The Sun.
London, England, 1826-12-22 00:00:00

. - .
LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Dec. I.
JONP.6 VALPY Ann MIMS.
The injunction in this case (see mu Paper of yesterday) Waa
(161401Veri.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Gun mrAct, Ore. J.
CHARGE OF LIDEL—POLICE REPORTS.
HARRI 4 WIIXLIKIX.

When this case was called on, only nine Special Jurymen an-
swered to their names.

Mr. Sergeant Yam:RAN, for the plaintiff, prayed a tad,a, aril
three Common Jurymen were sworn. The names of the Jurors
were :—Special Jurors--David Richards, merchant ; James Cue-
nove, ditto ; B. M. limes (or Inglis), ditto ; William Curtis,
ditto; Josiah Staustield (or Stanstead), ditto ; Bartholomew Jef-
frey, ditto; Charles Aboyne, ditto; John Mackie, ditto; George
Richard Rohinseu, ditto. .Talesmen—William John, .Joseph
Blades, John Robertson.

Mr. Hour opened the pleadings. lie gated. that this was an
action brought by the plaintiff, Harris, a pawnbroker in the
Strand, to recover damages from Joshua WbeWen, the publisher
of an Evening Newspaper, called The British Traveller, for
the libels contained in the midterm of that paper, dated the 4th
and the llth of August. The defendant pleaded the general issue.
Mr, Sergeant VAucttiot said, the libel complained of appeared
in the British Traveller evening paper, in the shape of a police
report. Now he was always indulgent, or he would rather say,
just, to the press, in all cases where he found it under prosecu-
tion. In this police account, as it appeared in the paper in ques-
tion, the plaintiff was made to cut a very conspicuous but a very
abominable figure. He was an advocate for the publication of all
proceedings in our Courts of Justice; but in police cases, where'
only a preliminary enquiry was entered into, it was not right
that the cases of individuals should be given to the public, because.
it was calculated to create prejudice against them. The first libel
complained of was contained in a number of the British
yeller, dated August 4, 1826. It described the plaintiff, who hail
for years resided in the Strand, as a pawnbroker, a man of unim..
peached character, as a person who had acted improperly—but
he had bitter state the cue. The libel stated, that u person went
into plaintiff's shop and demanded 86s. upon two watches; that
the money was paid and that—
The CHIEF Jusvcr—ls this the libel, Brother Vaughan? Yon
have stated that no justification is pleaded.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN said, it was not. He was about to
state some of the facts, but it was not necessary, as his Lord-
ship had very properly suggested. Ile should, without further
preface, read the libel!.. The Learned 'Sergeant then read the fol-
lowing libel :
ti Bow-Sram.—Yesterday afternoon, as Mr. Minalmil, the
Sitting Magistrate, was about leaving the Bench, a-young fictiteli-
: man, who stated his name to be Robert Fraser, and that lie was
a police officer of the city of Edinburgh, 'entered the office, out of
breath, and begged leave to inform his Worship that he had just
been robbed of his watch in a very extraordinary manner.. lie
said that he came to London a day or two since, on butineas 'con-
Inucted with his office, and that Morning he was.standing at the
corner of Castle-court, Strand, tv!'cn a smartly dressed fellow
' came up to him, and asked him if be wanted to buy a watch,
at the same time taking one ,elmost as big as a turnip from his
fob, and handing it to him for inspection.
The complainant said be was in no want of a watch, for he
bail a good one of his own, and luid no desire to bargain for
another. t Well,' said the stranger, should like to deal with
you, and, since. you won't buy my watch, I will, if you like, pur-
chase yours.' The applicant declined any dealing, bat the stranger
having requested very civilly to look at his watch, he, as a matter
of courtesy, and not suspecting a trick in the middle of the day,
was drawing it from his fob, when the stranger. snatched it from
him, and ran 011. The applicant followed him, and taw hint go
into the shop of Mr. Muria, a pawnbroker in the Strand, whither
dawnhe followed
umn
thhi
counter,an a
wathlinalsikmtthbelaloZnofaiSidssa.pifplti,enantthe's 1%1%4:
The applicant immediately informed the shapnian, "P
' the watches; that one of them was his, and had been Omen from
hint, but the ehopman, Who teemed to be on very familiar terms
with the atranger, only laughed at him, and took the watches to
an inner room, Where Mr. Harris, hia muter, wita sitting, and

74
. . a'lef
: •
;LA fatt.' 7 ''j
• • •: .r
the lattif Inkejette`444l gave him the amount required.
This the sbnpnitt;ltettfie4l.lo4. strangsr,' who immediately left
the box in witifeb he was standing, and the.applicant was about to
follow him, when he was (idled by the shaman. who laid, if one
of the watches was his, he had better take a ihiplicate for it. He
waited for the ticket, thinking that he hail hitter huve something
to show fin. his witeh, hot in the mean time the 'itranger had
gone entirely. away., He remonstrated with the khaprnan and
his master, Mr. Ihirri., but they both treated him with ridi.
rule, and said they-had nothing to do with the matter, and that
he must get his watch as other people did, by redeeming it, and
if the stranger had done him wrong, he must seek his remedy
against him.

" Mr. MINSMILL asked the applicant why he did not prevent
the stranger from pledging his watch when in the shop ?
" Fraser said, the stranger got into a box where he cuuld not
well get at him, and he told the shopman that the watch was Inc
and warned him not to take it in, which be thought was all he
could do.

" Mr. Mucstiut.i. immediately dispatched Conyers, a sou•
!table, to desire the attendance of Mr. Ifarris and his shopman,
avito appeared in a few minutes.

" repeated Lis statement, anti Mr. Minshull having ex-
pressed an opinion that the vase, as it stood unexplained, veSu a
very flagrant nne, asked Air. Harris and his shopotan what they
lied to say?

" Mr: Harris, who evincod great confidence of manner, treate4l
the matter very lightly., and said, the fact Wati, he Iraq in his psi-
lour, when his man came, showed him the watehem, and mentioned
the amount demanded upon them, which he (liarrie)' gave him
as a matter of course.

" 'Pl►:r 4hopman;wbotie name Is Ridl4l4l Wingham, said, he
advanced the money as a matter' of C.ourse, and he did not know
hot that the watches belonged to the person who offered them,
Wising only the assertion of the complaimmt, who was an utter
stranger to him, to.the contrary.
. .

" The shopman being sharply questioned by the Magistrate.
admitted that be was nut .unacquainted with the person who -
pledged the Watches; and being hard pressed, said he than& lie '
might be able to find him.
" Mr. Mtreorett. said, the transaction was a vertehamefal
one ; and the ehopmen would do well to find the fellow who
pledged the watches as speedily as possible. There. was strong
ground for believing that he was leagued With the onager, wit
even if the latter should be caught, he (Mr.' Mioaltall) doubted if
it would not he his duty to commit him (Winslw)) as an acres-
vary. There was not sufficient, perhaps, to detain hint, but he
should require security for his future appearance.
" Mr. Harris said he would he answerable for his shopmati's
appearance, and Mr. Minshull accepted his bail ; at the same Cam-
ordering-Conyers to exert himself to apprehend the fellow who
pledged the watches."
Now he pot it to the Jury, whether this statement, which had
no foundation, being inserted in the defendant'i paper, was mit
calculated to injure the plaintiff'. character? Was it not as much
as to aay,, th-at the plaintiff anti his man, though aware that a
felony had been committed, winked at it, anti allowed the. thief •
to escape, and that the injured party having been laughed at by
them both when he represented his lose, was obliged to go to a
police office for redress? He now came to the second libel,whiclt
was published on the II tit of August--which was in the follow-
ing-week. Upon 'the evening of that day, the Paper contained
an account, purporting to be from How-steet, and beginning--
how did they think ? With the words Peaehran and Lockit,.
the Jury must well remember these t* celebrated characters in
The Beggars' Opera. They were men who pretended to be
honest. but who were most consummate rogues ; yet to 'these did •
the Editor compare the plaintiff,' Ale. Harris, and his man. He
now came to the libel which was'publiihed in the ante paper au
the I I tit of August. It s'as as follows:
: " PEA CIIDM AND LOCKM—In our Paper of Friday last under
the head Bow-street, we gave particulars of the robbery of a
Scotchman, named Frazer, whose watch was snatched front his-
hand, run away with, and pawned at the shop, of a man 'named
Harris, in the Strand, who refused to give it up, although aware
of the robbery.
_

" Several' applications have since been made to the pawnbroker,
hut without effect, as he conteinhi that the transaction-seas fair no
his part, and that he knows nothing of the man who pledged the
watehre at his shop.
" The complainant, having stated the result of his applicatiou,
through Conyers,-the constable, suit! that he was at a loss bow to
proceed, and requested adviee from the Magistrate?
Mr. Minshnll observed, it was quite evident that the thief and
the pawnbroker were in league together; and the subsequent con-
duct of the latter served strongly to strengthen that conviction.
He recommended, as Conyers despaired of finding out the persou
who had run away with hie watch, that Harris should he imme-
diately indicted am an accessary after the fact and the complainant
s.tid he was determined to act accordingly."
Wee h possible that any thing could he more bitter, more viru-
lent, than this insinuation, that the pawnbroker and the thief
• were leagued together, and acted in concert ? It might be
that the Editor of the Paper fond no malice against the plaintiffr.
and that he bad only inserted a correct report of that which had
occurred at the Police-office; but if these statements, or any part
of them were strictly true, the defendant might' hive placed them
upon the record, and proved them by evident*. If a publieation
had a tendency to defame the character, or injure the reputation,
it was just to attribute to it a malicious character. , lu this in-
stance the plaintiff was represented, almost in term*, as being a
receiver of stolen goods ; as a person leagued with thieves. I in.
der these circumstances he came before a Jury of his Country, to
clear his character from such unjust imputations.
Mr. Mattison prodnced- the two numbers of • the Paper front
the Stamp-office file.

Mr. SCrjeant Wit.olt (with whom WWI Mr. Wictntas), for
the defendant, said the publication was admitted.
Mr. Sergeant VAPORS!: said that that was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE said, that it seas moot lucky that his
Learned Brother (Sergeant Vaughan) should have just discovered
that it was not necessary, on his part, to call • any witnesses, even
to prove that his client was a pawnbroker. If he had called the
ehopmati to prove that fact, the Jury would have had an opportus
'dry of becoming acquainted with some of the.real merits of this
case. His Learned Brother was, upon this .occasion, •in the
usual situation of all Counsel for the. plaintiff, in cases of libel ;
he was a zealous advocate for the liberty of the press. - When was
it ever otherwise? If any man was at a loss to BM a friend and
advocate of the freedom of the press, let him only wait until some
Newspaper was proceeded against for a libel, and •he might be
sure to find him in the person of the plaintiff's Counsel, The
Jury had been told in this instance, that the publication of cartes
which occur at our Police offieee,where both sides meet—where
the whole case is stated ou the one part and the other, is not at
all likely to prednee'beneftt to this public. In the eats before nit.
if the plaintiff's Counsel had called witnesses, the hwy. would her
enabled to ascertain the real state of the ease; they I, not dons
so ; but the Jury should hear from the young malt who sat 110
his right hand, that the statement of what took (dads it Bow-
rtreet was true in all its parts.
Rlr.•Serjeant VALIGU A said, that his Learned Brother could
rail evidence to prove that fact.

The CHIEV fuvrzoti».l shall take care of that.
Mr. Seljeant.Witalz 0.41,10 was now under the protection of
his Lordship, who promised to take care of him..--(A laugh.)
The CHIEF .)!rarer—l was roily noxious to prevent you from
being interrOpted, Brother Wilde.

. „
Serjeant WILD/4 thanked his Lordship. Did the plaint 4
attempt to make any complaint against the author of the calumny,
it' calumny it wns? Ile did no such thing. Ile proceeded
against the Editor of the Ayer, who kneW nothing of the facts
lie believed,
bsLtic:artir,anaelnilti 1 eNnywriwiehre)er.siKVlluiliiedli tetannahb)ilenlW:Oin rs
short•, by evidence, i'alttle:l4lll4;,ll.lori
that really took place et Bow-street.
your justification upon the record. But lam -of NA-
The ettlEr 3tr svtcy—You cannot upon this plea. You should
publish what passes at a-Police-offitei ('Mn`
not protect yourself by
hoiaovoe, put your f
you
did take place.
111 r. Sergennt•Wit.nr was aware that in the case el Dlirarait
showing that you have. truly stated what
and Thwaites, it was tided that a proof of the truth ni a police ac-
count was no justification ; but he believed his Lordship would
himself have to make the-rule, if he 144 it down that such pt"c'r
could not he given in Mitigation of damages.
The CHIEF jitaTicartalif, that that point bad been already de-
cided, but if it had tult, he would now decide it for the first time ;
although, perhaps, in doing so, he might differ from some. of
lie said now, as be had often said before,
his Leanite!ii.r:Lortjelernweedingt in
that the Police-offices ought not Wins
; thit wicked to publish them, paiti u-
jarly wbere must n. created against persons going before
a-3 Ono: fur all, he held that what passed' in inquiry before
Magudrate ought not to be made public.
Mr. Sergeant Wwor did not pretend to deny the ground of
thin ; but lie wiefted to thew the Jury that there was no malice on
the part of the defendant, and he emild not better chew this thou
by proving that the account of the proceedings at Bow-ewe was
a correct account.

The LORD CRISP AltsTIM repeated, that he could not permit
evidence of the truth of the publieatinn, witbont to having been
placed upon the record,.
Mr. Serjeant lA'ttant hoped that hit Lordship would take a
note of the point.

The Ciuze' Jvyrict true be nhotild Eivq flit LAM' V4l