The Sun.
London, England, 1850-11-02 00:00:00

THE DERE CF ERTJNZWICK. V. HARMER.

le this case, which was tried at the sittings after last
Trinity Term, at Westminster, before Lord Campbell
and a special jury, the jury awarded a shilling damages
to the Vaintitf for an alleged libel, which appeared in this
journal about a year ago. The circumstances of the
case will be fresh in the recollection of our readers.

The Duke of Brunswick applied to the Court in per-
son, this morning, for a rule, calling upon the defendant
to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside
and a new trial had. The grounds on which his High-
ness this application, sa divulged in a long discur-
sive statement, which he addressed to the Court were,
first, the insufficiency of the damages, which,
he contended, twere wholly inadequate for such a
libel; seoondly, misdirection by the Learned Judge who
tried the case; thirdly, an improper permission given to
the defendant's counsel to read a certain paragraph is
the alleged libel, which was not in issue; and fourthly,
the rejection of a witness called by the plaintiff.'
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE said he was of opinion that
there ought to be no rule granted in this cave.
He had listened with some attention to the
statement addressed by the plaintiff to the Court, and he
had had some difficulty in understanding the grounds on
which the application was made. He collected, how-
eeer, that those grounds were first the rejection of a
sitness called for a certain purpose, and, secondly, per.
vaission given to the counsel on the part of the defen-
dant to read a certain paragraph which had now been
itated to the Court. With regard to the last of those
:;:ounds, it appeared that an objection had been taken
la; the plaintiff to the paragraph in question being read,
Incense the matter contained in it was not in issue. The
defendant said that it was on the record ; and if that was
so, his'counsel had a perfect right to make what use he liked
of it. It was either on, or it was not on the record. It
appeared at the trial to have been taken on the state-
ment of the counsel as being on the record; and there-
fore the Learned Judge could only deal with it so.
With regard to the rejection of the evidence it was
stated in this way—a passage, to which the attention of
the Court had been called, recommended the plaintiff, in
terms, unless he was solicitous of notoriety, "to with=
draw into his own natural and sinister obscurity," the
word natural being put in italics. The plaintiff proposed
to call a witness for the purpose of stating what
in his opinion was the meaning to be attached
to the word " natural" so used in that sen-
tence, but the Learned Judge refused to allow the
evidence to be given; and in his (Mr. Justice Cole-
ridge's) opinion the Learned Judge did perfectly right,
because it was a thing fur the jury, on a consideration of
all the circumstances and the evidence in the case, to
determine whether it had its natural meaning,
or that some other was to be attached to it. On
those grounds, stated thus shortly, there seemed
to him to be no foundation for granting
this rule. It was natural enough for the Learned Judge
who tried the case, and he was perfectly at liberty to
give such assistance to the jury as he thought proper on
any part of the case, leaving is, however, to them al-
ways to draw their own inference.
Mr. Justice WrGirrmArq and Mr. Justice ERLE both
said they were entirely of the same opinion.
Lord CAMPBELL said, ho retained the same opinion
that ha expressed at the trial of this case. It was for the
jury to say what was the meaning of the passage in ques-
tion, and they were not to be influenced in such a
case by the statement of any witness that might be
called. The plaintiff had said that he (Lord Campbell)
intimated an opinion as to what was the just meaning
of the sentence that had been referred to. He
(Lori Cemphsll) stated to the jury that he himself should
have: read that paragraph without at all putting the
construction upon it Oat the plaintiff contended for;
but he (Lord Campbell) stated in the most express terms
that it was for the jury to say what was the proper mean'
ing to be put upon it. With regard to the amount of dee
rnages, it eels for Vie jury te ssy in what respect the plain-
tiff I ad suffered,aed whether they believed he had brood ht
his action for the purpose of justifying his character, or
merely f)r the tabs of notoriety or vexation. He (L ,rd
Campbell) concurred with the rest of the Court that
there ought to be no rule.
Pa:le refused accordingly.