The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-26 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

SOME CIRCUIT.—Lewes, Thursday, March 24.
The business of the Assize for the county of Sussex
concluded this afternoon about two o'clock. Baron

Gurney got through the Cause List late on Wednesday.

TROUP V. WINTER.
This was an action for libel, brought by the plaintiff,
who resides at Hastings, and who it was stated was the
proprietor of a newspaper called the Southern Advertiser
against the defendant, a printer at Hastings, for pub-
lishing a handbill, reflecting upon the character of the
plaintiff.
Mr. Platt and Mr. Chambers were for the plaintiff; and
Mr. Thesiger and Mr. Petersdorff for the defendant.
Mr. PLATT stated the case, and it appeared that the
defendant, about the time of the general election, had,
published a handbill, headed " Now in the press, and,
shortly will be published, the ' Life, Witticisms, Tropes,
Ste., of a Renegade Jew,' by Jamez Van Group, Gentile,
Gunpowder-place, Hastings, with splendid engravings
of the author, wigged and unwigged." The placard
went on to state that the work would contain much use-
ful information, and would show how to get
contracts at half .price, and thus cheat the poor
artisans; how to make a mutton-chop dine two persons ;
how to erect infernal machines; and. that it would also
show the absurdity of the Nazarite doctrine that a man
with an ugly head of hair should not get it shaved otr
and wear a wig. Mr. Platt having read the alleged
libel, the contents of which caused a good deal of
amusement in the Court, said that his client would never
probably have taken any notice of such a contemptible
and ridiculous publication, but for the insinuation that he.
had obtained contracts unfairly, and defrauded poor art-
sans, and as he had a large building speculation on foot,
he felt that such an insinuation was calculated to do him
great injury, and as it was entirely false, he had brought
the present action to justify his conduct and character
in the eyes of the world.
Witnesses were then called who proved the publica-
tion of the libel, and also expressed their opinion that
it' referred to the plaintiff. It appeared also that the
libel was published on the Ist of September, and on the
4th, without any notice, the defendant was served with
a writ.
In the course of the cross-examination of the wit-
nesses; Mr. Thesiger attempted to get at the fact that
the plaintiff in his newspaper had published attacks
upon other parties, but Mr. Baron Gurney refused to
admit the evidence.
Mr. TIIESIGER submitted that it would be an impor •
tant fact for the consideration of the Jury, if
they found that a person who brought an action for libel,
had been himself in the practice of publishing attacks
upon the characters of others ; and he pressed his
right to cross-examine upon this point.
Baron GURNEY said, upon his own responsibility, he
should reject any such evidence.
Mr. THESIGER then addressed the Jury.
Baron GURNEY said, that a printer who published
libellous matter was answerable in law for so doing, and
although in the case of the printer of a daily journal,
which contained a great variety of matter, there might be 1
some excuse if anything reflecting upon 'the private
character of every person was sent • forth to the world,
yet in the case of the printer of a hand-bill, Who must
of necessity be fully aware of its contents, and who
deliberately published it, that excuse could not apply.
An attempt in this case had been made to • show
that the plaintiff himself was in the habit of publishing
libellous articles ; but this, even if it had been proved,
was, in his opinion, no excuse for the defendant. If the
plaintiff published a libel he was answerable for it, and
it could hot excuse the defendant for attacking him.
The printing and publication of the libel had been
proved, and it was for the Jury to say to what
extent the character of the plaintiff had suffered in con-
sequence of that publication.
The Jury, after a short deliberation, found for the
plaintiff.—Damages, 301.
CROWN covivr.
William Wells, 20, hawker, George Edwards, 18, and
James Keeler, 22, gardener, were charged with burgla-
riously entering the dwelling-house of Newell Connop, at
Brighton, on the night of the 16th inst., and stealing five
silver spoons and other articles, the property of N. Con-
nop ; two 'veils and other articles, the property of Eliza
Sorret ; one cloak and other articles, the property of
Eliza Hall ; and one cloak and other articles, the pro-
perty of Caroline Stammer. The prisoners were found
Guilty. Edwards, who had been convicted of felony at
Maidstone, was sentenced to be transported for life, and
the other two for fifteen years.
Anna Augusta Hippesley, 26, governess, was charged
with having, on the 29th of September, feloniously ut-
tered and disposed of, and put off a certain forged accept-
ance of a bill of exchange for payment of the nun of
221. 25., with intent to defraud Robert Powell.
The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty, with a strong
recommendation to mercy.
The prisoner, who was greatly affected during the
trial, was sentenced to two years' imprisonment, without
hard labour.