The Sun.
London, England, 1850-12-18 00:00:00

*ea, I,llq*Yfifii irt`
.4-t*
6,ra✓ . j..?
x+'•`-74;3
•

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

,
(Sittings at Nisi Prius at Westminster, before the Loup
CHIEF BARON and a Special Jury.)
GRAPES V. ➢UNNEY.

This action was brought against the defendant to re-
cover compensation in damages for an alleged libel, pub-
lished in the John Bull newspaper, of which the defen-
dant was the proprietor.
The defendant pleaded justification.
Mr. Keating and Mr. Barstow appeared for the plain-
tiff, and Sir F. Thesiger and Mr. M. Smith for the
defendant.

From the statement of Mr. BEATING, . it appeared
that the plaintiff, Robert Grapes, who was a person in
humble circumstances, held the situation of a sub-sorter
in the General Post-office, in 1647, when there was a
loud outcry made by the subordinates of that establish-
ment against their being employed, without any addi-
tional remuneration, in collecting information for the
"London Post-office Directory," which belonged to
Mr. Kelly, who was the inspector of the letter-carriers.
The plaintiff took an active part in bringing the alleged
grievance before the public, and he was one of the par-
ties who supplied Mr. Thomas Duncombe, the Hon.
Member for Finsbury, with information to enable him
to bring it under the attention of Parliament. In con-
sequence of that Hon. Member's interference, an investi-
gation was made into the subject, which resulted in the
practice of employing letter-carriers on Mr. Kelly's pub-
lication being discontinued. It appeared, further, that a
sub-sorter named Thacker, who,:in conjunction with the
defendant, had made representations to Mr. Duncombe,
was taken into custody on a charge of stealing letters,
and ultimately transported. Before his trial it seemed
that a conversation took place at a public-house be-
tween several employgs of the Post-office on the subject
of the charge, in the course of which the plaintiff ob-
served to some who had been summoned as witnesses,
" say as little as you can, but whatever you say let it be
the truth, and stick to it." This was construed by one
or two who were present into an attempt to tamper
with the witnesses, and the matter having come to the
knowledge of the plaintiff's superiors, he was discharged
from the Post-office. A short time afterwards,
viz., on the 24th July, 1847, the John Bull pub-
lished a leader, attacking Mr. Duncombe, in
which the following passage occurs :—"A worthy
associate of Abraham's (meaning Thacker) is fish-
ing up dirty matters for Mr. Duncombe, of the
vinous name of Grapes—Robert Grapes has since been
dismissed from the Post-office for endeavouring to
tamper with the witnesses by whose evidence Thacker's
guilt was proved. ' I have received a gr( at deal of in-
formation from Grapes,' quoth the Hon. Member for
Finsbury, (information, wo opine is, not the only thing
he has received from Grapes), and, therefore'—oh, of
course, therefore—' this charge of tampering has been
trumped up, and poor Grapes has been
plucked before he was ripe.' " The article then
goes on to say, "meanwhile we hope he (Mr. Duncombe)
will behave generously to poor Grapes, and squeeze him
into a good place of some sort or other, since it is most
manifest he has lost the one he had in consequence of
doing his (Mr. Duncombe's) dirty—no, we mean snow
white work. Abraham in the hulks, and Grapes pining,
perhaps, in a back garret upon nothing a day, and find-
ing himself." This was the libel complained of.
Witnesses were called, who proved the main circum-
stances detailed above.

Sir F. THESIGER, on the part of the defendant, con-
tended that the article did not admit of the interpretation
which had been put upon it, and that the plaintiff's
counsel had distorted the real meaning of the words; but
even supposing the words admitted of the construction
contended for, that they were fully justified by the cir-
cumstances, as he should be ab'e distinctly to prove the
attempt of the plaintiff to tamper with the witnesses
against Thacker.

—The Marquis of Clanricarde was called, and deposed
that the plaintiff was brought before him on a charge of
tampering with witnesses, and after hearing the facts of
the case he thought he was justified in dismissing him
from tho service of the Post-office.

Col. Maberly and Mr. Peacrck, the solicitor for the
Post-office, corroborated the statement of his Lordship
as to what transpired at the examination of the plaintiff.
Other witnesses were examined as to the conversation
which passed at the public house, and they stated that
the plaintiff requested them not to say all they knew
against Thacker.
Mr. KEATING having replied,
The CHIEF BARON summed up, and
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.
The case occupied the whole day.