The Sun.
London, England, 1850-06-21 00:00:00

7bitton

SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock.

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Westminster, before Lord
Chief Justice CAMPBELL and a Special Jury.)
THE DUKE OF BRUNSWICK V. HARMER.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff against
the defendant, one cf the registered proprietors of this
journal, for an alleged libel.
The Duke of Brunswick conducted his own case in-
person, and Mr. Harmer, the defendant, was ably repro-
Vented by Sir F. Thesiger and Mr. Martin.
The subject-matter of the alleged libel was a leading
article which appeared in this journal on the 28th .Tune,
.1849, commenting on a trial in this court, a few days
previously, of an action for an alleged libel brought by
the present plsintift against the proprietor of the Weekly
Dispatch.
The Duke of 1311.UNSWICY, in a long addres; which he
read to the jury, recounted the circumstances under
which he had thought it his duty, in June last year. to
institute legal proceedings against the proprietor of the
Weekly Dispatch, for articles which appeared in that
journal so long ago as September, 1830, nineteen years
before the trial. Those articles, which the Duke com-
plained were libellous, were of considerable length,
stat-,-
ing, among other things, that he (the Duke of Bruns-
wick) had been expelled from his dominions because
he was a tyrant, and had outraged the feelings of his sub-
jects ; that he had trampled on the laws and been guilty
of other acts, which had so much incensed and irritated
his subjects, that they had expelled him from his duke-
dom and burned his palace. The libel of which he now
complained was an article written .in this journal in re-
ference to the trial against the Weekly Dispatch, and
which he alleged repeated and exaggerated the
libellous matter contained in the Dispatch, in re-
spect of which he last year obtained a verdict
and a considerable amount of damages. Our limits will
not admit of our reprinting to-day the article in ques-
tion, but we give a concluding senteace or two on which
the Duke strongly insisted as libellous. " His High-
ness has consequently but little reason to congratulate
himself upon his more than questionable success on
Tuesday, especially seeing that tho verdict is one ob-
tained through evidence as rotten and fraudulent as
to promise its ultimate reversal. Unless he may
be solicitous to proceed as upon a rather profita-
ble speculation, in his attacks upon the liberty of
journalism, we would suggest to the Duke of Brunswick
the propriety of withdrawing into his own natural and
sinister obscurity."
The Duke called as a witness one John Ryan, who
described himself as " associated with theatricals and
newspapers slightly," and was about to ask him what
interpetration he put upon the article alleged to be li-
bellous, when

Lord CAMPBELL refused to allow such evidence to be
given-, stating that the jury were capable of forming their
own opinion upon ae article in question.
The Duke asked his Lordship to reserve the point, but
Lord CA3IPUELL said emphatically—,No, I will reserve
n 6 sfieh point; in my opinio❑ it is clear law that such a
question should not be put.
The alleged libel was then put in and read, and that
was the case fOr the plaintiff.
F. /TIMMER made a singularly eloquent ad-
dress for the defendant, commenting in indignant terms
on the questionable evidence on which the jury had been
led • into the delusion of finding a verdict and such
heavy damages for the plaintiff in the action against the
praprietor of the Di.patch, vindicating, in dignified and
high-spirited language, the right of the public press of
this country fearlessly to comment upon the political
conduct and character of public men, -rind denying that
Mr. Iltirmer, the defendant, was in any way concerned
ie. the writing or publishing of the article in question.
The Learned. Counsel then called
Mr. A. Steel, the solicitor of the defendant, who
pro►ed that the plaintiff had an action of libel pending
against Mr. Young, the proprietor of this journal, whose
solicitor he (Slr. Steel) was, in respect of the same
article for which he now sought damages from the
present defendant.

_
Mr. Young also proved that Mr. Harmer knew
nothing whatever of tho article in question, and had
nothing whatever to do with the management of the
paper.

Lord CAMPBELL, in summing up the case to the jury,
told them that certainly by the laws of England it was
open to all persona to comment honestly and fairly on
the proceedings of courts of justice. It was alleged
that the verdict against the Weekly Dispatch had been
obtained by perjured testimony. He (Lord Campbell)
thought the better course would have been
to abstain from any charge of that sort until
the proper period came for applying to the
Court of Queen's Bench to set the verdict aside.
The question, however, which he should leave to the'
jury was, whether they thought the arttele in question
in The Evening Sun was a fair and honest commentary
on what took place at the trial to which reference had
been made, or whether they thought it was unjustifiable
and libellous? The Duke of Brunswick had thrown
out some insinuation of Mr. Harmer, the defendant,
being guilty of extortion, and wishing to receive
" hush money." He (Lord Campbell) Must say
that that was libelous oa the part of the Duke of Bruns-
wick, for there was not the slightest ground or pretence
for saying that there was any such wish or intention on
the part of Mr. Harmer. If he had belonged to that de-
scription of persons he would have belonge to a descrip-
tion of persons the most infamous in society, who
sought to extort money from persons of a weak
and nervous temperament, by trading oa their
fears through means characterised by wickedness
and infamy. The Learned Judge then read that part of
the article which adverted to the circumstance of the
Duke, along with other notable persons, having found
an asylum in this country. There eas no libel in that
(continued his Lordship); it only stated what was highly
commendable toallia kingdom, to which he and all present
in Court had the happiness to belong. His Lordship
said in conclusion, with strongly marked emphasis—
" Gentlemen, you will take the paper into your hands,
and you will say what is the lair meaning of the sen-
tences charged as libels. I must again say that you can
form an opinion Olt° as well as I can oa this sub-
ject,- but T certainly never should have dreamt of
theirs iutebding any such imputation as has been hinted
at by the plaintiff. With tespect to the language
used, it certainly is severe; and it is for you to say
whether it can be considered as a fair and honest cern-
memory upon the trial. If you came to the conclusion
that it is not, then it will be fur you to find a verdict for
the plaintiff, with such damages us you may think pro-
per to give. But I mast say, in justice to the defendant,
that the imputation which the plaintiff himself delibe-
rately cast on the defendant of being guilty of extortion,
and of dealing in hush money, ought to go, in my mind,
to diminish the amount of damages."
The jury after scarcely a minute's consultation gave a
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, ONE SHILLING.
The'verdiet, awarding this paltry sum to the Duke of
Brunswick, was received with audible expressions of ap-
plause throughout the crowded court.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT,
(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.
Their Lordships met at Five o'clock.
PETITIONS.
A NOBLE Lome presented several petitions in favour
of the-Act repealing the law prohibiting marriage with
a deceased wife's sister.
The Earl of FEVERSHAM presented a petition
against. any infringement on the provisions of the Ten
Houre-Bill and against the relay system.
Thebuke of RICHMOND presented a petition from
Todmerden to the same effect, and he gave notice that,
in Committee on the new B;11, he would move the clause
that Lord John Manners had moved in the House or
Commons, and would
press it to a division; he also pre-
sented a petition to the same effect from the factory
workers of Maneaester.
The Bishop of ST. DAVIL'S presented a petition
from the clergy of Haverferdwest, in Pembrokeshire,
against certain provisions in the Benefices Plurality Bill.
Lord. LANESBOROUGH presented a petition in
favour of the County Courts Extension Bill.
L )rd LYTTE EATON presented a petition from some
place in Worcestershire, praying that the tithe rent
charge might be made payable as a yearly seerege.
ATTENDANCE OF THE JUDGES.
awfouplddrliiatiln bet
,
Lord CAMPBELL said that it had been supposed
by the (sedges that their attendancensdsaiaa nce
requiredelering the present e
at ,d they
had consequently made arrangements for
attendance de die in diem until the commence-
ment of 4.tha,
summoned them
assizes. There were certain cases
in whicbetheirLordships had recently
attended
to attende.:thetir attendance would be at present
with great Inconvenience to the suitors in their courts.
He believed that, no great inconvenience would attend
the postponement of the causes in appeal in which
presence Keay required to another session of Parliament,
their
w
and he truere wi
th
their their Lordships would dispense
their attendanck''
Lord BRODGITAM had hoped that the attendance
of the Judges would have enabled the House to dispose
of
out certain appeals which had stood over a long time;
rain
appeals
of his Noble and Learned Friend
prevente4 frehriedulging in that hope.
SUNDAY POST-OFFICE REGULATIONS.
The NOBLE and' LEA.IINED LORD entertained grave
doubts whether the Crown could direct the abstenanco
from the delivery of post-otlice letters on Sunday.
Many of his friends had no doubt but that the or-
der of the Crown was illegal, inasmuch, as it was issued
on the address of one House only. It would, it was
couteueed, be illegal to act upon an address of
both Houses, but he took up the ground
that there were certain taxes levied on
the delivery of letters. Now, if that delivery was stop-
ped on Sunday, why not on Monday or any other day;
why should not thideliiery of letters be stopped alto-
gether?
The answer of the:Marquis of Lansdowne was inau-
dible in the gallery. -
CARRICK-ON-SHANNON UNION COMMITTEE.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH complained of the
conduct of the Charrman of this Committee.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE rose to order. The
Noble Marquis could not bring before the House the
conduct of the Committee.
The Marquis of WESTMEATII raid that Committee
Lad been adjourned ley the Chairct.ttn.—(Loud cries of
" Order, '"'•