The Sun.
London, England, 1833-11-07 00:00:00

Mr. Sergeant WILDE applied for a rule to show
cause why the damages in this case should not be
reduced, or the verdict set aside. It was an action
for a libel which appeared in the Times newspaper.
The cause was tried at Dorchester before Mr. Jus-
tice Alderson, and a verdict found for 2001. damages.
The libel was headed " Bridport," and it stated
that that borough had been the scene of a sharp elec-
tion struggle, which had terminated in favour of the
liberty party. Messrs. Warburton and Romilly had
made a procession with splendid flags, npon which
sulphuric acid was thrown as they passed the house
of Mr. Coles, who, as a brewer, was liable to a
penalty for having it in his possession. His Learned
Friend (Mr. Follett) opened the cause by stating
that the action was brought by Mr. Coles to de-
fend his character, and not to obtain damages. He
(Mr. Sergeant Wilde) was prepared to offer evi-
dence, when the Learned Judge, Mr. Justice Al-
derson, asked him whether it was necessary to go
into evidence, as the plaintiff's Counsel had stated
that damages were not the object. On that ground
he then applied to the Court to reduce the da-
mages. He concurred in the suggestion of the
Learned Judge, and did not call all his witnesses.
When the Learned Judge came to sum up he said,
" This is not a case for damages." His Learned
Friend had previously said very s'gnificantly to the
Jury (and every one knew that Juries might have
political feelings in Dorietshire), " Gentlemen, I
leave the damages to you." The Learned Sergeant
was taken by surprise when he found it made a
question of damages, and that 2001. were given.
Mr. Justice PARKE—Was there any condition,
any apology, made to lead to a conclusion that
damages would not be given ?
Mr. FOLLETT—NO, my Lord; I have no recollec-
tion that such a thing took place.
Sergeant WILDE—I am not surprised at that.
Justice will not be advanced if Counsel is induced
to abstain from calling witnesses on particular points
agreed to, and Counsel on the other side take ad-
vantage of it.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—NoII seem to sug-
gest that we should inquire into the fact, and there-
fore it would be as well if we should speak to the
Learned Judge.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 6.

BELCHER AND OTHERS V. PRITTIE.

This was an action brought by the plaintiffs as
assignees of Mr. Maberly, a bankrupt, against the
defendant as trustee to the marriage settlement of
Colonel Maberly, the son of the bankrupt, for the
recovery of certain premises, value 10,000/. Colonel
Maberly from time to time had lent his father, the
bankrupt, a sum of 12,000/. At the time of Colonel
Maberly's marriage his father gave him his bonds
and some months previous to Mr. Maberly's
bankruptcy he assigned to the defendant, as
trustee of Colonel Maberly's marriage set-
tlement, certain premises in the Regent's Park,
in liquidation of his bond ; it was tried at the
last sittings at Guildhall, before the Lord Chief
Justice, and a verdict passed for the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE to-day moved to set aside
the verdict upon the grounds of misdirection of the
Learned Judge, and that the plaintiffs were taken
by surprise in the production of certain evidence,
which had they been aware of they could have re-
butted; and further, that the verdict was against
evidence.—Rule Nisi granted.