The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-06 00:00:00

PRACTICAL

WORKING OF THE

LIBEL LAW.
(From the Cheltenham Examiner.)
As an illustration of the practical working of the Law
of Libel, and the immense expense it entails on those
who unhappily fall under its operations, the following
particulars of the recent actions against the proprietors
of this paper may not be uninteresting to the public.
At the close of the year 1842, and early in 1843, certain
proceedings took place at the Cheltenham Police-office,
which created a great degree of excitement in the public
mind. A series of articles commenting on these pro-
ceedings appeared in the Cheltenham Examiner and in
the month of January, 1843, Messrs. Rowe and Norman,
the proprietors, were served with a copy of a writ, in an
action complaining of four articles which had appeared
respectively on the 7th, 14th, and 28th of December,
1842 and the 25th January, 1843. This writ was
served at the suit of Mr. Augustus Neviton, and shortly
after another action was commenced in the names of Mr.
and Mrs. Newton conjointly, eamplaining of one only of
the same four articles. This action, after having has
the venue changed from Herefordshire, was brought to
trial at the Gloucester spring assizes, April, 1843, before
Mr. Justice Erskine and a special jury, and resulted in a
verdict on the general issue of not guilty for defendants.
The expenses of this action to the day of trial, and in
answering subsequent unsuccessful applications by the
plaintiffs for a new trial, were to the defendants about
2401. ;of this sum they never received one farthing, the •
male plaintiff discharging his personal liability by means
of the Insolvent Court. In the month of January, 1844,
defendants were served with a copy of declaration, in the
first action by Mr. Newton alone, and embracing, be it
remembered, the very article, on which in the former -
action, the defendants had been declared not guilty, and
the action, after repeated delays, came on in the Court
of Common Pleas, at Westminster, before Chief Justice
Tindal, on the 15th of June, just passed. The defendants
pleaded a justification to the whole, and after a hearing
of three days, and the examination of numerous wit-
nesses for the defence, the jury returned a verdict, that
the justification was established on two material counts
in the declaration, and a verdict on the two other counts .
for the plaintiff, with one farthing damages on each. The
expense of this second action to the defendants, including
counsels' fees, travelling expenses, maintenance and pay- '
ment of witnesses, and other unavoidable charges, •
amounted in the whole to upwards of 600/. Thus the
two actions, grounded on nearly the same articles, and
arising out of the same transactions, and tin both of
which the jury have returned virtual verdicts of notguilty,
Messrs. Rowe and Norman have been put to the enor-
mous expense of nearly 900/.; and that of course reckon- .1
ing nothing for anxiety of mind, interference with busi-
ness, and their own personal expenses.
The expense of these actions is a standing witness
against the present Libel Law, and is enough to deter the
journalist from doing his duty to the public, by com- .
menting freely on matters of public import. There ex-
penses, be it remembered, are incurred by parties pro- •
flounced not guilty; had the results been otherwise, and
by a failure of the justification, a verdict of 40s. damages -
been given against them, the defendants, in addition to,
this 9001., would have had to pay the plaintiff's costs
amounting to several hundrqs more. •