The Sun.
London, England, 1850-06-14 00:00:00

very few ladies would do; but of course she is at
liberty to invite expatriated foreigners to her table if
she thinks fit."

Boron PARKB said the greater part of the Court
were of opinion that it was libellous. The judgment
of the Court of Queen's Bench must be affirmed.

GREGORY V. THE QUEEN.
This was an appeal against tt,e judgment given
' against tha appellant on a criminal information tor a
libel on the Duke of Brunswick, in the Satirist.
Mr. Peacock, Q.C., appeared for the appellant, and
Mr. Henniker in support of the conviction.
Mr. PEACOCK said there were four counts in the
indictment, on which separate judgments had been
given. and punishments awarded on etch ; the punish-
ment in respect of the second, third, and tow th, to
commence from the expiration of that on the preced-
ing count. In the first count the words were—
" Why, asks a correspondent, after the acquittal of
Hubbard for the murder of Eliza Grimwood, did 1,11
inquiry cease to find out the perpetrator of that horrid
deed ? ‘Vho furnished Hubbard, on his discharge,
with the means of leaving this country ? B 5 the
tune in which these questions are put, we are led to
the inference that the writer knows more than he un-
folds. We have heard hints dropped on the subject of
parties who Inive not been brought forward, and who
could state in who,,e company (a foreigner be it re-
membered) the unfltunate woman was last seen."
The inuendo stated that this was intended to mean
that the Duke of Brunswick was the murderer of
Eliza Grimwood.

Mr. Justice CRESSWELL—Thero is no inuendo
that it was the Duke of Brunswick who furnished
Hubbard with the means of escape.
Mr. PEACOCK—The jury found that as well, that
that the Duke was meant by the last person,a fo-
reigner, who was seen with her. The second count
was for the following libel :—" It is owing to this
that, although Dublin may be the most plisant city
that sits on the say,' yet its suburbs are free from
foreign adventurers and refugees, whose crimes have
driven them from their native country. There are
neither ex-dukes nor rapalers in the capital of Pat-
land. Their pockets are not picked (rather a difficult
job to do sometimes), nor their Cyprians murdered."
The inuendo alleged that this was of and concerning
the Duke of Brunswick, and, in fact, accusing hitu
of the murder again. "Again we repeat our thanks
to Observer.' The evidence to facts, in relation to
the particular subjects alluded to, is procuring, and
we have no doubt sufficient information will be ob-
tained for a strong case to lay before the Home Secre-
tary, to enable that functionary to cause it to be inti-
mated to the suspected party" (inuendo meaning the
Duke of Brunswick) "that his presence here can be
dispensed with, as it may be attended with danger to
himself." The inuendo stated that it was hereby in-
tended to be conveyed that the Duke of Brunswick
was suspected of having committed murder, and in
fact had committed some murder which would bring
his life in danger, according to the law of England.
The fourth count, alluding to the inducement of cer-
tain prosecutions which the Duke had commenced
against Mr. Gregory, contained the following alleged
libel :—" We repeat our thanks to 0. ; we shall not
require such aids to overthrow the prosecution. We
will beat him" (inuendo meaning the Duke of Bruns-
wick) "on the merits. We are not a defenceless
female, to submit quietly to strangulation, or to a
knife being drawn across our throats.' The inuendo
was, " thereby causing it to be believed, or suspected,
that the Duke of Brunswick murdered Eliza Grim-
wood."

Several technical objections were raised, principally
on the ground that the inuendos were too large, and
gave a meaning to the alleged libels beyond their fair
construction, and also on the ground that there would
be a difficulty in apportioning the sentence ; but,
after a somewhat discursive argument,
Mr. Baron PARKE said—We have no doubt, then,
the first count is sufficient, as there is an introductory
Averment of the fact that Eliza Grimwood w ts mur-
dered. The second count is also good ; but the third
clearly bad, as there is nothing to show the Duke's
life was in danger—it only goes to show that he was
iu danger here, and contains that allusion to Eliza
Grimwood. There may be difficulty as to punish-
ment, as each is to commence at the expiration of the
term awarded on the preceding count, and we have
reversed the judgment on the third.
Ultimately the judgment was affirmed on the fourth
count, the imprisonment to commence immediately
on the expiration of that pronounced on the second
count. Altogether the result is, that the appellant
will have to undergo imprisonment for six months.
Mr. Sergeant Talfourd having while at the bar
been counsel in this case, took no part in the proceed-
ings this day.