The Sun.
London, England, 1835-05-19 00:00:00

CASE OF LIBEL AOAINST TILE PROPRIETORS OF THIS PAPER.

So very rarely do we bring the private affairs of the Liver-
pool Journal before the public, that we shall stand acquitted
of egotism if we now place on record the particulars of a late
prosecution, the result of which practically illustrates the dis
graceful state of our unreformed statute-book, and of the liabi-
lities of newspaper proprietors under the law of libel.
The public are aware that,, in September, 1833, a person
named Evans—little known in Eiverpool—was charged before
the Magistrates, with assaulting a person at the agricultural
dinner in Mr. Lucas's rooms, at which the present Lord Stan-
ley and the Duke of Richmond were present. A brief report
of the circumstance was given, in this and another paper,
as a matter of intelligence. In that report, a cursory
allusion was made to a female to whom Evans's father
had left some property, and this individual, fancying
herself aggrieved by such allusion, waited en the editor,
(accompanied by a gentleman of this town), and stated thaf,
unless the ernende was made by retracting what had been
said concerning her, an action for defamation of character
would be commenced forthwith. The contradiction was given
in a subsequent paper, and it was also mentioned that Evans,
who had been committed to the Borough Gaol in default of
bail, had subsequently been removed to the County Lunatic
Asylum. The editor of this paper and the proprietors can
affirm, on oath, that there was no other motive in thus men-
tioning, a man, of whom they had no personal knowledge, but
the desire to give the various particulars of an occurrence
which excited much public interest.
In May, 1834, the proprietors were served with a writ of
the Court of King's Bench, the venue being laid in Middle-
sex. They put in an appearance, and were duly served with
a copy of the declaration, the damages being laid at 5,0001
They applied for change of venue to Lancashire, on affida-
vit that, fully to prove a justification, they should call twelve
or fourteen witnesses, the expense of carrying whom to Lon-
don would be enormous. In reply to this, Evans and his
attorney swore that they would require as many witnesses
at least—nearly all of whom were professional men, and all.
or the greater part, resided in Middlesex. The case, at this
stage, came before the late Mr. Justice Taunton, who decided
that the trial should not take place in Lancashire,—assuming,
on Evans's affidavits, that he had as much right to have the
cause tried in London as the defendants in Lancashire.

Subsequent to this decision, application was made, under
legal advice, to compromise the matter, by paying Evans's
costs, and giving him 401. or 501. The negotiations proceeded
for some time, with every appearance of a favourable close,
when Evans's attorney suddenly announced that the matter
must take its course in the usual way. The application was
made with a full knowledge of the uncertainty of the law, and
a desire to avoid the agitation of mind naturally induced by a
proceeding which migt be attended with the most serious
pecuniary consequences.
Last January, notice of trial (in the Court of King's Bench)
was served on the proprietors. The cause was not entered for
trial in the court until nearly the very last moment—the last
hour of the last day but one—and there is no doubt that the de-
lay was not accidental. The entry was made at a late hour on
the Saturday • and had not the defendant's London solicitor
been extremely vigilant, and sent a letter by one of the Sunday
coaches, no information could have been received at Liverpool,
by post, previous to Tuesday night, and by the time the wit-
nesses for the defence had arrived in London, there was a
strong probability that the case might have been called on,
and judgment got by default.
Late on the Monday evening, the defendants got the infor-
mation from their London solicitor, that the case was entered ;
and accordingly every exertion was made to collect the wit-
nesses, and send them to town. But, owing to " the law's
delay," the trial did not take place until the Saturday week
following.
When the trial came on, it was seen, with astonishment,
that not one London or Middlesex witness was called by
Evans ! He had witnesses from Bangor, Carnarvon, Liver-
pool, and Lancaster, but, although he and his attorney had
opposed the change of venue ON OATH that nearly all his wit-
nesses were resident in London or Middlesex, he did not call
one from either place.
The evidence was in favour of the defendants : the Judge
(Lord Denman) summed up in their favour; but the Jury
found a verdict of 40s. damages. This sum carries costs;
and as the time has arrived when a legal claim can be made
for the amount, the proprietors of the Journal received infor-
mation from their attorney, last night, that the bill of Evans's
attorney amounted to 6181. is. 4d., and that 146/. I is. 4d.
had been struck off, leaving a balance (including the 40s.
damages) of 4731. 10s., which must be remitted to London
this evening.
The defendants' witnesses weie ten in number—nine from
Liverpool and one from Carnarvon—and, though they acted
with great moderation, their expenses, with some costs of the
court and to counsel, amounted to 251/. 125., which, in addition
to the 4731. 10s. taxed costs, amount to the sum of SEVEN
HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE POUNDS TWO SHILLINGS. This
is independent of our attorney's bill, which is unpaid ; but
we calculate that the case, on the whole, will cost us little less
than ONE THOUSAND POUNDS!!
_ _ _

This plain statement will show the working of the law of
libel. It may be law, but assuredly it is not justice. An im-
mense additional expense has been the consequence of not per-
mitting the cause to be tried in Lancashire, and costs have accu-
mulated—certainly not to the benefit of the plaintiff, but of the
plaintiff's attorney. The aggrieved party gets his 405., which the
jury estimates as the extent of damage inflicted on him, and
the abominable 'expenses of the law involve us in costs four
hundred times greater than the award of the jury. As we
have already, said this may be law, but it is not justice. There
may be the boast of " liberty of the press," but it is a mockery
while such a law exists as this infamous law of libel, by which
any pettifogger may speculate on a verdict, and ruin a man by
costs. •

We candidly confess that this is a very serious matter to us.
These large demands are nearly sufficient to hurl ruin upon
a young concern—. and they do fall heavily on ours. They
abstract too much of what the industry of years has made, and
it is poor consolation that " the law awards it."

REDUCTION OF RENT.—Last week, Sir E. E.
Wilmot, Bart., M.P., made another reduction of rent to his
tenantry, equivalent to the price of wheat at 21s. per bag.—
Coventry Herald.

DORCHESTER UNIONISTS.—A letter has been
received from Dorchester by Mr. Edward Goode, which states
that the wives of the unfortunate convicts, have received com-
fortable assistance from several branches of the Trades Unions
in London and Manchester, and that there is reason to believe
means will be found to remove them from " the oppressive
people." The letter also states that two of the women are
already in London, and that Mr. Wakley has been at Dor.
chester to make himself acquainted with the particulars of
their case.

r