The Sun.
London, England, 1844-01-29 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY,
(Sittings in Banco).

THE AGE NEWSPAPER AND THE DUKE OF BRUNSWICK.
THE QUEEN V. HOLT AND OTHERS.
The defendants in this case were the proprietors of the
Age newspaper, against whom a criminal information had
been filed, for the publication of a series of libels reflecting
upon the character of the Duke of Brunswick, and imputing
to his Serene Highness crimes of the most atrocious and dis-
gusting character. The defendants had been tried before a
specialjury, at the sittings of the last term, and had been
found guilty. Two of the defendants, T. L. Holt, and
George Frederick Brander, ,were this morning brought up
for judgment. Holt had been the publisher of the news-
paper at the time of the publication of the libel, and the de-
fendant Brander, who resided at Christ-church, Hampshire,
was one of the proprietors, having invested his money in the
purchase of two shares in the paper.
Very voluminous affidavits in mitigation and in aggrava-
tion of punishment were put in and read.
Mr. PLATT, on the part of the defendant Holt, addressed
their Lordships in mitigation of punishment, and complained
that undue severity had been used in executing the warrant,
and urged, that as the defendant had offered every reparation
in his power a slight punishment would be sufficient to sa-
tisfy the justice of the case.
A Learned GENTLEMAN, whose name we could not learn,
addressed the Court on behalf of the defendant Brander, who
had invested his money in the Age merely as a mercantile
speculation, who had never exercised any control over the
editorial department of the paper, and who had frequently
recommended greater caution in the selection of articles for
insertion. Mr. Brander had derived no profit from his con-
nexion with the paper, as his shares had decreased in value
since he had originally purchased them in 1837.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD, in aggravation, urged the Court
to pass a very severe sentence on those who had inflicted
upon the Duke of Brunswick the severest injury they could
inflict upon any human being. It was not as the Duke of
Brunswick, but as a man, that the Duke had applied to this
Court. Never had a more atrocious system of libelling been
more perseveringly followed up than that which had been
pursued by these defendants ; and it was an insult to the
Duke for the defendants to offer, as they had done, to open
their columns to a contradiction, after a criminal information
had been obtained. Was that all the satisfaction he was to
have for the publication of libels imputing to the Duke crimes
in comparison with which ordinary felonywas a trifling offence ?
Every step on the part of the defendant Holt had been ag-
gravation from first to last, and nothing like contrition had
been manifested on his part. With regard to Mr. Brander,
it would have been well if he, who had had affidavits made
to his character, and complained of the disgraceful publicity'
to which he had been subjected by these proceedings—it
would have been well that he should have recollected, that
there was a publicity of a more painful character, even that,
namely, to which individuals of good character were sub-
ject by being made the object of comment, by
such libellous attacks as those of the Age newspaper. It
was absurd to say that the defendant could be ignorant of
the character of the speculation in which he had embarked
his capital. Many a man would have sunk into a dis-•
honoured grave heart-broken, by these dreadful imputations,
and he thought the British public was under the greatest
obligation to the Duke of Brunswick for the manly manner
in which he had come forward and dragged these defendants
to the bar of a court of justice.
Mr. KELLY and Mr. WORDSWORTH followed on the same
side.
Mr. Justice PArrEsoN then proceeded to pas: the judgment
of the Court on the defendants, Thomas Holt and George Fre-
derick Brander. They had had a criminal information filed
against them, charging them with having published in the Age
newspaper a series of libels imputing to his Serene Highness
the Duke of Brunswick, acts and propensities of the
foulest and most disgusting character. From the affidavit
of the defendant Holt, it would appear that he would wish
the Court to believe that he was not aware that any such
meaning could be attached to the paragraphs in question, at
the time that he permitted their insertion. The paragraphs,
however, were submitted to the Court, when the criminal
information was granted, and the Court had entertained no
doubt whatever as to the meaning of the paragraphs in
question. The question had likewise been submitted to a
jury, who had entertained no doubt as to the meaning of the
paragraphs, and it was impossible that anymanreading those
paragraphs could entertain any doubt as to the intention of
the writer to cast such imputations, let him swear to the con-
trary as much as he pleased. It ha d been said that
Holt had written a letter of apology to the Duke of Bruns-
wick, when these proceedings had been commenced. On
looking at that letter, however, the Court was of opinion
that it was no apology at all. It merely stated
that if anything offensive to the Duke of Bruns-
wick had appeared in the columns of the Age,
they were open to him to put in any contradic-
tion which he might think proper. If any proprietor of a
newspaper had accidentally permitted the;,introduction of
scandalous matter into his paper it was his
bounden duty to correct it at once, and not to say
to the person libelled,
.my columns are open to you
in contradict it or not as you think proper. It was a gross
abuse of the liberty of the press for any person
in the situation of the defendant to conduct him
self as he had done. These libels had not been
inserted incautiously, but it was evident that they had been
concocted with the utmost deliberation. The manner in
which the defence had been conducted, and the circum-
stances which had been urged in mitigation to-day, had
operated on the mind of the Court rather as circum-

sances of aggraVitton. It was one of the most
aggravated cases of libel that had ever come before
the Court. With regard to the defendant Brander,
he certainly had not been so culpable as the other defendant,
he had had no control over the publication, and perhaps had
not seen the libels, but he. must have been aware of
the character of the paper at the time he embarked his
capital in it, and of the liabilities which as a proprietor
lie was incurring. The sentence of the Ccurt was that the
defendant Thomas Holt be imprisoned in the Queen's
Prison twelve calendar months, and that the defendant
Brander be imprisoned in the same prison for three calendar
months.—The defendants were then removed in custody.

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS.)
WHITE P. IIODGES.—WHITE V. GOODIIALL.

The SOLGITORI6ENEELII, moved for a rule to show cause
why the judgment obtained in the first-mentioned cause, and
the scire facias issued in the second, and all subsequent pro-
ceedings, should not be set aside on the ground of fraud and
collusion. The Agricultural and Commercial Bank of Ireland
appeared to have been established in the year 1834. A capi-
tal of 250,0001. was to be raised by shares, but it was alleged
in the prospectus that the actual capital was a million. It
appeared from the affidavits that the actual capital never
exceeded 1,800/. "What had been done in the present case.
was this. An action was brought against the public agent of
the Company, and the party then allowed judgment by
confession. • The same thing took place in both cases. Judg-
ment was entered up in the Queen's Bench in Ireland. By
an Act of Parliament relating to Joint Stock Banks, power
was given to any party to remove a judgment from the Courts
in Ireland, and to enter it up in the Courts in England, for

the purpose of issuing the sire facias in this country against
parties who might reside here. Judgment was accordingly
entered up in England, and he now applied to his Lordship to
set aside the judgment in this Court, on the ground of fraud
and collusion. The defendant, in the year 1836, bought in
this country 100 shares of a person of the name of Harvey,
who acted as an agent of the bank. In November, 1836, the
bank stopped payment, but it continued in existence by bor-
rowing money on promissory notes, and it had no power to
do so by Act of Parliament. Coupons were issued to
avoid the difficulty respecting interest. Under the provisions
of the Banking Acts, there was a return made every year
to the Stamp-office, of the names of the shareholders, and
the defendant, Mr. Harvey, having ceased, in 1840, to be a
shareholder, his name was not returned until the occurrence
which he was about to state. In 1843, 6,528 names were
returned to the Stamp-office, whereas the number had never
before exceeded 4,253. In that list the name of the defen-
dant again appeared. That being done, proceedings were
taken for the purpose of getting the judgments entered up.
Upon the affidavits before the Court, he contended that the
action in this case was notbrought by the plaintiff, or for the
benefit of the plaintiff, but that they were brought by per-
sons in the bank for the purpose of making the defendant,
who had ceased to be a partner in 1840, contribute to the
losses of the bank.—Rule granted.