The Sun.
London, England, 1834-11-26 00:00:00

THE KING O. MOSELEY.

This was an indictment for perjury.
The prosecutor, Mark M'Cormac, was a working-jeweller, and
was employed by Mr. Robert Moseley, goldsmith, of Fetter-lane,
to make a pair' of bracelets and a brooch. When the articles were
finished, the defendant returned them to the prosecutor, alleging
that they were not done in a workman-like manner, and were no.
saleable. The prosecutor, being a poor man, was compelled to
take them to a pawnbroker's, and Air. Moseleyethen summoned
the prosecutor before the Magistrates at Hatton-Garden, on a
charge of having stolen and pawned his property. The perjury
was alleged to have been committed by the defendant in his evi-
dence upon that occasion, and the prosecutor was sentenced to pay
a fine of 10/., and in default was committed to prison for three
months.

Mr. Anotritus with whom was Mr. WILLIAMS, appeared for
the prosecution and Sir JAMES SCARLETT for the defendant.
The clerk offiatton-garden police-office, and the prosecutor were
examined, as to the facts detailed in the statement of Counsel.

The Learned JunoE observed that there was only the oath of
the prosecutor against that of the defendant, and this was insuffi-
cient in point of law to convict the defendant.—Not Guilty.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

CREEVT V. HARMER AND SELL,

This was an action for an alleged libel, published in the Weekly
Dispatch, of which the defendants were the registered proprietors.
Mr. Sergeant \VI Lint, with whom was Mr. Sergeant Bourtts,
stated the plaintiff's case. He had been a milkman, residing in
Hunter-street, Brunswick-square, and had been brought before Mr.
Laing, at Hatton-garden police-office, but was immediately die.
charged for want of evidence. The libel complained of was, that
the defendants had not been satisfied with merely stating what
had transpired before the • Magistrates ; but had added
that several persons connected with the fire-offices who were present
at the examination, had said that a snore glaring attempt at arson
had never come under their cognizance. By these observations,
inserted in the Dispatch, and which were contrary to the fact, the
plaintiff alleged that his character and trade had been irreparably
injured—and from doing a considerable business, he was. through
the libel complained of, obliged to shut up his premises and retire
from the neighbourhood. The learned Sergeant contended that
the fact of his having been discharged by the magistrate, was a
sufficient guarantee of his client's innocence of the charge brought
against him, and that he was justly entitled to considerable damages
for the injury he had sustained. He added that the Dispatch had
stated that the plaintiff's premises were insured at 7,0001., where-
as, in point of fact, they were not insured at all.

Two witnesses were calle(Tenl.7ecialf of the plaintiff, who stated
that his business had considerably decreased since the appearance of
the police report in the Dispatch of the 18th of April last.
In a very able cross-examination by Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS, it
elicited that the plaintiff's affairs, before the publication of the
libel, not in the prosperous state the Jury had been led to
believe.

One witness, a earp.7.ter, who had been employed by the plain-
tiff on the premises for near": 7 three months, admitted that the
plaintiff was so poor before his appe,7anee at the police office, that
lie, witness, went to Smithfield and twit: two of his cows for 14/.,
to satisfy the importunate demands of people is whom he was in-
debted small sums ; and that also, on the very etas' that he was
taken before the magistrates, and sonsequently before ti;.!' publica-
tion of the libel, an execution had been put in plaintiff's huase for
the sum of 1391., owing for rent.
111 r. Sergeant A smaiews, for the defendants, said he would agree
with his learned friend Sergeant Wilde, that the character of indi-
viduals ought not to be wantonly attacked by the directors of the
press, and that where injury was so sustained, it was but right that
compensation should be afforded. But in the present case no in-
jury had been sustained, and that was the ground on which he
hoped the Jury would find a verdict for the defendants, or, if for
the plaintiff, merely nominal damages. Were the circumstances
elicited on the cross-examination of the witnesses any proof that
plaintiff had carried on a prosperous trade before the publication of
the libel? No--on the contrary, it appeared that his affairs were
in a desperate state long before this time, and that he had even
been obliged to sell part of his stock in trade, to pay claims which
he could not otherwise liquidate. The directors of the public press
were too often made the victims of needy adventurers, who trumped
up cases of libel to extract money from their pockets. lie trusted
the Jury would not encourage such attempts, and having said thus
much, he would leave the ease in their hands.
The Learned Ju DC. E summed up. His Lordship said that their
verdict must be for the plaintiff ; and the only point for their consi-
deration was the amount of damages to which the plaintiff was
fairly entitled.
The Jury,_ after a short consultation, returned a verdict for the
plaintiff.—Damages 501.