to him that because
some person had published the statement before, an-
other could do so without being held accountable. It
would be for the Jury to consider whether, in point
of fact, the article did amount to a libel on the plain-
tiff's character. The article is one upon prize-fight-
ing, accompanied by a review of it by the news-
paper. It goes on to show generally the writer's opinion
that the persons engaged in these fights are of very infz-
mous character. ,Un looking at the article the first place
the plaintiffs name is mentioned is where Thurtell is called
the bosom friend of Spring, and this observation is perhaps
rather explained by the anecJote that follows, when
Thurtell is at the foot of the gallows. It may be no com-
pliment to the plaintiff that Thurtell expressed himself in
these complimentary terms, but it is equally obvious that
it imputes nothing at all to Spring. Because be is termed
the bosom friend of a man, who has committed a murder,
it does not follow . that he was connected with him in
the murc!rr- Whether it may not be a charge against the
plaintiff, that he was of the same taste and habits of life,
and therefore that it was a reflation on his character, it was
for them to say. The mere statement of a fact that a mut
was the bosom friend of a murderer was no ground for sup-
posing that it was intended as an imputation on his cha-
racter. The Learned Counsel for the defendant lad re-
ferred to a murder which had been committed about fifty
years ago in the county of Warwick. Mr. Jel;yl was at
that time abroad, and when he returned his servant showed
him two visiting cards that had been left in his absence,
one from Mr. Theodosius Plowden, the other from Mr.
Donnellan. On enquiring where the gentlemen then lived,
the servant replied neither was alive, for one of them
had been banged for the murder of the other.—(Laughter.)
1 f Mr. Jekyll, then, was charged with being the bosom
friend of a murderer, he would have as much foundation for
an action as there was in the present instance. The Jury
had before them a list of prize-fighters, all infamous charac-
ters, and if the re were any persons more infamous than
others-they would seem to have been prize fighters. So
fsr it was-en article of general imputation upon the names
contained in it. In the passage where the plaintiffs
name occurs he - was charged with fighting what is
called a " cross" with Painter. There was no explanation in
the declaration of what "a cross" meant, but if they thought
that it imputed dishonesty to the plaintiff, they must con-
sider it a libel ;that was, provided they so understood it. The
next words were, " Vide Thurtell," and on referring back to
Thurtell, it stated that he " got up the cross between Oli-
ver and Painter, of Norwich, by which he cheated thou-
sands of foolish people." The Jury would, however, ob-
serve that that was not stated as having been the conduct,.
of Spring—it was for them to say whether that statement.
referred to him or the person with whom he fought, and
whether it cast an imputation upon the character of the
plaintiff. He would conclude by observing, as sornewbet.
singular connected with the present action, that this Winter,
the' plaintiff; is the person of the whoie list who comes off
best. All the -others are spoken strongly of, and being ex-
hibited in bad company, was naturally annoying to his feel-
ings. If they thought the plaintiff had been libelled, and
his character injured, they would give him whatever da-
mages they considered him entitled to ; and if not, they
would find a verdict for the defendant. _ _ _

The Jury immediately returned a verdict for the de-
fendant..

COUNTY OF INVERESS.—In this county Mr. C.
Grant will again come forwai d, and will again—for the fourth
or fifth time—be opposed by Macleod of Macleod. At the
last election, in December 1632, the number of 'electors that
polled was, from, various causes, greatly below the number
registered. After the sitting of the. Court of Review, 565
names were left on the record, but only 470 voted ; the ma-
jority for Mr. Grant was 44. The number of electors eligi •
ble to vote at present is 654. Macleod solicits the suffrages
of the electors on Conservative principles. Mr. Grant refers
to his past services, and hopes that neither the concerns of the
county, nor those national interests entrusted to his charge
hive suffered in his hands. We well remember the brilliant
address of the Right Iron. Gentleman, at the successful close
of his last election, in which he assured the electors of the
pride and satisfaction he should have in entering the portals of
Parliament as the first representative of the county, returned
by a popular constituency. He should take his place, he said,
in the van of the great constitutional procession of free repre-
sentatives, and pledge himself in the name of the people of
Inverness-shire to the cause of loyalty, order, and constitu-
tional liberty. This pledge he has undoubtedly kept, and by
' carrying through the great East India measure, as well as co-
operating with his colleagues of the late Administration, in
the government of the country, is well entitled to the continued
favour and confidence of the electors.—lnverness Courier.

Lady Morgan's new novel, " The Princess," will
appear in about a week. We understand that translations of
the work are in prepqration in France, Belgium, and Ger-
many. The scene is laid partly in London, at the present day,
and the peculiar nature of the plot is said to present a series of
scenes and incidents quite new to fiction. From London the
locale of the story occasionally shifts to the Continent, where
one of that remarkable sisterhood the Beguines is made to play
a prominent part in the more mysterious portions of the fable.
Report ascribes to this new production of the distinguished
authoress of " Florence Macarthy" a higher rank than any
other which has yet proceeded from her pen.