The Sun.
London, England, 1826-10-12 00:00:00

,

PRICE in.

THE ARMY.

Detachments belonging to the 27th, 36th, and 60th Regi-
ments of Infantry, have received orders to embark at Ports-
mouth, for the West Indies.
Detachment belonging to the 85th Reginient of Foot, is or-
dered to embark at Dover, for Malta.
Detachments belonging to the 18th, 28th, and 51st Regiments
of Infantry, have received order* to embark at Portsmouth, for
the Mediterranean,
Detachments belonging to the 43d and 94th Regiments of Foot
have received orders to embark at Plymouth, for Gibraltar.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, GUILDHALL, OCT. IL

JONES, CLERIC, V. 11.1048U5Y, ESQ.
Mr. STAMM opened the pleadings.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a clergyman
of the 'BstabliShed Church, and a Fellow of St. John's
College, Cambridge, to recover compensation from the de-.
fendant, a Colonel in the Gourds, for the injury sustained
by the plaintiff, in consequence of certain slanderous words
spoken by the defendant, of and concerning the plaintiff.
Mr. COMMON SERGEANT stated the case to the Jury.
The plaintiff came here for the purpose of clearing his cha-
racter. He was a gentleman of rank in the Church, and
a Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge, and had been
allowed to fill the situation of Travelling Bachelor, to which
office certain considerable emoluments were attached.—

After having left college, he was introduced-and recom-
mended- to the family of Mrs. Payne, a lady of rank and
fortune, and the mother of a family; by that lady be Was
appointed tutor to her eldest son, in which capacity he ac-
companied the family to the Continent, and conducted
himself so much to the satisfaction of Mrs. Payne, that he
received from her the strongest assurances of regard. How-
ever, after having left the family, some account remainedun,
settled, and Mr. Jones found it necessary to make frequent ap-
plications for the payment of it. In 1824, it became ne
cessary for him to' take some steps for the recovery of
this account, and it was upon that occasion that the de-
fendant, Colonel Hanbury, appeared as agent on behalf of
Mrs. Payne, and paid the amount of Mr. Jones's demand
to his solicitor. It was at that period that some impres-
sion had been made on the mind of Colonel Hanbury,
which led to the extraordinary outrage of which he had
been guilty. In February, 1825, a few days after the settle-
ment of the account, Colonel Hanbury, together with two
other persons, travelled from. London to Northampton in
the stage-coach. In the course of conversation, the loss
that Mr. Payne had sustained on the turf was mentioned,
and that he had experienced a considerable loss at the Don-
caster races. Colonel Hanbury then thought proper, in
the presence of strangers, (and it might be said, in the pre- '
sence of the whole public, as a stage-coach was the most
licensed place in the world), to say that " the greatest
misfortune that ever happened to Mr. Payne was that of
having Mr. Jones for his tutor,as he was a most debauched
and profligate- character, and had kept a woman." As ,
soon as Mr. Jones WAS informed of what had 'been thus
said of him, he deemed it necessary to demand an explana-
tion ; and if Col.llanbury had then thought fit to say that
the expressions he had made use of were rash and impru
dent, and could not have been suggested by any
malice towards a person utterly unknown to him as'•Mr.
Jones was, he (Mr. Jones) would have been perfectly
satisfied; but this was refused : or if Colonel Hanbury
bad thought proper to give up the author of this slander,
the plaintiff would have been satisfied ; but no : Colon!
Hanbury took upon himself this most injurious slander.
Those words would be proved to hive been uttered by the
defendant; but so far Was it from the desire of Mr. Jones to
'make money by the transaction, or to take any advantage
of the situation in which Colonel Banbury had, by his
imprudence, placed him Self, that, at this moment, if an
apology or retraction was offered, the cause would be at
an end. Unfortunately, there was no reason to hope that
this offer would be accepted, when it had been previously
rejected; therefore, without asking for vindictive or vexa-
tious damages, it only remained for the Jury to visit the
defendant with such damages as would set the plaintiff
right in the eyes of the public.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE-7W Brougham, you have
heard what has been said; if you have any thing to say-7
Mr. BROUGHAM—My Lord, Colonel Millbury has not
the slightest knowledge of Mr. Jones, and has no recollec-
tion of ever having said any thing to his disparagement.
The COMMON SERGEANT—It the defendant is at all
doubtful whether he made use of such expressions, he had
better disavow the imputation.
Mr. BROUGHAAT—Tt is impossible for Colonel Hanbury
to go any farther.
The LORD CHIEF JIWTIOE—If you cannot agree, we
must go on with the cause.
Mr. BROUGHAM—My client has no objection to add,
that he did not know then, and does not know now, any
thing against Mr. Jones. , -
Mr. COMMON SERGEANT—Then let him give up the
author.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTIOR—NO ; be did not ask that

at first.
Mr. Baonottam—.-My client is in a delicate situation,
my Lord; he does not know the plaintiff, and does not
know any thing against him.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—If lam asked my opinion;
as a gentleman, what ought to be done between one gee.
tleman and another, I think the defendant ought. to say,
that he has no reason to believe that what he has said was
founded other than in mistake: and I think he ought to go
that length.
No further offer or observation being made, Mr.
STARKIE called the first witness. •
• The Reverend George Mick, fellow and bursar of St.
John's College, Cambridge, knows Mr. Jones, who is also
a fellow of the same College. The witness then produeed
a copy of the statutes alluded to, and from cap. 46, read in
Latin, and afterwards translated, that part relating to of..
fences against morality, and the sin of fornication, direct-
ing, that any fellow of the College, who should be con-
victed before the master and fellows of being a " notori-
ous fornicator," should be deprived of his fellowship.
Mr. Charles Sinclair on the 20th February, 1825, tra-
velled from London to Northampton in a stage-coach.—
Col. Banbury and Mr. George Talbot were the other pas-
sengers in that coach. In the course of the journey a con-
versation took place respecting Mr., Payne. Col. Hap.
bury asked Mr. 'Talbot if lie knew Mr. Paynewhich
Talbot replied he did not know Mr. Payne, but knew
something of the tutor that he had travelled with übroad,
on which Col. Hanbury remarked, that the greatest pos-
sible misfortune which could have befallen Mr. Payne was
to have had Mr. Jones for his travelling tutor, adding that
lie (Afr...lones) was a most debauched and profligate cha-
s Hiannbtlhirye
.Noirt,hheamtpmtiowneersaoatehionw the.
flicter, the most improper person to have travelled with
Mr.
eit
e3nr ou indne
spent
firstennin9t e frombo
about
Mr. Payne. The conversation then dropped.
Payne:took place about 40 miles
n Talbot
that
51%, jngi
yco a
sl Sinclair
wn
mails
eenee of that
ayne
when
conversation, ne 14tifhtt.r. Pr
jybotaileide' ss
sior
dplrl
Hanbury. The only observation
fortune. Cal. Hanbury partial]
y agreed with me, and said
nearlybynle halft ehoils.
he believed he had. After
some other remarks, Mr.
Jones's name came up us h •
aving travelled with Mr. Payee,
atuitt which CM, liwiburu
tHC glVt43t,

7-1.,
that had happened fif 04t, ' h,.
tti
tptiii had
Mr. Jones as his tutuf; di:,t .7::„:41„, .41iatiehed
and profligate person, .,-;.: jr.A.,,.., , 4:4104w Mr.
Jones before this; I first men . 'Thi,';;,.. Aeetrid said at
the commencement of the elOifirlikebittliolla was acquaint-
ed with him. •1

Cross7examined by Mr. BROUGLIAM.—I am very inti-
mate with Mr. Jones, and have been so some time. Mr.
Payne Ido not huff. I did not say Mr. Payne had loan
a great deal of money at Doncaster. I said he bad spent
it, and did not enumerate any way or ways by which he
had lost it. I did not talk of him as a dissipated man, but
as a man who had spent his money, and not in any calum-
nious way; and then it was that Colonel Banbury made
the observation, " that it was the greatest misfortune that
, could have happened to Mr. Payne to have had Mr. Jones
for his tutor.' I did not take the words down till I had
spoken with Mr. Sinclair about it; I have also mentioned
it to other people. Colonel Banbury got down at North-
ampton • the conversation had dropped as it got late, and
the mail does not arrive there till late. I did not. say. to
Colonel Banbury- when he made the observation, that I
was quite astonished to hear him speak of Mr. Jones in
that way, and should tell him of it. I told Mr: lottes
without any idea he would prosecute ; and when I told
him, neither I nor Mr. Jones knew that the individual who
had spoken those words was Colonel Banbury. If I had
known it, it would have been an inducement for me to
mention it to Mr. Jones, but not with a desire that he
should prosecute. I should have left that to his own feel-
ings. I don't know whether I should have told Mr. Jones
if I had had the slightest idea that he would proceed
against colonel Banbury. I told Mr. Jones for mere
merriment and fun.
What are you besides an intimate friend of Mr. Jones ?
am a nephew to the Earl of Shrewsbuty, of no pro-
essitm, but living on my own property. I was formerly
an officer in the 19th Lancers.
Did you never take the benefit of the Insolvent Act ?
—Never, never.
Nor lived Within the rules ?—Never.
Mr. BROUGHAM--I beg your pardon ;itis a mistake• of
mine; my instructions do not apply to you.
Cross-examination continued--I have known Mr. Jones
two or three years, in this country as well as in Prance.
I never heard any thing said about the larking parson.

Mr. BROUGHAM for the defendant, commenced by stating,
that Col. Hanbury, who, it was admitted by the Learned
Counsel for the plaintiff, was agentleman of the highest ho-
nour, came by accident into the company of two comrades of
Mr. Jones; one his most intimate associate, and the other his
acquaintance; that in a conversation commenced, not by
Col. Hanbury, but commenced by Mr. Talbot, who was not
the friend of Mr. Payne, but the comrade of Mr. Jones, in
which Mr. Payne was mentioned as a spendthrift, and as one
who had dissipated his fortune in gaming, but no mention
was made of the scene of his dissipation, or of bis asso-
ciates. And that Colonel Hanbury, at nearly two o'clock in
the morning,—at an hour when persons travelling in a,
stage-coach, were generally between sleep and awake,—
hearing the character of his friend traduced said attacked
by one of the comrades of the plaintiff, Mr. Jones, gave
utterance to the impression left upon his mind by what he
had heard, probably from Mr. Payne's mother, from Mr.
Payne, or from some members of the family with whom
Colonel Heathery was on terms of intimacy. Colonel Han-
bury knew nothing of his own knowledge disrespectful of
Mr. Jones, and, therefore, he (Mr. Brougham) was ready
to repeat what he had offered in the outset of the case, but
which his learned friend would not be satisfied with, un-
less Hanbury would give up also the names of the
parties from whom he had heard any thing disrespectful
of Mr. Jones. His learned friend had admitted that Co-
lonel Hanbury held a high character, and he put it t the
jury, could such a man make the concession whiCh hail
been required by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff ?
The LORD CITIFY JUSTUT, after recapitulating the evi-
dence, remarked that he agreed with the,Learned Counsel
for the defendant, that Colonel Hanbury could not as a
gentleman be expected to give up the names of the parties
who had in confidence made this communication to him ;
he must therefore abide the consequences.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 1001.