The Sun.
London, England, 1829-11-11 00:00:00

MURRAY v. SOWLER.

Mr. HOLT moved for a rule to show cause by,
upon payment of costs, the nonsuit in this case
should not be set aside and a new trial had. The
action, which was tried before Lord Tenterden, at
Guildhall, on the 25th of July last, was brought to
recover damages for a series of libels, published by
the defendant in two Manchester newspapers—the
Manchester Courier and the Manchester Herald—

of which he was the editor and sole proprietor.—
Rule nisi granted.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 10.
SANDERS V. MILLS.
Mr. Serjeant LUDLOW moved for a rule to show
cause why the verdict which had been found for the
plaintiff should not be set aside, and a new trial
granted. It was an action brought by Mr. Sanders,
an attorney, against the defendant, the proprietor
of the Bristol Gazette, for an alleged libel published
in that paper in the shape of a report of a trial
which had taken place at the preceding Gloucester
assizes, before Mr. Justice Park. The report ap-
peared under the head " Gloucester assizes,"and was
preceded by one or two ether trials which had taken
place at those assizes. It was to the following
effect :—" At the above assizes an action was
brought by Lord De Clifford against Mr. Sanders,
an attorney st Bristol, and two other persons, under
these circumstances, as stated by the counsel for the
prosecution :—The defendant bad taken a cottage
on the borders of Lord De Clifford's premises,
where he kept a regular poaching establishment :
fair sporting was out of the question; for it ap-
peared that the defendant used to turn his dogs out
at night, when they did much damage to the neigh-
bouring estates. In consequence of this, Lord De
Clifford gave orders that all dogs found in his manor
should be caught and brought into his kennel, and
there kept till claimed. It happened that a grey-
hound of the defendant's went into one of Lord De
Clifford's fields, and was taken to the kennel to
await its being claimed by the owner. It was not
known to be the dog of the defendant. Instead of
writing to Lord De Clifford to have the dog de-
livered up to him, the defendant went with two
other persons, and having broken open the door of
Lord De Clifford's kennel, rescued the dog. The
same parties came the next day to dig up the body
of a dead dog. Mr. Sanders had a horse pistol, and
then insulted Lord De Clifford's servants, and chal-
lenged one of the keepers to fight. The actual
damage done to the kennel door was not much ; but
such damages were sought to be recovered as would
teach the defendant to behave better in future. The
defence was, that the damage done was not more
than was necessary for the recovery of the dog;
that Sanders merely went to recover his dog from
Lord De Clifford's kennel, and bring it away. Mr.
Justice Park said that the amount of damages was
not necessarily limited to the actual damage done to
the door of the kennel; but stated, that he thought
that the Jury should give such damages as would
not be very injurious to the pocket of the defend-
ant, but such a, would have the effect of mending
Iris ways, awl make 11;m behave with more propriety
in future.—Verdict for the plaintiff, 501. Mr. Jus-
tice Park.—l shall certify for the Special Jury; if
the defendant dismisses his gamekeepers, he will
soon be able to pay the damages."
That was the publication complained of by the
plaintiff, and Mr. Serj. Ludlow now moved, on the
part of the defendant, to set aside the verdict on
three grounds, viz.—First, The publication pur-
porting to be a report of a judicial proceeding, it
could not be taken upon the face of it to be a libel,
and no evidence having been given to prove that it
I was other than a fair report of the trial, the Jury
were not warranted in finding it a libel; secondly,
that evidence had been rejected which ought to
have been admitted on the part of the defendant ;
land thirdly, that the damages were atrociously ex-
. cessive.
The COURT were unanimously of opinion that the
verdict ought not to be disturbed.—Motion refused.