The Sun.
London, England, 1857-06-25 00:00:00

Mahon and Mr. Clancy -very much contributed to en-
liven Mr. Brettell's life. There was a misunderstanding
among them, and the O'Gorman Mahon nod Mr. Clancy
were forbidden the house.orghis quarrel broke out shortly
before the accident. Mr. Brettell died, and then it turned
out that he bad left the greater part of his fortune to one
of the Burdetts--he meant Mrs. Cunnirgham. The
O'Gorman Mahon could get nothing more out of it, nor
could Mr. Clancy, and what did they find these twn gen-
tlemen did They went about Paris saying Mr. Bret- •
tell bad been murdered.; that Dr. Jones had been rent
for front London by somebody or other about Mr. Bret-
tell; that he administered to him a white powder, with
intent to produce his death, and which did produce it
within two hours. This was a charge not merely of man-
slaughter against Dr. Jones, but of murder. The writer
of this libel said, "I will he even with the Burdetes,
they have got his money, I -will take away' their charac-
ter." And then came the attack on Dr. Jones. It was
said that he administered a white powder, and that Mr.
Brettell died two hours-afterwards. That would be pretty
well, but the writer went on to say that the circumstances
which were considered to call for an explana. ion on the
part of Dr Jones were, that he at first signed a certificate
that the deceased had died from epilepsy, that be subse-
quently stated that he and Dr. M'Carthy were both
prepared to certify that concussion of the brain was the
cause of death (the fact being that Dr. M'Carthy
declines to concur in any such certificate), " that he
has on several occasions admitted that the medicine
he administered to Mr. Brettell was a most potent one,
and that wben pressed to say what it was, his only
answer is, that is my secret.' On being interro-
gated by the commissary of police and asked to produce
e specimen of the powder, he said he had none left, but
he finally wrote a prescription for making it up." Then
in a cowardly way the writer sought to shirk responsi-
bility by saying, "Although the circumstances call f r
that thorough investigation which -they will receive, I
cannot help thinking it will turn out that there has been
no wilful poisoning in the case." What he meant to
say was it would turn out that there had not been mur-
der, but that there had been manslaughter. Then came
a most scandalous statement, for which there was not
the slightest foundation, that in the meantime Dr. Jones
had been ordered not to leave Paris, and was under sur-
veillance. This was the injury which had been com-
mitted on the plaintiff, and to-day there had been this
further injury, that plaintiff had attempted to justify his
charge, and to show that the defendant had not been
qualified for his profession. He submitted that there
bad net been even an error of judgment on the part of
the plaintiff, that he did the best he could for Mr. Bret-
tell, that the various charges against him were false.
He asked them was there any justice to be had in Eng-
land ? When a man was libelled, ought he to have the
ample damages which the justice of his case required I
And what was to measure damages ? The character of
the plaintiff, 76 years in the world, with an unblemished
character. Tula libel contained the most fearful impu-
tation that could possibly be made against a man,
Looking at the manner of the publication in the broad
sheet of the Daily News—at the opportunity they had
had of apology', which they had not made— he trusted
that the jury would find that the libel had been made
out to their entire satisfaction, and that they would give
the plaihtiff ample damage,.
The learned Judge then proceeded to sum up. After
stating the form of the action and the pleadings, he said
it was correctly stated at the bar that an anonymous
publication which was calculated to bring a person into
odium and disgrace was a libel. It was their province
to say whether this was a libel or not, and I should ima-
gine they would have very little difficulty in determining
whether it was calculated to bring Dr. Jones into odium
and disgrace. This communication purported to be a
letter from Paris, and if that communication were writ-
ten for the purpose of injuring another, it was undoubt-
edly a libel. It stated that the result of a judicial in-
quiry had so far confirmed the grounds for suspicion, that
the authorities had thought it right to have the body ex-
humed, that a post mortem examination had been made
by Dr. raed'eu, and that the contents of the stomach,
the heart, liver, and lungs, enclosed in two sealed jars,
had been 'batten away to be examined, intimating that
the examination was still in progress, and that no final
opinion was formed of that which took place during the
examination. The learned judge then proceeded to read
the rema'nder of the alleged libel, asking, with regard to
the latter portion, that the waiter could nothelp thinking
that there been no wilful poisoning in the case, what that
meant ? Did it mean that the author suspected some-
thing ? It went on to state that in the meantime Dr.
Jones was ordered not to leave Paris, and was under sur-
veillance. What was the meaning of that ? Was this
statement calculated to bring Dr. Jones into odium and
contempt ? If so, it was a libel. The next question was,
if this was a libel was it true ? With reference to that
they had heard quite enough to form a judgment. Was'
it true, for instance, that the friends of Mr. Brettell,
having suspicions, applied for an investigation ? It ap-
peared that the O'Gorman Mahon said he went to the
procureur imperial; but beyond that they had the evi-
dence of Mr. M'Carthy that he went to the commissary'
of police on behalf of himself and Dr. Jones, for their
satisfaction. It wastrue that Dr. Jones administered a
white powder but it was not true Dr. M'Carthy was
asked to certify that the cause of death was concussion
of the brain. On the contrary, he said he was never
asked. It was idle to say that the several parts of this
publication weretrue. Then the next question which arose
was the question of damages, and that was a question en-
tirely for the jury. It was said by the counsel for the de-
fendant that it was the duty of a newspaper like the Daily
News to publish all that was interesting with regard to
public transactions and social life. In that he could not
agree. That the conductors of a newspaper in London
should think it their duty to publish the gossip and the
scandal of a foreign capital affecting the character of a
gentleman in England was to him rather startling. He
should have thought it their duty to take care, with re-
gard to publications of the truth or the falsehood of which
they were not in a condition to judge, and 'that they
would have followed the advice of one of the greatest of
our modern poets, het—
" To let their pleasure or their pride
Give sorrow to the meanest thing that breathes."
They took the other view of their duty. He was bound
to say there was no legal view of it. They received this
as foreign news, probably from some person who was
known to them ; and, if so, they might afterwards base
written for explanations. If it came anonymously there
would be the less excuse for publishing it. It had been
observed by the counsel for the defendant, that the plain-
tiff was rather hasty in bringing his action, and that he
never called on the defendants for an apology. On the
other band it was answered that the statute lad'
gave considerable assistance to those who were
harshly and unjustly attacked, that the conduc-
tors of the publication were allowed to make an
apology and to lay it before a jury, or to pay money into
court. That course had not been pursued in this case.
The case was altogether before the jury. They would
consider whether the publication were a libel, and
whether the truth of it had been proved ; and if they
considered it a libel, and that the truth had not been
proved, they would give such damages as they thought
it fair the plaintiff ought to receive.
The jury then retired, and returned into court in about
ten minutes, with a verdict for the plaintiff, damages
150/.

Country -Markets.

EDINBURGH HAY AND STRAW MARKET.
JuNE 23.

Supplies of all kinds these last six days again large.
Oat straw' from 8s Od to 10s On per kemple of 16 stone
iron; wheat do., 6861. to 8s 6d; barley do., 68 Od to S
Od. Hay from is ld to is. 4d.

EDINBURGH MEAL—Juni 23.
There were in the market today 13 sacks oatmeal, each
weighing 2801 b imperial, which sold at 44s Od and —s.