The Sun.
London, England, 1835-11-05 00:00:00

MOSCHATI V. LAWSON.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL in this case, which had been
mentioned to the Court yesterday, moved for a rule, against
which he understood cause was to be shown, in the first
instance, to stay proceedings, the action being brought
contrary to good faith. The plaintiff was aM. Moschati,
a foreigner, a gentlemen of very considerable learning
and literary acquirements, which might have been em-
ployed in a way that would be useful to himself and the
public, were it not for an unhappy propensity he had
contracted, stating what was not true. In short, he had
indulged in it so long, that he had absolutely lost all
sense of distinguishing between truth and falsehood. He
had first stated that he wrote the foreign articles for the
Times newspaper.
Sir F. POLLOCK suggested that the Learned Attorney-
General should confine himself to the statements in the
affidavit on which his motion was founded.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL would confine himself to
what was spread over the face of the record which accom-
panied the affidavits. The plaintiff had asserted that he
wrote the foreign articles for the Times, and that that
newspaper was bribed by Louis Phillippe—that he had seen
a check for 5,000/. from Louis Phillippe as a bribe to the
Times—that he had dined with the Editor of that news-
paper many times, and had seen plate there which had been
presented to the editor of that paper by Louis Phillippe,
and had seen with the lady of that gentleman Cashmere
shawls which bad been presented by the Pasha of Persia
and other foreign Potentates ; and various statements of
that sort, which rendered it necessary that notice
should be taken of these reports. They were mentioned,
and with suitable animadversions, upon which Mos-
chati brought an action against the proprietor of that
paper. They justified, alleging the truth of every-
thing they had stated, and asserting that they could
prove that he had made all these assertions, and generally
that he was given to this violation of truth. Issue was
joined on these pleas, and the case came on for hearing
before Mr. Baron Alderson on the 11th of February
last. Moschati' appeared as his own counsel, and con-
tented himself with putting in the papers, the publication
being admitted. He (the
,Attorney-General) had the
honour to appear on the part of the defendants, and
made out their justification on every point of the de-
fence. They proved that the plaintiff had stated that he
wrote the foreign articles in the Times, and that it was
false—they proved that he had stated that he had fre-
quently dined with the editor and there seen plate, and that
it was false—they proved that lie had asserted he had seen a
check for 5,0001. from Louis Phillippe.
Sir FREDERICK POLLOCK must really again interrupt his
Learned Fri&d. There was such a wide difference be-
tween the address of Counsel and the copy of the affidavit
with which he had been furnished, that he must take it for
granted his Learned Friend must have been instructed by
some other affidavit. He should not, therefore, object to
the Rule being granted. He (Sir F. Pollock) would read
his affidavit, by which it would appear there was nothing
of that sort in it.

The ATTORNET-GENERAL—The record is attached to
these affidavits, and it shows what the libel and justification
was, and the affidavit shows what we proved. It was un-
derstood at the trial that there was an end of it.
Sir F. PouncK—There is such a wide difference be-
tween my Learned friend's affidavits and mine, that I
shall not appear to resist the application.
Lord DENMAN—Mr. Attorney, if you get your Rule,
Sir Frederick Pollock can show cause against it in the ordi-
nary way.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—If my Learned friend does
not appear, I shall ask for a Rule to show cause. I have
the original application made to Baron Alderson to stay pro-
ceedings, which set forth that after bearing this deponent in
support of the application he fully recollected all the cir-
cumstances of the case, and he thought it a breach of
faith on the part of the plaintiff to commence the present
action. Plaintiff's attorney replied that the plaintiff was
not precluded from bringing the action, as no condition had
been imposed upon him at first. Mr. Baron Alderson had
always understood, that where a Juror had been withdrawn
there was an end of the action ; and he fully considered
that such had been the case in the present instance. He
would, therefore, rather stay proceedings till next term.
On these affidavits he (the Attorney-General) moved for
the present rule.—Rule granted.

EXCHEQUER COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

CIIATTOCK V. SHAWE.

This action was tried before the Lord Chief Baron and
a Special Jury at the Sittings at Guildhall after last term,
when a verdict was found for the plaintiff.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL now moved for a rule to shew
cause .why that verdict should not be set aside and a new
trial granted on the ground of its being wholly against all the
evidence in the cause. The action was brought against the
Directors of the Eagle Life Assurance Office upon a policy
for 5,0001. effected upon the life of Lieut,-Col. Gresswold,
of the Inniskillen Dragoons. The Learned Gentleman said ha
imputed no fraud in this e:lso, but the defendants felt it to be tlioir
duty ript csnly to those for whom they were trustees, but to
the public, to dispute the payment in a ease where there had
been such a gross breach of the policy. The policy was
in the usual terms, and upon a declaration (dated July 23,
1835) signed by Mr. Chattock, which stated that Colonel
Gresswold was not, nor had been, subject to any fits, nor
was accustomed to any habits of intemperance tending to
shorten life. The trial lasted two days, and the Jury /T.,
tired to consider their verdict. After having been bleked
up till half-past eleven cl'Oppk PA a Saturday night, they
applied to 1)44 oi4Oiameti; p they could not agree. The
plaintiffs. refuvd to accede to the proposition, and in
five miliutes they returned into Court with a verdict
for the plaintiff. Now, though he did not mean any disre-
spect to the Jury, he must say that he thought he was jur,i,
tilled in saying that the fear of being locked up till Monday
morning, if they had not returned a verdict before twelve
o'clock, had reconciled the difference which existed previ-

ously.. At the trial many most respectable witnesses
Baru
evidence of Colonel Gresswold's healthy appearance ; 13'4
he (the Attorney-General) contended that that evidence
was perfectly consistent with that offered by him, which
clearly proved that, in May, 1827, and subsequently, be
had bad several epileptic fits, and also that be vas in the
constant habit of drinking spirits to a considerable extent
before breakfast.
The Court considered the Learned Gentleman had mad.
out a sufficient case for a rule to show cause.—Rule granted.

DOE. DEM. OF HART V. WYNN.
Mr. JERvid3 moved for and obtained a rule to
.alolv
cause why there should not be a new trial 'in this cas°'
which was tried before Mr. Sergeant Taddy, at the late
Assizes for Chester, and occupied the Court seven days.
The facts were not very important, and we found it iraPs;
sible to follow the Learned Counsel, from the hardness
the Welsh names.