The Sun.
London, England, 1819-10-21 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH. OCT. 20.
London .Idjtntrned Sittings after Trinity 7encrt, before the
Chief Justice and Special Juries.

LIBEL.—HOttIa v. BENTINFCX.
• [Further Partieulars.l
Mr. SCARLRTT stated the case to the Jury in an
elaborate speech. He stated, that he represented
an individual who had, by the Report of a Court
of Inquiry, of.which the defendant (Lord F. Ben-
thick) was President, lost that fortune and einnli-
tints in snciety which he felt himself entitled to
hold, from his character and long military see.
vices under the greatest Commander of the age,
throughout the Peninsular campaigns, and finally
at the memorable battle of Iliaterloo. The Learned
Counsel proceeded to state, that Lieut.-Colonel
Home was the •on of an eminent Professor in the
College of Edinburgh—he hail been fifteen years
in the military sersice of his country, and had the
honour, at the last eventtul battle in which lie
'was engaged, of being entrusted with the defence
of the celebrated post of. Huugumont. It had been
the misfortune of this Gentleman to have entered
into ri speculation in the year 1814 with a !piping
Company at IVoreetter. Their capital was
18,0001.. and he to-k a ninth share, for which he
paid 20001., a sum that was represented to him es
necessary to complete the undertaking. A further
sum of 11001. was subsequently demanded for con-
tingencies; hot the plaintiff, upon his resins to this
country, after the battle of Waterloo, heard, for
the first time, that the affairs of the mining concern
were not going on as he was led to expect, and he
naturally felt a desire to extricate himself from the
partnership. He first offered to transfer his share
to his brother, be then made a variety of efforts
to disengage himself from the connection in which
be found he wis involved, by every Open means
that could be resorted to in a partnership concern,
but they were all in vain. He was advised to ac-
cept, in the name of the Company, bills drawn by
his brother, who had !ent him the money to invest
in the concern. He did so to the amount of 1850/.,
and the draft being refused payment by the mana-
gers of the business, an action was brought there-
on, which was tried before Lord Ellenburough in
June, 1817. In the defence to that action, on
the part of the managing partners, a deed of part-
nership wits produced, which had been entered
into before he j.4ined them, and, had not been
shown to him ; and one of the covenants of that
deed being., that bills on account of the Company
should be drawn and endorsed by one of the
partners, named Salisbury, and by him only, Lord
Ellenhorotigh held Coloicel Home to be bound by
that covenant, and-a verdict was therefore given
for the defendants. It being represented, how.
tier, to Colonel Home, that his Lordship's opi-
nion was grounded on a supposition of his know-
lug stud having acceded to that covenant, and
being advised to draw fresh bills, the former hav-
ing been destrnyesi, he did so; but never put thew
into circulation. 'The managing partners filed a
bill against him, and' obtained au Injunction to
restrain Lint from issuing guy more bills. The In-
innitis.ni 'wise carried down to 'Windsor, where
Colonel. Home, being ill, desired a Quarter Master
. -
in nit regtmeneto receive it, and transmit it to
his Solicitor. The pertuara caused placards to ,e
posted in the places frequented by the Officers of
the regiMent, charging Col. Home with having
bean gnilty of fraud, which, coming to the ears of
hii Itoyal Higlivass the Duke of Gloucester, Co-
lout!' of the regiment, a Court of Inquiry was
instituted, of Which the defendant was President,
and for hie report of the proceedings, which the
Learned Counsel contended be" was not warrant-
ed
in framing is he bad clone, this action was
brought. ' The Learned Counsel then stated, that
when the plaintiff was `informed by his servant'
that some person wished to see hint respecting a
process of he was lying` ill opon his couch,
and gave directions that the messenger should
cotumueicate with a third person, who was sp.,
pointed for the purpose. This act leas considered
by the Court of Inquiry as an evasion of legal
process, and decides upon accordingly. The
Court of Inquiry had come 'ton decision mower.:
ranted, as be was instructed, by the facts of the
case. They haft reported in tennis which unjustly:
reflected upon the pleittliff's character, and it Was,
to-assert that character and to recover' damages.
(so tar es damages conitlbe a compensation) that
the prestut action was brotiglit.bY the
against the President of the Court of inquiry, foirj
the Wiley which that Report occasioned. A llCEletia

!call question arose, from the mr:re meiltibn of
the name of a Court of I,:qoiry, a menu un-
knoWit iu IsW—Courts hlarti4l %tete intelligi-
ble terms—they formed parts of that particular
code which was known by the name e,t " The
Belligerent Rights of the Sovereign:' These
rights were known and defined in a time of war,
when they bad their utntost extent .; but, in a
time of peace, the Mutiny Act, which was an-
nually passed, was the only law that regulated
military proceedings, and that•act made no allu-
sion to Courts of Inquiry. It was true, that any
set of Gentlemen, whether Military or civil,
might voluntarily meet to make any inquiry they
thought proper—but then they must take care,
at their peril, bow they impugn the characters of
others without time strongest and the justest cause.
The CHIEF JusTlCE—Must you not prove malice
in a case of this kind, when you impugn the Re-
port to which you allude ?
Mr. Soaitt.Nrr replied, that malice must be in-
ferred from the terms in which that Report was
couched ; but he was willing that the Jury should
judge from the whole facts of the case. All his
client wanted, was a justification-upon the merits,
and he would therefore proceed and lay them be-
foie the Court.
Lieut.-General Sir Henry Torrcns was then
called, and examined as follows t---•
Q. Do you know the plaintiff in this cause; I
mean, do you know his rank ?—A. I do ; he is a
Lieutenant-Colonel in the army, and a Captain in
the 3d Regiment of Guard,.
Q. Have you, the otiginal papers or proceed-
inks of a Court of Inquiry held upon him ?—A.
have.

Q. Produce them, and state bovT you became
possesse►l of them Here they are; they were,
I believe, personally preseu►ed by the President to
his Ruyal Highness the Commander-iu.Chief,
nfrom whom I had them ofOcially as Military Sc-

cretary.
The ATTORNEY-GENBRAL objected to their pro-
duction on the ground that they were Otlickl do-
cuments which were confidently entrusted to Sir
Turrens, in his situation as Military Secretary,
He said that it was decided in the case of Cover-
' nor Maxwell, in which his Learned Friend (Ur.
Scarlett) was engaged, that the instructions or do.'
entnents entrusted to an Officer in the discharge
of his official duty, ought not to be produced.—
It was a case in which a party was prosecuted for
.an infringement of the regulations respectiug the
Slave Trade.
Mr. SCARLETT, in reply, insisted that the case
bore no analogy to this. Here original docu-
ments partaking of a judicial character, were cal-
led for—in the case alluded to, private iustructiollS
were demanded.
The ATT6.INRY•GRNIIIAL, in reply, contended
that on grounds of public policy, flurumsurs of
this description ought to be held confidential and

secret.
The CHU! JUSTICR admitted the validity of
the objection. He said that it was as competent
for the Crown as for an individtial to deleeive a
particular inquiry to confidential persons, and he
never knew an instance in which a Court of Jus-
tice admitted the documents of such persons to be
received as evidence, whan any objection was
legally made to their production. H. took it fur
granted that Sir Henry Torrens had produced the
private papers of his Office, and that the legal ar-
gument arose on their being read. His decision
was that they ought not, and for the purpos,e of
reserving that point for the better decision of the
twelve Judges, he would reserve it in any manner
which the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff wished.
A verdict for the defendant was then agreed to.;
and it was arranged that 'the legal objection which
stopped the case should be reserved for the •Opi.
pion of the Judges in the form of a Bill of Lx-
ceptions.
Mr. I3RCKBTT, the Judge/Advocate, sat next f
the Solicifor-General while this cause was before
the Court.

Tllllsl,Ale.—FlNcil V. THOMA 9.
This well an action brought by the Plaintiff, a
wine-merchant, residing in Cooper's-row, Tuwer-
hill, against the defendant, his next door neigh-
bour, to recover a compensation in damages for a
trespass in entering his dwdling•house, and dis-
turbing the peace of his servanis.
It appeared that the defendant het! been the
means of discounting a bill for the plaintiff, and
being desirous of seeing him, bad gone twice to
his country house at Stratford, where he was told
Mr. Finch was in town. Ou his return home,
after ten o'clock at night, on the sth of Msty
last, he knocked loudly at the plaintiff's dour.
He was told by the maid servant trout the win-
dow, that Mr. Finch was not at home. tic said
if the door was hot opened, be would knock till
nine o'clock next mot ning. John Kirby, the ap.
prentice boy, then went down, and Mr. Thema*
rushed into the hall. He then drew u chair, and
sitting down, said he should not stir until ha saw
the plaintiff. The boy said his master was not in
the house, and he offered Mr. Thomas a candle,
to look in every room for him. This did not sa-
tisfy : he said the plaintiff was a base villain, and
he would:see hint. The defendant having taken
his seat, asked the boy to fetch his gown end
night cap. The boy, willing to oblige, well to
Mr. Thomas's house and returned with the cap
and gown. The defendant, holding the aqui
door in his hand, received the- gown and cop,
and instantly shut it, leaving the boy in the
street. The lad remained two hoot., talking
with the watchman, and upon knocking loudly
was admitted. Mr. Thomas remained at his post
till nine in the morning, when he left the house,
saying he should renew Lis visit the atone evening,
Mr. SCARLRTT, for the defendant, said, any
bankrupt, if he happened to have ati envy cre-
ditor who had refused to quit his house, might
bring an action of trespass ; but no mart could
say this was a case for 4,1/Magee.
The CHIEF JuSTICE observed, that the defen-
dant bad committed a tresspaso, and the question
%vas, %chat damages ought to be given. A cre-
ditor (night go by law to the bows of his debtor
at a proper hour, eta 010 p 6 reasonable tilts*, but
no man was justified in action as the defendant
had done. Driving the servant out of the house
at a late hour, was nut toodust t.b.a )ahr would
justify.
The Jury, after some deliberation, found a ver-
dict fur Ott pialLlol--PaalOpl, Of.