The Sun.
London, England, 1857-01-24 00:00:00

THE ALLIED ADMIRALS AT VARIANCE.

"Great blame is imputed to the French for the
failure of the first bombardment, and something
very like a quarrel between the French and British
admirals is recorded. Admiral Dundas desired to
anchor within a thousand yards of the forts,—Ad-
miral Hamelin desired almost to double the dis-
tance. 'At first Admiral Dundas would not hear
of this proposal, but the French admiral then said
that he would not carry out the first plan, and
that,
to
then
if Admiral Dundas did not agree to the
proposed, he should think it necessary
brat "Ild to General Canrobert to inform him
anthe allied admirals could not come to
utillderstanding on the mode of attack,
and terefore he could not promise birn;the c:)-
opration of
thefleets.
It is said that Si
at Sir
Edmund Lyons Was very indignant the conduct
of Admiral Hamelin, and
did all in his power to
persuade Admiral
propositions being
to give in, but to
insist on the old
carried
of
o ret
Admiral Dundas, fearinl_m
the
iral Hamelin, finally responsibility
fusing to agree with
settled fo follow his plansd.'"

PUNISHMENT IN SEBISTOPOL
a gang beinc: at w
"About two years ago,
the dockyard at Sebastopol, one of them' attaocrkek idn
a
passer-by without any provocation, knocked him
down, smashed in his face with the manacles hist
hands, then jumped upon and trampled him t)
death. The act had been so sudden that the
occurrence could not be prevented. It was
thought by the authorities that so brutal a murder
should he visited with some peculiar punishment,
as an example to the others, for if tie man was
hung or shot immediately, the circumstance would
soon be forgotten. The case was made known to
the Emperor Nicholas, who, on hearing of it,
ordered an iron wheelbarrow to be made, and chai: s
from its legs to he attached to those of the man.
This was accordingly done, and, of course, the man
could not move a yard without wheeling it in front
of him. It is said that a week after he had been
thus punished he begged to he put to death, as it
made his life a burden to him. This, of course,
was not listened to, and three months after the
wretched man died, raving mad v,

AN OPINION OF GENERAL CANROBERT.
"When in April,lBss, the assault w'aspostroned by
the desire of ()tn. Cam.° bert, the Staff-officer writes:
—' I need hardly tell you how much disgusted we
all are at the vacillating conduct of General Can-

robert, who never seems to know his own mind
two days together. No one knows what trouble
and annoyance these constant changes of opinion
at the French head-quarters give Lord Raglan,
and how very difficult his position is, the more so
as people in England appear generally to attribute
the delays to the fault of the English Commander-
in-Chief. No member of the British Government
who really knows the state of affairs dare say any-
thing in defence of Lord Raglan that would Em-
promise General Canrobert, as they are so fearful
of in any way endangering the alliance between us.
It is said that General Canrobert is getting very
unpopular with the French army here, as it is be-
come pretty generally known that he is the great
obstacle in the way of an assault on the town,"'
It is known that the Emperor Napoleon had
proposed the plan of a campaign in the field in
the summer of 1855, and we learn from this
boek that the plan was approved by the French
and English Governments, and that orders
were sent out to the allied commanders to
carry it out if practicable. Lord Raglan ad-
hered to his idea of the necessity of continuing
the siege. In spite of the earnest remonstrances
from General Canrobert, and the instructions
from home, he refused to give up the English
trenches to the Turks. Canrobert, unwilling to
incur the responsibility of disobeying the Emperor's
orders, resigned, and was succeeded by Pelissier,
who cordially fell in with Lord Raglan's ideas.
The capture of the Mamelon was decided.

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENINW

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Jan. 23.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Sittings In Banco before Lord Campbell, and Justices
Coleridge, Wightman, and Crompton.)
DAVISON V. DIINCAN AND ANOTHER.

Ages from the defendant, a publican, the propfisier of
the Founded Arms, in Brick-lane, Spitalfields, for 3
breach of promise of Marrlags, The defendant pleaded
not guilty. It appeared that soma three years ago the
plaintiff entered the service of a Mr. Holmes, a publican
at the Eastend of the town, where also the defendant
was employed in the capacity of barman. She remained
there some 15 months, during which time an intimacy
sprung up between them, which resulted in the defend-
ant proposing to marry the plaintiff. Matters went on
till ultimately the plaintiff left Mr. Holmes's service in
Nov. 1855 in the familyway, alleging that her master
was the father of the child. The defendant also left,
his employer having set him up in business in
the house which he now occupied ; but notwith-
standing the condition of the plaintiff he continued to
visit her, displaying great solicitude about her unhappy
situation. The child was born ; and the plaintiff, not-
withstanding the expressed wish of the defendant, at-
tempted to &Mate it on Mr. Holmes, from which time
"a change came o'er the spirit of his dream," and he
wrote to her saying she bad " brought the misfortune
on herself, and she must put up with the consequences."
Subsequently, not being successful in affiliating the
child, she brought in this court an action against Mr.
Holmes nominally for an assault, but which amounted
to an action for seduction, when the jury awarded her
201. damages. Several letters written by the defendant
to the plaintiff were put in evidence, in one of which he
said, "I trust to your future good morals, and we shall
in the course of time be happy and comfortable toge-
ther."
The case on the part of the plaintiff having termi-
nated,
Mr. Edwin James addressed the jury in mitigation of
damages. He said there was no denying that the de-
fendant had promised to marry the plaintiff, but his
breach of that promise was solely and entirely attribut-
able to the misconduct of the girl herself, who was made
the tool of her attorney in bringing this action, which
should never have come into a court of law. Emboldened
by the success of the former action, those behind this
unfortunate girl had prompted her to again come into
court. They all knew that love was ardent, and as
Hudibras said—
" Love is a thing that burns and sparkles
In men as natural as in charcoals." •
However, to return to the case. The letters from the
defendant were couched in affectionate terms to the
plaintiff down to the 16th of February, 1856, when she
attempted to affiliate the child on her former master,
from which time the defendant, although he was willing
to marry her, knowing her disgrace, could not reconcile
to kis mind the ruinous public exposure which had
taken place before the magistrate. He therefore with-
drew from all further intimacy With the plaintiff.
He would ask the jury how could the defendant
marry a girl who had made her disgrace so notorious 1
What an ornament as a publican's wife ! Why, his
neighbours would scoff at him, saying "You have
married a woman who has had a child by Holmes." In
conclusion, the learned counsel expressed a hope that
the jury would only award nominal damages ; such an
amount as would show that actions of this description
ought not to be brought into a court of justice.
M. Sergeant Thomas—As in imputation had been
cast on the attorney in this case, may I observe that
this action was brought by the advice of my learned
friend Mr. Charnock and myself.
Mr. Baron Bramwell--You are not justified in making
any such statement ; it is not, as counsel, your province
to do so.
Mr. Sergeant Thomas excused himself by saying that
the attorney for the plaintiff had been attacked.
Mr. Baron Bramwell—Let the attorney submit to it
then.
The learned Judge, in the course of his summing up,
told the jury that they must measure the amount of
damages to which the plaintiff would be entitled by the
injury she had sustained. The damages ought not to be
regarded as referable to the making of the promise, but
with respect to the breaking of it, and the jury were to
say what amount they would award for such breach.
To do that it would be necessary for them to consider
what would have been the condition of the plaintiff if
she had married the defendant. If they considered that
the plaintiff and defendant would, in the married state,
have led a cat and dog life, a very small sum would com-
pensate her for the injury ebe had sustained ; but if, on
the other hand, they were of opinion that she would
have been happy, she would be entitled to recover a
a large amount. The fact of the woman having given
birth to the child was no abatement of the injury com-
plained of by her, as the defendant had, after his
knowledge of her disgrace, renewed his promise to
marry her.
The jury retired ; and, after an absence of an hour,
returned into court with a verdict for the plaintiff—
damages 301.

This case came before the court upon a demurrer to
the defendants' plea.
Mr. Manisty, in support of the demurrer, stated that
the action was brought to recover damages for a libel
pubiished by the defendants respecting the plaintiff in
the Durham, County Advertiser. The article in question
was headed " West Hartlepool Improvement Commis.
sinners," and purported to be a report of certain pro-
ceedings and a discussion which had taken place at such
meeting respecting a licence alleged to have been granted
by the Bishop of Durham (Dr. Maltby) to a Rev. J. H.
Borges to act as chaplain to the cemetery. The learned
counsel read the report, which showed that the dis-
cussion was of an angry and abusive character.
Several of the commissioners alleged that the
licenes was " a clumsy device on the part of Mr. Joseph
Davison (the plaintiff), and that it was discovered by the
bishop." Another commissioner said, "it would appear
that the whole proceeding was a fraud upon the bishop
as well as upon the public." Another said, "it was a
great scandal upon the Church ;" while a third said,
"I don't see that. It is, in my opinion, merely a scan.
dal upon Mr. Joseph Davison, the late bishop's secre.
tary" (meaning the plaintiff). At the close of the die-
cession the commissioners resolved unanimously—
" That the commissioners do not admit the necessity of
any such document, and, being now informed that the
bishop himself repudiates it, decline to reclognise its va-
lidity. To this declaration the defendants pleaded that
the said meeting of the said Hartlepool Improvement
Commissioners in the said libel mentioned was held as
therein stated, and the same was a public meeting of the
commissioners, acting under the powers of the West
Hartlepool Improvement Act 1854, and was held for
the purpose of putting that act into execution. It then
alleged in substance that the article complained of was
a just, true, faithful, correct, and accurate report of the
proceedings which took place at the said meeting, and
that there was no malice on the defendants' part in
printing or publishing the same. To this plea the plain-
tiff demurred, and thus raised the question whether the
defendants were justified in publishing a true and faith-
ful report of the defamatory speeches spoken at the
meeting of the said West Hartlepool Commissioners.
Lord Campbell said the plea would formerly have
been held bad on special demurrer, as amounting to the
general issue.
Mr. Manisty said— The ptantiff alleged that the
charges were false, and that the question was whether
newspapers were to be at liberty to publish false state-
ments made at such meetings. The case was not like
that of a report of proceedings in a court of justice,
svhdre the parties were present, The plaintiff alleged
that the libel was false from beginning to end. The
speakers took the opportunity of making statements
which were not founded in fact.
Lord Campbell said the plea denied that the defers
dants had any malice.
Mr. Manisty said that was so ; but the question was
whether it was open to newspapers to publish reports of
speeches made at such meetings.
Lord Campbell—Was this a meeting at which the
public had a right to be present 1 A. good deal might
depend on that.
Mr. Manisty said the public had no right to be present;
the act was only a local improvement act. It was an act
for paving, lighting, watching, draining, cleansing, regu-
lating, and otherwise improving the town of West Har-
tlepool, &c., and for providing a cemetery, and for other
purposes. It appointed commissioners whom it incorpo-
rated, with power to make rates for carrying out the act.
Lord Campbell said that, as the commissioners had
power to do acts and to levy rates, all the inhabitants of
West Hartlepool would have a right to be present. Fur
what purpose were they assembled when the debate arose?
Mr. Manisty said it did not appear. The plea merely
said there was a meeting of the commissioners acting under
the powers of the act, and for the purpose of putting the
act in execution. The learned counsel proce.ded to con-
tend that, though the courts allowed reports of proceed•
ings in courts of justice where the proceedings were not ex
parte, the law had never been extended to oases like the
present. The cases were all collected in the case of
Hoare v. Silverlock" (9 C. 8., 20), in which it was
held that in an action for libel it was a good defence
that the article complained of was a fair report of a pro.
ceeding in a court of justice, the proceeding not being ex
parte. Mr. Justice Mdule said, "I think it isi mpos-ible
to say that a fair account of proceeding in a court of j us-
tice not being e-.‘ parte, but in the hearing of both sides,
is not, generally speaking, a justifiable publication.
Matters may appear in a court o- justice that have so
immoral a tendency, or be so injurious to the character
of an individual, that their publication could not be tole-
rated. But, as a general rule, it may be assumed that the
publicati,-.n of a fair account of what passes iu a court ef
justice not ex parte is justifiable, unless there is something
to take it out of that rule.

Mr. Untkank, who appeared in support of the plea,
said the que,tion now was whether hi air report of what
took place at a meeting of commissioners, and without
malice, was a privileged communication.
Lord Campbell said that nearly 10 years ago it was
proposed to the Legislature to pass an act to render that
' lawful which was not so before, but it did not extend to
public meetings. His lordship spoke in a very low tone
of voice, but we understood his lordship to refer to this
circumstance to show that the distinguished persons who
bad considered the subject did not consider that the pri-
vilege extended to reports of public meetings.
Mr. Justice Wightman said—Suppose the case of a
public meeting on the subject of the income tax, and
sore very strong observations made'
Mr. Un thank said a public meeting would have no
power over such a question.
Lord Campbell laughed, and appeared to signify dis-
sent from that proposition.
Mr. Justice Wightman—Suppose the editor said he
published a correct report of what passed ?
Mr. Justice Crompton—Suppose a speaker makes
some strong observations upon a collector !
Lord Campbell—Or that the Chancellor is charged
with robbing the Exchequer, and that thereby the neces-
sity for the income tax arises ! (Laughter.)
Mr. Unthank contended there was a difference be-
tween that case and the present, where commissioners
were appointed by act of Parliament who had the power
to tax the subject to the extent of 2s. 6d. in the pound
on ali property rated to the poor rate.
Mr. Justice Crompton said Suppose it had been the
case of a railway meeting, how were her Majesty's
subjects beyond Hai tlepool interested ?
Mr;,lJnttiank said the question was one of great
importance, as similar bodies were now constituted all
over the country. The commissioners in this case had
every conceivable power, including power to construct
baths, cemeteries, &c., and to borrow money to the
extent of 26,000/. It was therefore of the highest im-
portance that their meetings should be open to the pub-
lic, and their proceedings reported in the newspapers,—
as much so as that the proceedings in this court should
be reported. It had been decided that an advertisement
inserted in a newspaper respecting something I,st was
not libellous, though it might criminate some one.
Lord Campbell—You are now contending for the right
to give a fair and full report of what takes place.
Mr. Unthank admitted that more might have taken
place than was irrelevant.
Lord Campbell—We assume that it was a public
meeting. Do you assert that a fair report of what takes
place in a public meeting may be reported in the news-
papers !

' Mr. Unthank said he did, the same as the proceedings
of a pelice-court or court-martial. All the cases were
brought before the court in " Stockdale v. Hansard"
(9 A. E. 97).
Lord Campbell intimated that there was no case to
support the Learned counsel's proposition.
Mr. Unthank said that since that case was decided
these local authorities had been established all over the
country.
Loru Campbell—Then all that takes place in a vestry
meeting may be published ? His lordship here referred
to the case of Lord Abingdon, who made a speech
against his steward, and afterwards maliciously pub-
lished the libel.

Mr. Justice Wightman—You must assume that the
speaker speaks maliciously, and that the reporter states
what passed.

Mr. Unthank said that would apply to what took
place in a court of justice.
Mr. Justice Crompton said the question was whether
the privilege was to be extended —whether a reporter
might publish every inflammatory charge /
Lord Campbell—There is a difficulty in deciding what
is done bona fide and what maliciously.
Mr. Unthank—That would apply to a report of a pro
ceeding in a court of justice.

Lord Campbell—But that is in the presence of the
judges, and they are answered by the other aide.
After a short conference with the other judges,
Lord Campbell said he was of opinion that, as the law
now stood, the plea was bad. As the law now stood a fair
account of what took place in a court of justice was privi-
leged, if made bona fide. The public had great interest
in knowing what took place in courts of justice, and what
passed v
etnhieerrec we under the
which
arose control f
from
f the
allowing
j ut dhga et s ,
prandi h
vi
et
g ee
was infinitesimally small compared with the benefit which
was conferred upon the public. But when an attempt
was made by the Legislature to extend that privilege it
had failed, and till now in a court of justice the doctrine
had never been contended for. It might be desirable that
the doctrine should be extended, but without some gua
rantees for the protection of private character he (Lord
Campbell) thought such publications ought not to be
permitted. If the plea were go',-)d, a fair account might
be published of what took pl%ce at a public meeting, what-
ever injury it might do to private character, from a meet.
ing of the county down to a meeting of a t )wn council—
a meeting to levy a rate, Sr for the removal of a pauper.
At such meetings there might be a great number of
things said extremely Injurious to private character, and
if such a plea as the present were a defence there would
be no opportunity for the party to vindicate his character
from the aspersions cast upon it. If the Legislature saw
fit, it might extend the privilege to certain meetings
under certain qualifications. ut the Court had to de-
cide according to the law as it now stood, and he (Ler'
Campbell) felt bound to give judgment for the plaintiff.
Mr. Justice Coleridge and Mr. Justice Wightman
expressed themselves to the same effect, and
Mr. Justice Crompton said he was entirely of the same
opinion for the same reasons
Judgment for the plaintiff

Asa
e,
COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
DEsßoßouaz V. MIDGLEY—BREACII OF PROMISE OF
MARRIAGE.

Mr. Sergeant Thomas and Mr. Cliarnock appeared
for the plaintiff, and Mr. E. James and Mr. H. James
were counsel for the defendant.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff. s servant
maid, 21 years of age, to recover oorapeneation in darn-