The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-25 00:00:00

The Foreman of the jury rose and said they were
quite satisfied with the plaintiff's straightforward
answers.-
Mr. Hawkins then rose and addressed the jury,
for the defendant, and undertook to prove ajustifi-
cation of the whole of the libels. He denounced the
plaintiff as a scheming adventurer, Who, from his ex-
perience, must have known that the speculations in
which he engaged, and which, brought before the
public, were such as no prudent man ought to em-
bark in. He had prepared schemes which he must
have known to be false and fraudulent. The Sun lay
Times, knowing that, would not have done their
duty to the public if they had not come forward
and exposed him.
Lord Campbell observed that the defendant had
a- perfect right to make any fair comments on
the trial; but there was no duty resting on him to
inquire into the whole history of the parties, or to
bring a chat* against them like a public prosecu-
tor. At the same time the defendant was at liberty
to prove all his statements.

Mr. Hawkins said his learned friend (Sergeant
Ballantine) had eulogised the conduct of the limes,
Daily News, and Morning Herald for the comments
which they had made on the matters brought for-
ward at the trial in relation to Colonel Waugh,
and, if so, surely the Sunday Times had an equal
right to comment on the conduct of the plaintiff,
who had been mixed up in Colonel Waugh's trans-
actions. How was, it that Colonel Waugh
defrauded the public ? Was it not by putting
forward speculations in which he had been aided
by the plaintiff? The learned counsel proceeded
to describe the plaintiff, as he now appeared, accord-
ing to his own evidence, and to show that the evi-
dence to-day fully bore out the description given of
, the plaintiff in the libel of which he complained.
He became insolvent in October, 1852, and he no
sooner got out of Lancaster Castle than he adver-
tised himself in the Mining journal as " Stephen
Neal, Esq., of No. 23, Charlotte-street, Bedford-
square." He became insolvent, and had no assets
but his " boot and overcoats," and other excepted
articles, worth only a few pounds, and with that
capital he came to the metropolis, and allowed him-
self to be advertised as "Stephen Neal, Esq.,"
living in a fashionable quarter of the town, the fact
being that he had nothing in the world and was
living in lodgings on a second floor. He then
passed himself off to the public as a " civil engi-
neer," with an office in Parliament-street, and then
as a " chemico-civil engineer," though it was mani-
fest that he was never anything more than the
getter up of bubble companies. The nature of the
plaintiff's principle might be seen from the letter
which he admitted he had written,- in which he
ridiculed and sneered at Mr. Beavan as a lover of
truth. The letter was dated March 13, 1856, and
coritained these words :

Mr. Beavan is probably with us; but he is a very stern
man, and quite immovable from the strict letter of truth ;
he seems not to ,understand what expediency means. He
says the only way for us is, to compel compliance with our
engagements and legal and equitable demands in a bold and
fearless manner. To Mr. Hall his advice and assistance
will be of the utmost value. Oh, how beautiful is truth;
it 'stapes a thousand snares and entanglements, and leaves
no leeway to be fetched up."
The learned counsel then read an extract from the
letter which the plaintiff had written, addressed to
Colonel Waugh, in which he took credit to himself
for having, by his report on Branksea Isle, enabled
Col. Waugh to get several thousand pounds from
Mr. Jolly, and contended that that fact was proved
by his own.written evidence in opposition to the
evidence which he had given today on his oath. The
learned counsel then proceeded at great length to
comment upon the various charges contained in tho
libels, and said he should show by evidence that
every one of the charges which they contained was
true ; and he concluded by calling on the jury to
find their verdict for the defendant.

The learned counsel then called the following
witnesses:—

Mr. Braham, examined by Mr. Denman said—l
was attorney for the defendant in the case of "Neal
v. Isaac." I was present at the trial. Mr. Chambers
was stopped in his cross-examination of the plain-
tiff. The plaintiff admitted that he received £25
from Col. Waugh's agent before going to Spain. In
the plaintiff's schedule there is a claim for £25 as

wages.

Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Ballantine—The
schedule was not read at the trial. I gave up the
papers shortly after to Mr. Isaac. Mr. Acland, a
mining agent, was at the trial. I know nothing of
the writer of this article.

Mr. Freeman, examined by Mr. Denman, said—
I am engineer to the Board of Works for St. Leo-
nard's, Shoreditch. At a meeting of the Delarue
Company on the 30th July, the plaintiff wanted me
to enter the acts of himself and Mr. Montgomery
as, those of the board, and I said " No."

The letter of the plaintiff to Hardy of the 13th
March, 1856, was here Put in evidence.

Mr. Walter, examined by Mr. Denman, said—l
am a licensed victualler in Shoe-lane. In 1855 Mr.
Hurst introduced the plaintiff to me. They wanted
money—£l2, on a bill drawn.by Neal on Hurst. I
gave them the amount. The bill was paid. Mr.
Hurst had £3B, which he has not paid.
Mr. Neal, the plaintiff, was here recalled, and
asked whether a letter of the 6th April, 1858,
and
addressed by him to Col. Waugh, was in his hand-
writing P He said. it was, and that it was produced
at the last trial by Isaac.
Mr. Mingay, examined by Mr. Denman, said—l
remember having a conversation with the plaintiff
in November, 1858, respecting Brauksea Island.
T asked him for information respecting Branksea
Island, and he said, "As to the purchase of the
estate, it is not worth more than £10,000." He went
on to say that the island was not a fit place to live
upon, at least for six months in the year, in conse-
quence of the damp. He also told me the castle was
dismantled, and the mines were not worth anything
to work upon, and that the clay was not fit for any-
thing but to make pipes for sanitary purposes.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Ballantine—He
did not show me a report that £BO,OOO had been
offered for the estate. I gave information of this a
month ago, to Mr. Stevenson, who was in Mr.
Neal's office. I don't know how it came to the.
knowledge of the Sunday Times.
Mr. Grant said—l was secretary to the Glouces-
tershire Coal Mining Company. I wrote the letter
referred to in the third libel.

The bill of sale on the plaintiff's goods was here
produced by the plaintiff.
Mr. H. Stevenson said—l was one of the regis-
tered shareholders of some Welsh mines. I was
promised to be secretary. I do not know that I had
a conversation with the plaintiff on the subject.
Mr. Mannino . said—l took shares in the Carreg-
tovaMining Company.b I did not know the plaintiff
till two or three years after. I never made anything
of my shares. It came to an end in 1856.
Mr. Hawkins then summed up his evidence, and
INIr. Sergeant Ballantine replied upon the wholo
case, and in so doing said he never in his whole life
saw such a miserable failure of evidence as had been
exhibited on this occasion. He called upon the
jury to mark their sense of the defendant's conduct
by giving the plaintiff substantial damages.
Lord Campbell. ill the evTheinee, said
that "n formur ;,,,d 1:; id it tiow II that
colunicat,ollHit not to tic moil,.
It Wa,', : 1,10 ,11CLI It Wit. 7, tivCr II 1v:1S Izji•
SUbj tet: of connuc•nt. But, though c. :fair comment
on a trial was permitted, it was not allowed to
maka charges on the parties which were not
brought forward at the trial, and about which the
writer could know nothing, unless he was either a
party to the suit or the facts were supplied to him
by other parties. In the present case the mo.q
serious charges Were made on the character of the
plaintiff, and if they were proved to be true the