The Sun.
London, England, 1850-06-22 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

•
ViRT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Ant 21.
'tti111.7,3 sit Nisi Prius, at, AV, :stminster, LA',foro Lord

Chief Justice CAMPBELL and a Special Jury.)
this
• DUKE OF BRUNSWICK v. HARMER.
1114 was an action brought by the plaintiff against
,1 defendant, one of the regise:red proprietors of this
fir an alleged-libel.
lie puke of 13runSwiele conducted his own case in
:°°, and Mr. Harmer, the defendant, was ably repre-
ted by Sir F. Thesiger and Mr. Martin.
The subject-matter- of the alleged libel was a leading
Ittel•
4 s which appeared in this journal on the 28th June,
9+ commenting on a trial in this court, a few days
'hsly, of an action fit an lleged libel brought by
Jk~present pl'iatifi against the proprietor of the Weekly
p atch,
palm of -Bnueswicie, in a long address which he
te the jury, receun e the circumstances under
kjil he hail thimeht it his duty, in June last year. to
eit,ate leeal proceedings against the proprietor of the
k,4'19 DisplOt. fel- articles which appeared in that
.11:41 s long teen as September, 1830, nineteen years
hire the trial. Those articles, which the Duke come
ttti'd were libellous, were of cinsiderehla length. stat-
vattion„,e other things, that lie (lie Duke of Bruns-
'4') had- been expelled from his dominions because
kt as a tyrant, airs had outraged the feelings of his sub-
that he had t,arnple lon the laws and been guilty
'her acts, which had so much incensed and irritated
salibjeets, that they had expelled him from his duke-
all burned his palace. The libel of which he now
~P,tined was an article written in this jeurnal in re-
sl4,eB to the trial against the Weekly Dispatch, and
4f ,ri he alleged repeated and exseeerated the
hs matter contained in the Dispatch, in re-
id dof which he last year obtained a verdict
eonsiderahle amount of ciam4ges. We give a con-
ihion.g Sentence or two from the article in question, on
ttbunthe
has
strongly insisted •as,
is
iloera3 hae Consequently hut little reason to congrh us
teeeeself upon his more than questionable success on
espeithellise'eir4 that the verdict is one ob-
i through 'evidence as Teotten and fraudulent as
okoMise its , ultimate eseversal. Unless he may
11,'8°Iiciteus to proceed as upon a rather profit-
aPeculation, in his attacks upon the liberty of
hl:4lism, we Would suggest to the Duke of Brunswick
Vtcpriety of Withdrawing into his own natural and
ipk"r obscurity.!' 'ln the. course of his address the
sof 13rUnswick threw, out 'an insinuation tbat the
itT;"aet had been tictutedein the transactions before
Ilourt, ht a wish to extort money from the plaintiff,
The shape " hush money."
aDuke called :as a witews one John Reen, whO.
uecl...binaaelf; aq " associated with theatricals and
ItAPPOrs slightly," and was about to ask him what
kthPetration he. put upOn the article alleged to be li-•
when
ti h° C'emenet.t., ref asedta alloW such evidence to be
)ts'seising that the jury were capable of forming their
uPon tl,e article in question.
L'o'e hike a,ked hie-Lordship to reserve the point, but
k 14,1 CAMPBELL said einphatiCally—No, I will reserve
ka;',Fa POint; in my opiniop it is clear law that such a
1,1!_1011 should not. be put. ,
alleged libel was then put in and read, and that
the ease for the plaintiffe
At I,
.:Tnesicrit then addressed the jury for the de-
-111044.. Ale said it frequently happened that persons
I‘l.lsPeareci, without assistance •to conduct. their own
t° courts of- ;juseice were under some disadvantage,
biting to contend 'against those who habitually and
4sionally discharged that' .public duty. But he
ht the jury would be of-opinion, after what he must
the exhibition that 'day on the part of the Duke of
113'Ivielc, that at9ll eventswith reference to him no
s4' tlitadvantage existed, but that, on the contrary, Ile
ysOd and bad 'availed 'himself of peculiar advan-
I, Which placed'him' (Sir F. Thesiger), as the advo-
. ,'tti,tc)r the defendant, in a difficult and embarrassing.
The Duke of Brunswick was not un-
4,'utleed to courts of justice, or uninstructed
ICat he (Sir F. Thesiger) should call the arts of an
ti:l;4te; but he had, besides the natural and acquired
!ottages which he possessed; the advice of the profes-
-1 Person. who prepared for him the elaborate ad-
With which the. Duke 9f Brunswick had introduced
mdse jury, and in which a variety of matters
11,11
7irrelevant, and 'assailing the characters of indiva-
Vet before the Court, and who had no opportunity
%tiding themselves, had been introduced in aman-
ItitllNctliated to' defeat the unprejudicial consideration
Now, if he (Sir F. Thesiger) bad had the
;11 fortune to have been opposed on the present occti-
tta 14. any one 'Of' his Learned Friends who
liat near hina,' they would have understood
se' Were . the. rules they would have ,had
where to;, and would have known . that
"54113' question which the jury had then to decide
fit', be whether the article in question was published
iire 'defendant, and whether, if published, it was .8
itii°ll the plaintiff; and, out. of respect and deference
.ttas! Court, and to 'the rules of proceeding on this
ktsel°l; they would molt carefully have abstained from
lop 4c(ng .that irrelevant ,matter, or anything which
kti;4:loeproeerly -ei:sseili the characters of individuals
prepared
Court.' But the- Duke of Brunswick, in
,tePered speech which, he had read tti the jury, the
!IplPPearanee of which showed it must have been the
of deliheration, besides attacking the characters of
the Royal Family—by insinuations, had
yet proper to use expre.,si,ns with regard to the de••
Mr. Harmer, which, considering that the Duke
ittiqore the Court complaining of a libel upon his per-
keand not his' political character, one would have
keisat he would have abstained from. The jury might,
014,40; remember that the Duke had thought proper
Ness them at some length on the subject of the
i'i%! against him in the case of the newspapers called
fit' Era and . the. Satirist, and ho had chosen to
cl,,4te—,antl, properly to designate them—as low
V_leckguard publications. But, not content with
be had chosen to describe Mr. Harmer as a worthy
lith2Bni of Mr.
Bernerd Gregory, who was the editor
Satirist. aril he had spoken of the guilty soul of
killareaer, which must have gloated- upon the libels
Nhie,alurenies which he had published against the
i'ft. 'Now, he (Sir F. Thesiger) would take, the
tte `Y, ,ef,saying that, supposing the Duke of BrunswiCk
itsh\litought proper, in consequence of a libel of this de-
Vic% havine been published against hie), to apply to
4clltt of I.l,ueen'e Beeich, as be might, for a criminal
Itpt massed, in' which application he; would have the act.
SI,/,Re of offering his. own oath in refutation of the
N'es'Preff'rod qgttinst him, it it had turned out that
14tCh_,alte BrenSwick had maligned the character of
ktly'aividul'atetinA whom he was applying, if he had used
Itbeauch expressions as these ,which he had thought
iy,t'dellboratelYe to Use against Mr. Harmer that day,
Itt`,.:Jir F. Teesiget)_would ventur.e. to say that that
,11t1);11 the part of the Peke of Brunswick would have
S'„v'd him of his right to the interposition of the
in that way, and ha would have been dismissed to
Itti-"Jittary remedy at law, either by indictment or by
Now, the Duke in this ael w
ion as in the
loiPetition with regard to the question t..f damagesetts: jarY es he would have 'been under the circum-
Nes tif au application such as that which he (Sir F.
R-Ibd'ter) had suggested, and the question for the jury
S -e'de as to the amount of damages, if any, which
awarhlagainstf the defendant, must necessa-
et't'd. ' properly. bo considerably influenced by the
N Di' which the Duke had thought proper to
41 the ,present occasien; and he (Sir F. Thesiger)
dk4g6t he was entitled, -by the way, to state that he
oeme.,
On behalf of Mr. Harmer, their protection for
‘lto;;'aervetions which the Duke had thought proper to
,N1(-•,' against' him at the very moment when he was
his complaint, and urging at thi hands da-
N,`3 against Mr. Harmer. But this casee,r he (Sir F.
, tiger) was afraid, feoin the statements that had been
lkt et to them, was not at present thoroughly understood;
l'eNile37 would naturally suppose, he thought, that they
'reekicere to consider the effect of those articles in the
te Dispatch, which had been read to them at such
tt by- the Duke, and commented upon by him, and
teaal
3, me.ges were to be awarded with reference to
% articles as well as to the article in the Evening Sun.
Si' without explanation, would naturally have
igkt-lar granted from the statements made to them
o'at was the nature of the case on which they
,`lOll form judgment. New that was the real ques.-
,''ittlitlhd the mode in which that question must be leeiti-
eNt:l considered by them. It appeared from the ad-
oNs' statements in the declaration that the Duke of
commenced an action against Mr. Harmer,
~.441;91)Cietpi of the,Weetly Dispatch,- for various alleged
7atir,la that paper, bile, et them—and he prayed. he at-
°l.lqs'n of the jury to that7—having appeared in the
tlCail of that newspaper.so long ago as the 19th Sep-
% bar, 1830, nineteen years before the time of the trial.
tt,t action, as wept:eared, the statute of limitations
,ptt eaded in respect of the alleged libel of the 19th
Llta.,;lll„ber, 1830. ' It was necessary for the Duke to
71tVih`ne puhliCatian cf that libel of the 19th September
9thsix years; 'if he failed to do so the libel of the-
Itlet ',Ptember, 1830ewas to be put aside entirely and
lde a b 0 taken into account by the jury in estimating
lh
Thy
of damages which they would award; and
'lll reliantiable anti:j ust that fit should be. so.
Duke of BRUNSWICK (interrupting)—That is not
, ley Lord:l • .
• h'• TUEsICEit said, it appeared on the declaration,
"114 Was showing what was the nature of the action
145r,the jury had to decide.
• 4"•CaatPuELL (to the Duke of Brunswick)—The
s(q Counsel is quiteresumed. The jury in that
ttitr in order in what he says.
• -on • TIIESIGEtt. ;
gave a Verdict' for 500/. damages. lie (Sir F.
Utsi
aer...er) would call their attention now to the
tl.tio articles which, were stated in the elainiff's deela-
-I.`reeZ this .actiOn, which were published in the
'44 9 -I)inPile4 ; and he would venture confidently to
114 bt that if tlicsi. Lrticles et' the date of 1847 and 1848
l‘al/41,1140 the mile atticies of which complaint had been
t eleiltainst Mr.llarener on that occasion, that those would
otlew • "01' perfectly lustitl.ib'e and fair, and legitimate
.
▪ Itit 00 the public confine, of the Duke of Bruns-
`Ltteet,il andthat, no jury would for one moment ever have
41tet• .4'l le giving verdict against journalist in respect
lteti
elt) ,10 es cif trait description. But with regard to the
tilk of •
itiethe 19th of September, 1830, there were un-
Pahii..'n'thly charges there which not only assailed the
but • the- private character of the Duko
414 ru",vick, and with regard, therefore, to
twitegAtkPortion of the complaint which the Duke
ikettesuPporing the
,jury were called oil to give
the were entitled to give damages as fur a
'at _Pubileation, of that libel, and for an injury which
t 24 the ant rerculation ot that libel was calculated to have
rate bort-In:na ion f the Duke, most unquestionably they
"ilk ki give damages, and perhaps damages to the
Which they went on that occasion. But this