The Sun.
London, England, 1828-07-01 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCV.-(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Some additional witnesses were examined this forenooi•
before the Committee of Privileges on the Leigh Peerage
claim, but nothing of any interest or novelty has been dis-
closed. It is understood that this tedious investigation
must be continued to the next Session of Parliament; and
as there are several old witnesses on bath sides, whose evi-
dence it is material to record in ease of death, the Lord
Chancellor moved that the Committee do sit again on
Friday, the 11 th of July, for the purpose of their exami-
nation.

WELLESLEY CAUSE.

The ATTORNEY- GENERAL was afterwards heard in
continuation on behalf of the respondents in this case.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
HARNETT V. THWAITES.

This was an action against the Proprietor of the Morn-
ing Herald, for a libel published in that paper.
Mr. PLATT. opened the pleadings, and
Sir .1. Scaamcrr (with whom was Mr. BROUGHAM)
stated the case. The plaintiff was an attorney, and brought
this action for a libel published on his character. There
were a variety of means by which the Editor of a news-
paper could indulge a malignity of feeling, and yet leave
to his Counsel, if he was prosecuted in a court of justice,
plausible grounds for a defence. By the use of ambiguous
language, it might be said that a paragraph was innoxious
and meant nothing, which, in reality, conveyed a very
serious imputation. Fur instance, it might be stated in a
newspaper that a man was notorious or celebrated. A man
might be celebrated for virtue or vice; but if the word
" celebrate" is coupled with some expression which would
lead the public to come to the conclusion that the person
alluded to had conducted himself improperly in his pro-
fession of an attorney, there could be no doubt that the
word was used in a bad sense, and with a malicious motive.
Some time ago the plaintiff had occasion to bring an ac-
tion against this newspaper, and recovered 1001. damages,
which did not seem to excite any kindly feelings on
the part of the defendant. Although the defendant
had always been in the habit of inserting in his
paper the proceedings of the Courts of Law, he suppressed
the case against himself, thereby proving that it contained
something like an impeachment against him. A 'person
named Kilner had been in the service of Mr. Harnett as a
clerk„ and left him under very suspicious circumstances;
but some time after summoned Mr. Harnett to the Court
of Requests for 131. The trial of this cause between the
clerk and Mr. Harnett, was reported in the Morning
Herald, and all through Mr. Harnett was de
signated " the celebrated attorney." The Learned
Counsel contended that by this epithet it was
intended to hold up the plaintiff to ridicule and contempt,
and that it called upon the jury to mark their disapproba-
tion of such a line of conduct on the part of a newspaper
editor, by awarding damages.
The record of the former trial between the plaintiff and
defendant was put in for the purpose of showing that a
malicious intention existed in the mind of the latter.

The libel published in the Morning Herald, of the 10th
of Angust, which was as follows, was then put in and
read

COURT OF REQUESTS.
Castle-street, Leicester-fields, Thursday.
KILNER ti. BARNETT, T/IB CELEBRATED ATTORNEY.
This was a proceeding instituted by the plaintiff, a quondam
occasional clerk of the defendant, for the recovery of Ris., being
the balance of a cash account, which the former alleged to be
due to him from the latter.'
Nil debilum Was pleaded by the defendant, who appeared in
propria persona., and who went at great length into some state-
inents relative to the plaintiff, which produced a very hot alter-
cation, and a variety of recrimination that seemed very amus-
ing to the auditory.
The COMMISSIONERS asked what they had to do with charac-
ter ? The question to be determined was respecting the alleged
debt.

-liaintiff—But von have to do with character, though, for this
is the celebrated 'Mr. Hai nett, the attorney of Northumberland_
street, Strand.
Mr. Harnett smiled indignantly, but made no observation.
The CommissioNEns—Well, according to your own showing
then, we may call you the celebrated clerk of the celebrated Mr.
Harnett, the celebrated attorney.
Plaintiff—l am sorry, very sorry to say you may.
CommissionEits—We wish it to be distinctly understood, how-
ever, that we know nothing of Mr. Harnett's character.
Mr. Harnett talked about Magistrates and Bow-street, and
the plaintiff bid him defiance about something or other.
COMMISSIONERS (to the plaintiff.)—You say the defendant
owes you 13s. ; proceed and establish your claim. -
Plaintiff—Yes, but that is not all ; he likewise owes ine 151.
on the foot of salary.
Commissiosmits—lf that be the case you must withdraw your
summons, or else you will defeat that claim.
• Plaintiff—The 13s. is qnite a distinct business. .

COMMILSIONERS—No matter i f had you a dozen claims—you
can but have a single remedy ; separate actions cannot be main-
tained for separate claims, although several claims may be in-
cluded in one action. You have a right of election, however,
and therefore if you wish it we will proceed on the present case ;
at the same time warning you, that if you do, you will thereby
defeat your other demand.
Plaintiff—That being the case, gentlemen,. I shall request the
summons to be dismissed, as it is undoubtedly my intention to
bring my action for my salary.
Verdict for the celebrated attorney, Mr. Harnett. _
_

Mr. GURNEY said, the question the Jury had to try
was whether this was a libel. His Learned Friend (Sir
J. Scarlett) had laboured hard to prove that it was a libel,
but for himself he thought it was only necessary to read
it; it required no elaborate argument to prove that it
was not a libel. It was true that the plaintiff had
brought an action for a libel against the Morning He-
rald before, and recovered 100/. damages, and no doubt
under such circumstances, he would have no objection to
bring an action every week of his life. But even if lie did
not get damages, should there be a verdict in his favour,
he would get his own costs. If there was only a farthing
damages, Harnett would get his costs. Under those cir-
cumstances he called upon the jury to return a ver-
dict for the defendant. There was no imputation
that the report was an unfair report, and the action was
brought not because the plaintiff conceived his character
was injured, but because he hoped to get his costs, and get
notoriety as an attorney. This action was the consequence
of the plaintiff's having recovered on a former occasion,
and if he was encouraged now he would bring actions con-
stantly. On the whole the alleged libel contained no imputa-
tion on any man's character. It was perfectly harmless,
and he calied on the Jury to show their disapprobation of
such an action, by returning a verdict for the defendant.
Lord TENTERDEN left it to the Jury, whether the pub-
lication was intended to convey the imputation that
Harnett had acquired notoriety by improper conduct in his
profession.
Without leaving the box, the Jury returned a verdict for
the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
DOE, ON THE DEMME OF DUNCALF V. WEST.

This was an action of ejectment brought to recover
e.t.ttes in the Strand, which formerly belonged to George
Huhoe, an oilman, residing in the same place, who died
intestate. The present plaintiff claims to be the nearest
relative of the deceased. The case is likely to occupy the
attention of the Court until a late hour this evening.

BAIL COURT.
BROOK V. NOKES.

This was a penal action against the defendant, for con-
cealing on his premises gouge cattle which a tenant lad
removed off his lands for the purpose of defrauding the
landlord of his rent.

The evidence at the trial did not go the full length
of proving that Nukes had seen the cattle, or that
he was privy to their concealment. Under these ci renin-
stances the Jury found a verdict for the defendant.
The case came before the Court to-day, upon an appli-
cation for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was
contrary to evidence.
Mr. IIoLLAND and Mr. LAW were heard for the plain-
tiff, and argued that there was sufficient circumstantial
evidence to fix the defendant with a guilty knowledge. If
the defendant had never been over his lands whilst the
cattle were concealed, it was submitted that he night have
proved that fact at the trial.
_

Mr. Justice BATLEY in giving judgment said, I have
always protested, and shall continue to protest, against
calling on a defendant in a penal action or a criminal pro-
secution, to prove his innocence, merely because a stinted
prima flak case is made out against him. You must
prove his guilt, and not conclude that he is guilty if he
d•es pit call witnesses to establish his innocency. In the
present case there is no direct evidence against Nukes, and
I therefore think that the verdict ought to stand.
The other Judges were of the same opinion.

The Duke and Prince GEORGE of Cum-
BERLAND and the Princess SOPHIA visited his Ala.ursTr
yesterday, at his Palace in St. James's.

The Duke of CLARENCE, attended by Capt.
SPEXCX7t, left town about ten o'clock yesterday morning,
for the Royal Deck Yard at Deptford. His Royal High-
ness, on his arrival, went over the whole of the Victualling
Department, and afterwards returned to his residence in
the Admiralty.

The Princess AUGUSTA, attended by Miss
WrNyAan, left her residence in the King's Palace, St.
James's, in her carriage and four, yesterday morning, for
her seat at Frogmore. Her Royal Highness's suite left
town at an early part of the morning, in two carriag.•s and
four. The Princess received visits yesterday morning and
on Sunday evening from the Dukes of CumßEar.AN :), SUS-
REX, and CAMBRIDGE. the Duchess of KENT, the l'imbess
of GusucrtsTra,, the Princess SOTHIA, and Prince coach
Of COMIEALAND.