The Sun.
London, England, 1844-12-24 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Dec. 23.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Guildhall, before the LORD
CHIEF BARON and a Special Jury.)
HOLMAN V. BRIGHTMAN.

This was an action to recover damages for an in-
jury alleged to have been done to the plaintiff's
character by the publication of a pamphlet containing
malicious and libellous paragraphs against him.
Mr. Jervis and Mr. Greenwood were counsel for
the plaintiff; Sir T. Wilde and Mr. Smith for the
defendant.
In the declaration, it was stated that the plaintiff,
having retired from the sea, had commenced the busi-
ness of a sail- maker, being at the same time a sur-
veyor to Lloyd's Register of British and foreign
shipping, and a valuer of losses occasioned by the sea.
The defendant is the Chairman of the Board of
Directors of the General Maritime Assurance Com-
pany. The pamphlet which formed the ground of
the action was addressed to the insurance com-
panies, underwriters, and others, interested in the
mercantile marine. The seventh page of the pamphlet
contained the following statement :—" The Directors
of the General Navigation Company, having taken
into their serious consideration the charges made by
their underwriter against Mr. James Bowen and Mr.
John Holman, two of the surveyors of Lloyd's Register
of British and foreign shipping, for having, in their
official capacity, signed certain documents and com-
mitted acts calculated to facilitate the establishment of
unjust claims against the Company, in respect of the
ships Hannibal and Brutus, are decidedly of opinion
that these officers have been guilty of acts of indiscre-
tion, negligence, and misrepresentation, which called
for the most marked and unequivocal disapprobation
of their employers, and they are arbprehensive that the
course pursued by the Committee of Lloyd's Register
in confining the expression of their disapproval to the
circumstances of Mr. Bowen having affixed his signa-
ture to the abstract of the bills fOr repairs to the
schooner Hannibal, not noticing other parts of
his conduct equally reprehensible, and in the
case of the survey of the Brutus, passing
over the conduct of Mr. John Holman, not only
without censure, but with implied commendation,
will have the effect of aggravating the evil com-
plained of, instead of redressing and correcting it.
Moreover, the Directors cannot give to the surveys
and reports of men guilty of such practices that faith
and credence which the statements of the officers of a
society that exercises so important an influence on
the commercial marine of the United Kingdom
ought in all cases to command." Then,. again, in the
twenty-first page:—" And they consider that they
might, with a greater show of equity, seek to be re-
imbursed, and have the expenses they have been sub-
ject to in procuring the evidence necessary to resist
the unjust claims brought against them, founded on
the gross misrepresentations and misstatements both
of James Bowen and of John Holman, and to prefer
this demand against the Committee of Lloyd's
Register, who appointed them to, and still retain
them in, the responsible office of their surveyors, and
for which services in that capacity they are deriving
remuneration." The pamphlet was published in
September last, by W. James Gray, the underwriter
of the Assurance Company, under the authority of the
Directors, the avowed object being to secure the co-
operation of insurance companies in introducing more
efficient men into the surveying department. It was
sent to the Shipping Gazette, and appeared in the
columns of that journal. The defendant had two
pleas on his record—first, that of Not Guilty; and,
secondly, that the libel was true.
The substantial facts of the case were these :—The
Brutus having sailed from Ballina, in Ireland, bound
for London, with a cargo of oats, ran upon a bar
during the passage. She was insured for the sum of
500/. A dispute having arisen between the owners
and the Insurance Company, the defendant, a sur-
veyor in the employ of the Directors of Lloyd's Re-
gister, was sent down to examine her, and by his re-
port he confirmed a previous condemnation of the
vessel. It was to his conduct in so doing that the
alleged libel referred.

Several witnesses were called on the part of the
defendant, for the purpose of impugning the accuracy
of the plaintiff's report as to the state of the vessel.
The trial did not terminate until half-past ten at
night, when the jury returned a verdict for the plain-
tiff—Damages, 501.