The Sun.
London, England, 1832-04-25 00:00:00

KING'S BENCH.--(THIS DAY)

As soon as their Lottkilips had tak( n t'ipir seats, the
M rquess of Anelesea was introduced on the Bench an(
to ;k the usual oaths upon his appointment to the offices ro
Constable of Carnarvon Castle, and of Vice-Admiral o
North Wales.

Sir John Gurney, Knight, also took the usual oaths ar
a Baron of his Majerty's Court of Exchequer.
The Court was occupied during the morning in hearini
argumenti upon speci ei cases sent up from Quarter Ses-
°nu., but none of them possessed any thing of public in-
terest.

BAIL COURT-(THIS DAY.)

(Before Mr. Justice TAUNTON, and a Common Jury.)

L18EL...--BELLCUAMBERS Y. UTADLEY.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (with whom was Mr.
PLATT), stated the case for the plaintiff. It was an a,
tion brought by Mr. Edmund Bellchambers, against the
defendant, Mr. John Joseph Allen Hadley, proprietor of
the Cheltenham Journal, for publishing a libel of and
concerning the plaintiff, in a report of what was said to be
a speech of a Learned Counsel (Mr. Campbell) at the
Gloucester tosize. during a cause in which a Mr. Griffith
was the plaintiff, and Mr. Gardner and Mr. Bell-
chambers (the present plaintiff), were defendants.
Messrs. Gardner and B llchambers had le en concerned in
I Newspaper called the Cheltenham Chronicle, in which
Paper some libels had been published concerning Mr.
Griffiths, for which Mr. Griffiths brought his action. The
trial came on at the Gloucester Assizes, in 1828, upon
which °cession the then plaintiff accepted an apology
from Mr. Gardner, against whom a nominal verdict
passed, but nothing was said abnut Mr. Bellehambers, and
the cause terminated. The present defendant, in pur-
porting to give in his Netvspaner a tsport of what
Mr. Campbell, the Counsel for Mr. Gri Pith, then said,
had published observations which he (tht A tot ney-General )
was confident his Learned Friend hail never uttered, for
they imputed to Mr. Bellchambambers, the present
plantiff, that he was a person of so disreputable a charac-
ter that no apology would he receive' fro n him, and that
any communication with him, directly or in lirectly, would
he deemed a contamination—that he w bankrupt, and
n gaol, and that it would he disreputable in any person to
have any thing to do with him. Tbose expressions, as
they were not at all connected with the subject of that
action, he (the Attorney-Gets ral) was confident
were never used by his Learned Fr.enb, and that,
therefore, the defendant must have had tine :malicioui
.votive, or some strong feeling, towards Mr. Bellcham
hers, who was his competitor and rival in trade. The
plaintiff had naturally felt indignant that it should be pub-
lished of him that the sole reason why an apology was not
received from him but fromhis partner, Mr Gardner, was,
that be was a person of so disreputable a character that an
apology from him would be a contamination, and therefore
ise felt himself obliged to bring the present ection in order to
vitlicats his character, and to obtain such cotnpedsatien as
the injury which he received entitled him to. The week
following the publication of the reputed reports of Mr.
Campbell's speech, the defendant publ shed in his paper
what he termed some correction of the first state-
ment, but he made the matter worse by repeating the
more gross part of the first libel. Now, if Mr.
Campbell had—which he did not believe—uttered
the expressions which the defends, t published, still
the publication of them was unjustifiable. He there-
fore hoped the Jury would award the plaintiff the must
ample damages.
Octavius Dillingham Mordaunt, clerk to the plaintiff's
attorney, produced a copy of the defendant's affidavit,
lodged in the St imp-office, stating him to he sole pro-
prietor, printer, and publisher of the Cheltenham Jour-
nal. He also producel two copies of the Paper, dated the
l'th and 14th April, 1828. They were read. The former
purported to give account of what had occurred at the as-
sizes in the cause of Griffith v. Gardner and Bellchambers,
which was terminated by an apology, and Mr. Campbell in
accepting the apology from Mr. Gardner, who was a re-
spectable attorney in Gloucester, and part proprietor of
the paper in which the libel appeared, proceeded thus,
" as to Mr. Bellchambers, the other defendant, he was a
bankrupt in trade; the Learned Counsel would say nothing
more about him; his praise or censure could not harm Mr.
Griffith, who felt indifferent to the slanders of such a man;
he asked for no apology, and would receive none from
Bellchambers, for Mr. Griffith felt that any sort of
communication with such a man, either directly or
indirectly, wou'd be a contamination." The paper
of the 14th of April contained this paragraph In
the report in our last paper of the trial of the cause
Griffith v. Girdner and Bellchambers, we unintentionally
committed an error. Mr. Campbell was represented to
have said that he asked for no apology, and would receive
none from Bellchambers, fur Mr. Griffith felt tt at any sort
of communication with such a man, either directly or in-
directly, would be a contamination ; whereas Mr. Camp-
bell's observation should have been his praise or censure,
can in no di gree affect Mr. Griffith, and even an apology
from him, Mr. Griffith would consider a contamination."

It was also proved, by way of accounting for the lapse
of time since the publication of the libels, that the present
action was commenced in Michaelmas Term, 1828 ; but
that the defendant put is several pleas of justification,
which were demurred to, and ultimately they were held to
be bad : great delay consequently ensued.

➢lr. WILLIAMS then addressed the Jury for the de.
fendant. He said, that if it were of any consequence
that what passed in Courts of Justice should be
reported for the perusal of the public, the present case
was of very great importance. If they should be of
opinion that the statement complained of was a fair and
faithful report of what took place in Court, he thought they
would agree with him, that actions like the present should
not be encouraged, as it would be setting up a dangerous
precedent, and would ultimately cut up by the root all full
and fair accounts of proceedings in Courts of Justice. After
the practice of reporting had prevailed to so great an extent,
and was, he might ■ay, so inveterate, it would be a very
strong measure indeed to attempt at once to prevent a
perusal by the public of the trials in Courts of Justice,
which information could only be communicated through
the ordinary channel—the public Press. The libel
purported to be a speech of a Learned Counsel, in a
cause to which the defendant was no party, and be was
now dragged before a Jury for having reported that
which had occurred in a Court of Justice, and which he
was desirous of giving to the public with some de-
gree of particularity. He, Mr. Williams, intreated
the Jury to read the statement, and then say whether
it did not appear to be a fair report of what
had actually taken place, rather than to be a wil-
ful and malignant interposition of expressions that
were never uttered. He admitted, that strictly speaking
a publisher had no right to publish exactly what an advo-
cate might say of another party, but if there appeared no
attempt to invent facts, and with a m dicious motive pub-
lish them, it was a stront, reason why the Jury should give
♦ery trifling damages. Counsel were allowed great lati-
tude in conducting cases—a privilege that was said
to be granted for the benefit of their clients,
bet whether it was always used for the benefit
of their clients or not he would not say. It appeared
from the report of the libel complained of, that the
Learned Judge gave a strong opinion upon the libels against
Mr. Griffith, and as an apology was only received from
one defendant, Mr. Gardner, it was not improbable that
the Learned Counsel stated some reason why he did not
accept an apology also from the other defendant, Mr.
13, llchambers. If the expressions which Mr. Campbell
used were untrue, and if he had travelled out of his duty,
(which could not be believed of that Learned Counsel)
lie would be responsible for theconsequences, so that the pre-
sent plaintiff was catching at a mouse when he might catch a
lion. If Mr. Campbell's observations were correctly re-
ported, then the Jury would surely give the most trifling
damages, otherwise, an editor or publisher, bef re he
wrote a report of any trial, must consult his attorney and
him counsel to see it there was anything improper in pub-
lishing that which had actually occurred. Counsel
must also exercise great ciution, so that, in fu-
ture, what mutilated, milk and water sort of reports
they would have. What mealy-mouthed speeches would
Counsel make ! What oil would be swimming over their
expressions.—(Laughter.) However, there was nomo-
tive charged or proved against the defendant. The plain-
tiff had chosen, instead of trying the cause in Gloucester-
shire, where all parties were known, to come before a
Middlesex Jury, who could not know bim, and from the
very appearance of the report, every person might fairly
conclude that the words were uttered by Mr. Campbell.
It was therefore to be hoped that the Jury would discourage
such actions, and give the smallest possible amount of
damages.

His LORDSHIP then summed up. He observed that
Council in Courts of Law, as Members of Parliament in
their places, possessed a privilege of latitude of expression
which was given them for the benefit of the public in the
one case, and of the suitors in Courts, the clients, in the
other. It might be, that in the zeal which an advocate
displayed, he might sometimes exceed the fair and
proper bounds of moderation, and therefore the
privilege should he confined (being a mere personal
~nr) to the Counsel themselves and to the locality
—the Court in which it was exercised; for it by
no means followed that other persons not possessing
that privilege should be allowed to publish those observa-
tions, arid thereby circulate words of reproach against a

party tvboac conduct might hive been too strongly an;.
madverted upon in Court ; because, if it were allowed, t
Court of justice might be made the vehicle and instrument
of every species of private slander. His Lordship sa h.
ieed not trouble himself by laying down the bound
within which persons should confine themselves it
tublishing what occurred in Courts of justice, because th.
defendant had pleaded a justification of the libel. He the,
read the libel of the subsequent statement, and stated that
zbe plaintiff alleged in his declaration, that by such publi
,cations the defendant meant to insinuate, and hive it be-
lieved, that h., the plaintiff, had been and was a bankrupt,
trid guilty of disgraceful and dishonourable conduct, ano
not fir to be associated with. It was the province of the jury
ta decide whether that was the proper interpretation o'
he passages complained of ; if it were, then the plaintiff
would be entitled to a verdict for such damages as they
..onceived him entitled to.

The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages..
One Shilling.

COININION PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

HILL V. LEE.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover
-IL 10s. from the defendant, who is the master-tailor of
the regiment of the 9th Lancers, for a quarter's use and oc-
cupation of a house in Prospect-place, Hounslow, near
where the regiment is stationed.

For the plaintiff it was proved, that the house was let
to the defendant upon an agreement for three months cer-
tain, and at the end of the first quarter, the defendant
agreed to take it for three months longer, and continual to
occupy it for three quarters under the same terms. At the
end of the third quarter, however, he lrfr without a notice,
and delivered up puss-scion of the keys, and the action was
brought to recover the last quarter's rent.
On the part of the defendant, it was proved that he had
given a month's notice to the plaintiff to quit the house,
and Lord Loughborough, the Colonrl of the regiment, had
promised him a re'ia.lence in the baraacks, but that the
piain'iff had refused to receive it, unless the ensuing quar-
ter was paid.
The jury found a verdict for the defendant.

ASSAULT AT A VESTRY DINNRR•

JAMES V. CAMPBELL.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, the proprie-
tor of some public baths at Hampstead, against the de-
fendant, a gardener, to recover compensation for an assault
committed by him on the person ‘if the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant ANnaEws stated the case to the jury, from
which it appeared, that the plaintiff was, some time ago,
a member of the Annoyance Jury, and, in the
performance of that unpleasant duty, he had occasion to
inspect the weights and measures of the defendant, which
it would appear was the only cause and provocation the
defendant could have had for having committed this
outrage upon his client, for every opportunity that pre-
sented itself aft-rwards the defendant embraced to insult
the plaintiff. In December last there was a meeting of
the vestry to make some pat ish rate, and after the busi•
ness was over, the parish officers adjourned to the Holly
Bush Tavern to dinner. Here the plaintiff and the de-
fendant met, and after dinner Campbell took the opportu-
nity to annoy Mr. James, and lie repeatedly called him a
" vagabond," using every means he could to excite
his anger, and the churchwarden, Mr. Dixon, who
was in the chair, was frequently oldiged to call him
to order. In the end, Campbell struck the plain-
tiff a tremendous blow, which knocked him down, and
blackened both his eyes. Some friends interfered, and a
Mr. Paxton, a friend, drew up an apology to Mr. James,
in which he (Campbell) was made to say he was sorry for
having struck him; but when it was read publicly, in-
stead of admitting the apology, he said "Me sorry
for it, I am not sorry at all, and I will beat him
again, and serve him out worse than I have done."
The- Le trned Sergeant concluded his statement by saying,
that Mr. James hail no alternative than to bring the
present action, and he trusted that the Jury would, by
their verdict, teach Mr. Campbell, that he could not com-
mit such en outragtous and unprovoked assault as this,
with impunity.
Mr. Paxton, the vestry clerk of the parish, was ex-
amined, and proved the assault had been committed at
the vestry dinner.

In his cross-examination by Mr. Bomax for the de-
fendant, he said that many sarcastic observations were made
by both parties. Mr. James told the defendant that he was
a pretty fellow to go out shooting, that he had gone
to shoot dicky-birds in his garden, hut bad shot a cat.—
(Lauehter.) Campbell had taunted Mr. James respecting
his mother falling into the cess-pool, and said, " you,
I wish you bad fallen in instead of her, nobody would
have pulled you out." He (witness) on hearing Mr.
James's mother abused, gave the defendant a thump on the
head.

Mr. Dixon, the Churchwarden, gave a similar account
of the transaction.

Mr. S'ephenson, a medical gentleman, proved attending
the plaintiff. He suffered under a ♦iolent pain in the
chest ; he had a swelled nose, and his eyes were black. He
attended him about five days.

The plaintiff's case had not concluded when our re-
porter left.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)