The Sun.
London, England, 1826-12-05 00:00:00

think this was in 1824, and do not know that there WU I distress
in 1825. I heard him say there was more than one distress; I
do not know when the second execution toot place. My brother at-
tempted to get a discharge under the Insolvent Act last filllllLUer.
Mr. Sergeant Wtent here interrupted the examination, and
contended that the opposite party were not entitled to examine
into the history of the plaintiff, in order to make up slander
against him, It was never alleged ora his side that the bill was
granted liar value, but merely for accommodation; but he denied
that it was -either forged or obtained fraudulently.
Mr. Sergeant Vatanttale, in answer, contended that se it w
stated on the face of the declaration as
that the was given for
value, he'svis entitled to know under what circumstances it was
obtained.
After considerable discussion, the Curer Jurriex repelled the
objection.
rasa examination continued.--I never heard my brother say
the bill was granted for an accommodation. 1 do not manful
whether my brother stated in the Insolvent Debtor's Court that
Lady Turner was a creditor to the extent of 1,000/. My brother
was refused a discharge, and I believe the reason was that there
a difference between the date of imprisonment stated in_ the
petition and that contained in the prison bin& I. do not knave
of any other reason. I think, on my brother's examination, that
he acknowledged there was no value granted for the present
bill. He also acknowledged that he had given the bill to a Mr.
Hopwood, from whom in consequence he received 9001. I never
heard my brother mention that the present action was raised ; I
never heard my brother say that Mr. Clement, at his request, in-
serted a contradiction of an advertisement complained of, and gave
up the author; I heard him say be raised an action against Mr.
Rims, which had not yet been tried ; I underelood him to say
there was an action against the Tinies; never heard him say he
received any profit by these actions,'
. .
Mr. %Vieux here interposed, and asked what connection actions
against other papers had to do with this case? If there wars a
libel proved in thin case, the plaintiffwas not to be excluded from
receiving damages, because he might have raised actions against
other papers for a similar libel. He (Mr. Sergeant Wilde) never
heard it set up as a justification of a libel, that the party with
whom it originated was delivered up.
The CHM JUSTICI thought that Mr. Wilde's objection would
give rise to a very important question ; if tloi Learned Gentle-
man's doctrine held good, no editor could publish any caution to
the public against the frauds of individuals, as in that tase the
greatest rogue might set tip a hue and cry •about a libel. The
Learned Judge then entered at considerable length upon the haw
of libel.
Examination resumed-111y brother was atval-merchant before
he went to prison ; he was also manager. of Lady- Turner'. lima
in Kent ; he had no horses, carte, office, or whirl.
By Mr. Sergeant Wteux-11Iy brother never admitted the bill
was forged, or that it was obtained fraudalently. He told eue
that the manuscript of the advertisement was to be delivered sap,
and that on that condition the action was to be (hope I under-
stood him to say, that the present action was withdrawn and the
manuscript delivered up.
Bishop Hull is employed in the Chronicle Office ; received
10r. 6d. from the plaintiff, far the insertion of the eontradietiou
to the advertisement.

Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN then addressed the Jury for the de-
fendant, and stated that the present action was nothing but an
attempt on the part of the plaintiff, who was proved by the evi-
dence to be in much need of money, to obtain some from the
defendant. Mr. Binns was the attorney for Lady Turner,
and, on discovering the existence of the bill, and knowing
that the plaintiff was her Ladyship's debtor, made fellA
quiry regarding it, and the information he received not
being satisfactory, he thought it could only be obtained by
fraud, and under that belief he caused the advertisement emu-
-01'4441 of to he inserted. But what Was the conduct of the de-
fendant; whenever he was applied to, be instantly delivered up
the author, inserted a contradiction in the next day's paper, and
what else could he have.done? If under these vircumstanete he
was to be fined, the public would have no security against the
frauds of villains, as they might set up a hue and cry fora libel,
as well as the present plaintiff. Besides,. the defendant
delivered up the manuscript, and upon 2doing so, the plain-
tiff .most solettmly promiied to drop the action ; but finding
that other parties were concerned, that the attorney's account was
to be settled, he in violation of good faith and every principle of
justice, had the audacity to bring the question before a Jury. Ik,
under all these circumstances, trusted the Jury would bave'no
hesitation in finding for his client.
The Curer JUSTICE then summed up, and the Jury without
the least hesitation, found for the defendant.