The Sun.
London, England, 1827-11-13 00:00:00

PRICE 7D.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 12.
(Sittings in Banco.) '
(The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE was again absent.)
PRICE V. THWAITES.

This was an action of libel brought by the plain-
tiff, a gentleman of the bar, against the editor of the
Morning Herald, for publishing an imputation on
his character, charging him with being drunk and
disorderly in the streets, and with having indecently
exposed himself to two females. This imputation
was first published by the de:.i2ndant in the shape of
a police report, when the plaintiff brought an action
in the Court of Exchequer, and recovered damages
to the amount of
,100/., the whole statement having
been completely pro Ned to be false. Of this trial
the defendant had not thought proper to publish a
single line, but on an action being brought against
another paper (the Sunday Times) for a publication
of the same charge, also tried at the Court of Ex-
chequer, but to which the JurOnly gave one shil-
ling damages, he not only' pahMed a report of the
proceedings, but seized on the opportunity to repeat
the libel for which the previous action had been
brought., It was of this repetition that the plaintiff
now complained. The defendant did not plead any
justification to this action until a very late period in
the proceedings, when he averred on the record, that
the publication was a full, fair, and faithful report
of the proceedings as they occurred in the Court of
Exchequer. The case was tried before the Lord
Chief Justice at Westminster during the sittings
after laSt term, when his Lordship left it to the
Jury to say whether, from the evidence that had
been adduced, they believed the publication to have
been a full and fair account of. the proceedings- or
not, observing that lie considered there was a mate-
rial difference between the reports of the Courts of
Westminster- and those of police-offices. In the
former, it was not necessary that the'report should
be given as the proceeding had actually occurred; a
general statement, provided it were substantially
correct; would be sufficient. In the latter he thought
a stricter course should be observed. If the Jury,
therefore, believed the report in question to be sub-
stantially'correct, they would find for the defendant.
His Lordship added, that if the plaintiff's character
was, in fact, as bad as it had been represented;
although he had not offended in that: particular
instance, he had not much to complain of. . ••
Mr. Sergeant WILDE now moved for a rule to
show cause why the verdict should not be set aside
and a new trial granted, on the ground that the evi-
dence given by the defendant's witnesses had not
made out the plea of justification.—Rule granted.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 12.

EGG V. WILKIE AND OTHIRS.

This was an action of trespass quart clausyn
fregit, brought by Mr. Egg, the gun-manufacturer,
against the Waterloo-bridge CoMpany, to recover
damages for taking possession of his premises in the
Strand, within the precinct of the Savoy. Tjie trial
took place in 1817. The circumstances were these :
—The defendants not being able to come to an
agreement with the plaintiff for the purchase of his
premises, which it was necessary to pull down in
forming the avenues to the new bridge, a Jury was
empanelled, under the Act of Parliament, to assess
their value, which they estimated at, 4,7001.—viz.
3,5001. for the tenements, &c., and 1,2001. for the
goodwill. The plaintiff not being satisfied with the
result of the inquisition, brought this action, con-
tending, first, that the jay, being a Middlesex jury,
had no authority to assess the damages, the premises
being situate within the liberties of Westminster;
secondly, that the inquisition was void, inasmuch as
the jury had not separated the amount of the value
of the leasehold tenements from that of the freehold ;.
and thirdly, that as the act only authorized the de-
fendants to take possession of the dwelling-house,
they were not warranted in taking possession of the
yard and premises in the rear of the dwelling-house.
The jury found a verdict of between 5,0001. and
6,oool—damages for the plaintiff, subject to the
opinion of the Court upon the above points, which
were afterwards turned into a special case.
The COURT, after hearing the arguments of Mr.
RICHARDS, for the plaintiff, in support of the objec-
tions to the inquisition, and of Mr. D. POLLOCK, on
the other side, decided;' with respect to the first
point, that the conduct of the plaintiff at the time
the proceeding took place, his attention having been
previously drawn to the subject by the defendants'
attorney, amounted to a waver of all objection to the
authority of the jury. With respect to the second
point, all that the act required of the jury was, to
separate in their assessment the amount of the value
of the tenements themselves, from that which they
assessed for damages, as for good-will, &c. ; and that
they had done here. And as for the third point,
which was not argued, there was no doubt that all
the premises in question were included in the word
" dwelling-house." Their Lordships, therefore,
directed a nonsuit to be entered.

COURT OF ARCHES, Nov. 12.

THE EARL op. PORTSMOUTH BY HIS COMMITTEE, AGAINST

MARY ' ANN HANSON, FALSELY CALLING HERSELF

COUNTESS OF PORTSMOUTH.

Dr. JENNER repeated his application (made last
court-day) on behalf of Lady Portsmouth for an ex-
tension of the term probatory, in respect to her alle-
gations responsive to the libel in a suit promoted
against her by the committee of Lord Portsmouth
(under direction of the Lord Chancellor) to. annul
their marriage. He stated the progress made by
her ladyship's proctors; that two requisitions had
been executed; that 41 witnesses had been examin-
ed; a few, however, remained unexamined, °Wing to
the difficulties which impeded their examination.
Dr. LUSIUNQTON, on the other side, had waved
calling upon the Court to enforce its rule in this
case, provided affidavit were made of the names of
all the witnesses unexamined, and that it had been
impossible to examine them during the time elapsed.
After some discussion, it was agreed that a list of
all the witnesses should be given by Lady Ports-
mouth, and the term should he. continued till the
Ist of January.

The Registrar reported a bill of costs of Lady
Portsmouth, *minting to 4811. 17s. 9d.

At the end of the day, the Judge (Sir Joni%
Nrettou) tNith reference to his declared intention
Of laying down some rule for the purpose of expe-
diting the business of these Courts, repeated his
remark that the rules of practice had formerly been
more strict; He. had before him certain rules made
in -Michaelmas Term' 1684, signed_ by the 'Judgeg,
and also by the.advocates and, proctors. Although
Signed by the two latter, the reSponsibility and au-
thority rested with the Judge. One or two he
would read. Concerning citations, it was laid down,
that if the.party cited gave no appearance on the
first day of term, he was to be excommunicated
without reservation. Now, it, was the practice to
continue the certificate as matter of course. Again,
if the party cited appeared, and no process was
brought in, he was to be dismissed with costs (6s.
Sd) if the party agent . did , not appear. Again,
every Proctor should be prepared to exhibit on the
day of return of process, and if not ready, the other
party was to be dismissed with costs. Now, the
ease stood' over from time to time. Again, the
Proctor should be prepared to answer the libel im-
mediately.' Now, it always stood over for answer.
He mentioned'these things to .Show that the present
system had arisen from a relaxation of ancient rules, 4