The Sun.
London, England, 1835-07-03 00:00:00

COURT 0

IN PLEAS.

SIIACKELL V. ROSIER.

Mr. ALEXANDER. .stated that this was an action brought by
Mr. Shackell to recover damages from the defendant for the
costs of an action for a libel published at his request in the
John Bull newspaper, he having undertaken that the matter
contained in the libellous article was correct and true, and
signed an undertaking to indemnify the plaintiff from any
loss which he might sustain by its insertion. To this the de-
fendant had pleaded, first, that he bad not represented the
paragraph to be correct and true ; and secondly, that he had
given no undertaking to indemnify the plaintiff from future
loss. In the early part of 1833 the defendant, Mr. Ros;."er,
called at the office of the John Bull newspaper for fir; pur-
pose of having an article inserted in that journal. He called
twice, but could not see the editor, but the third time he went
he saw Mr. Weaver, who was, then acting as sub-editor of
the paper. He then produv.d a written paragraph, and stated
that he wished to have it inserted in the John Bull. Mr.
Weaver having read the article, observed that it was of a
libellous tendency, and expressed some doubt as to whether
the proprietors of the paper would be justified in publishing
it, particularly as Mr. Rosier was a stranger. To this
Mr. Rosier replied, " I assure you that the statements.
contained in the paragraph are quite -true, and I km
prepared to prove them. I guarantee the correctness of
the article, and here is my card." Upon thir, repre-
sentation the paragraph was published in the John Bull
on the following Sunday, the 27th of January. It contained
an attack upon Mr. Chalmers, and deserikd him as a mob
leader and a person connected with Poli':ical Unions ; and it
also alluded to his having been convicted of forgery. Soon
after the publication of this paragraph,
by the editor of the John Bull Contradicting the statements it
contained. A communication, was then sent to Mr. Rosier,
and at his own desire an interview took place between him and
Mr. Hopkinson, the Kofessional adviser of the John Bull, in
the presence of Mr. Weaver, the sub-editor. Mr. Rosier on
that occasion repeated that which he had previously said—
namely? that, the paragraph was quite true, that he would gua-
rantee it'
ling t'> correctness, wag prepared to prove it, and was wil-
give an undertaking that the proprietors of the paper
si'.ould be indemnified from the consequences of any legal pro-
ceedings. To this Mr. Hopkinson replied, "Be so good as
to write an undertaking to that effect now." Mr. Rosier ac-
cordingly sat down to write, and was in the act of writing,
when a clerk came into the room, and said that Chalmers
had commenced proceedings against the Standard news-
paper. Mr. Rosier then handed the paper on which he
had been writing to Mr. Hopkinson, who, supposing, it to
he perfectly correct, folded up the paper and put it in his
desk ; he then said his only fear was, that his name should
be given up, but repeated that he was quite willing to
give a guarantee. From that period, Mr. Rosier inte-
rested himself very much in getting up the defence for
the action brought by Mr. Chalmers against Mr. Shackell in
July last year. That action was tried by a special jury in
this Court before his Lordship, and the jury found a verdict
for the plaintiff—damages 30/. ; but some points of law having,
been raised by the defendant's counsel, the Learned Judge
admitted their validity, and a rule nisi was obtained; but be-
fore a new trial could take place, Mr. Chalmers made over-
tures to the John Bull to settle the action ; and the proposal
having been referred to Mr. Rosier, he consented to pay 601.
as a compensation to Mr. Chalmers, together with all the
costs of the action which had been tried, and which amounted
to between 2001. and 3001. Some circumstances then oc-
curred tending to prove that Mr. Rosier was not quite so
willing to fulfil his guarantee as he had previously shown
himself to be, and at length it became quite manifest that it
was not his intention to pay any portion of the costs which
the John Bull had been put to on his account. Up to the
period when the present action was commenced he had
evinced no desire to fulfil his engagement, nor had he offered
the slightest explanation to justify his breach of contract.
The consequence was, that Mr. Shackell was compelled, in
justice to himself, to commence the present action to recover
from the defendant the 601. which he had paid as compensa-
tion to Mr. Chalmers, and also the sum of 266 L, being the
amount of his solicitor's bill of costs for the action brought
against the John Bull. He was aware that a point of law
would arise in the present case, which his Learned Friend on
the other side would, no doubt, press upon his Lordship, as to
whether a guarantee of the description given by Mr. Rosier
was a perfectly legal instrument, and came under the general
class of such securities. That was a point, however, upon
which he would not trouble the jury, because it was a strictly
legal question.
After evidence had been adduced, in corroboration of the
statements of the Learned Counsel,
Mr. ALEXANDER said—l shall now put in the written gua-
rantee of Mr. Rosier, which he gave to Mr. Hopkinson, the
plaintiff's solicitor.
Mr. Serjeant TALFOURD asked if the document was stamped.
Mr. ALEXANDER—It is not stamped.
Mr. Serjeant TALFOURD—Then I object to its being made
evidence in the case, and I submit that the plaintiff must be
nonsuited, inasmuch as the first issue upon the record relates
to the promise of the defendant to indemnify the plaintiff frog
loss, and as that promise was given upon unstamped paper the
action cannot be maintained.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE would take a note of the objectioet
and reserve the point.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD then proceeded to address the Jolt
after which,
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said, that having, at the instance
of the defendant's counsel, reserved a principal point in the
case for future argument, the jury were to confine themselves
to the consideration of two points only—namely, whether they
believed that the defendant, when he handed in the paragralb►.
vouched that it was correct and true, and whether the fact of
his having given his card to Mr. 'Weaver, was evidence of thla
fact. Secondly, they were to consider, whether the interest
manifested, by the defendant in the cause which had ahead/
been tried, the part which he took in getting up the defence,
his wishing it to be tried by a Special Jury, and other cireute;
stances, did not warrant a belief that be considered hirasel4
in some measure, a responsible party.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damagch
326/. Bs. 10d., the bill of costs to be subjected to be taxed by
the Master.