The Sun.
London, England, 1835-02-16 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER COURT.

CHALMERS V. BY:INE AND PAYNE.
This was an action for libel brought by Peter Charles
Chalmers against William Pitt liyrne, Esq., as proprietor,
and Mr. Thomas Payne, as printer aird publisher of the
Morning Post newspaper.
Mr. STAMMERS, on behalf of the plaintiff, stated that
his client complained of the defendants, es having on the
sth of last July falsely, wickedly, and malicously composed,
printed, and published in the Morning Pact newspaper
scandalous, degrading, and inflammatory libel, purporting
if
contain a report of a trial for libel had by the
against certain persons, the proprietors of the Jchn But'
newspaper, in which a verdict f0r.30/.damages was accorded
to him. The contents of the libel were . extremely long.
That it contained many undeniable facts he was free t°
admit. He stood. there not to deny, for instance, thlat his
client, the plaintiff, had been tried and convicted of havieg
uttered a forged bill of exchange to a person of .the name
of Cohen. Neither could he deny, as the libel fairly
stated, that after a short imprisonment his client obtained
his Majesty's free pardon for that offence, his case being
fully and fairly investigated by the Secretary of State for
the Home Depaitment. There was another fact stated
in the libel, which he had likewise to admit, and that
was, that shortly after his receiving a free pardon
gross and malicious libel appeared in the John 134 k
newspaper, in which his client was accused, among
things of being an habitual forger, a mob leader!
and, in short, a person guilty of Accumulated crimp, and
deserving to be held up to the detestation of the pLiblic•
Such a libel did, as stated in the Morning Post, appear i"
the columns of the John Bull, and, in-consequence of it, th
plaintiff in the present suit brought an- action against the
proprietors of that paper ; hut, although the case was •
tried before a Special Jury, and although the defer:AO
(the inprietors of the John Bull) were allowed aild did at-
tempt to adduce evidence in justification of their libel,' the
Jury, without hesitation, found a verdict with 801. darirges
for the plaintiff. All these facts he (Mr. Stammers) fully
and fairly admitted, on the part of his client, and he furthe.
acknowledged that in stating them in their newspaper tbet
defendants did not exceed their jurisdiction as recorders
public news. In reporting the case, however, the daff
dints did not stop here. It was stated on the face of'tii::l
libel that the plaintiff was a member of a certain Politic*.
Union, and that on his being convicted by the 011 Bail°.
Jury the members of that Union had gone in a boctv
petition the Lord Mayor for his pardon. Now nothing en
any such point was stated at the trial, and his client ,Oit
therefore justified in arraigning it as the malicious fictionei
the defendants. He was likewise charged as having foigeti
the name of his brother to a bill of exchange. To that 3
he could say was, that if the allegation of his having
so was proved, or if it was shown that evidence •beaiing
upon that point was adduced upon the trial of which the,
libel complained of professed to give a report, his clien"
would at once withdraw his suit.
toted
Joseph Wall produced from the Stamp-office an attested
copy of the defendant's affidavit of registration as proprietpr
and printer of the Morning Post newspaper.
Richard Allan. (from the Stamp-office) produced the re'
gister copy of the Morning Post, dated the sth of July, 185,;
The alleged libel having been read by the Register, t'
plaintiff's case closed.
Mr. Anotruu.s, for the defendants, said here was fillet
specimen of cheap law. The plaintiff put in a document
which cost him no more than the value of the parchme°,o
upon which it was written, about • one farthing, and hew ,
his own attorney. Thus equipped with law, cheap ee°%,
in all conscience, he conies into Court and says Imre hog
complaining of a libel, what do you choose to give,:o,
much can I make in the way of costs ? From ch 02.1)
of this kind the result must be not the protection o.c.it"),;t,
cence, but vexatious prosecutions and complaints a°°"„f
matters which ought never to have been made a subjt‘et ld
complaint. Were it not for the press of what use wen ,;
the moral lessons to be. earned in Courts of Justice bra
The benefit of them would be confined to the few
happened to be present, and without the instrumentality °
the press the public at large would profit nothing by thehtil;
The Jury had heard the report of the trial read, and
would fearlessly ask them whether they ever heard a rit°,;i
fair, a more impartial, a more honest and temperate acot
given of any trial ? The plaintiff had no right to con
plain of the publication in this case, for it was a fair ant
impartial report of an action which lie himself had broughl
He thought it quite unnecessary to call any witness, In'
would leave the matter to the Jury. -
ulted

The CHIEF BARON summed up, and the Jury cons,--i •
in the box for a few moments. One of them express le
wish to have the paper containing the alleged libel for v'et
purpose of looking into the manner rather than the mitt s,
of this publication. The paper was handed into the bi're,
and on the suggestion of one of the Jurymen the Jul rt
tired. After a lapse of two hours they returned to C°ll
with a verdict for the defendants.