The Sun.
London, England, 1827-06-07 00:00:00

OLD BAILEY--(THIS DAY.)

OLD COURT.
jonathan Thompson, aged 54,, was convicted of stealing
4 W4teh, 21. I. 6d. in money, and a quantity of wearing
IPPod from his fellow lodger, Henry Williams.Tb • i l
td The ',Runner said he did it from severe distress ; describ-
ti;e t`outelf as an unfortunate man, and threw himself upon
„selercy of the, Court and Jury.
l
1. s Ole RlColuk informed the prisoner, that nothing but
..._, n .
iel
4uvanee4 er prevented his being transported, as he
• I:'Re then sentenced him to two years' hard labour
la the 'House of Correction.

SHEEP STEALING.
da lie"re Y Nichol, was indicted for stealing on the 10th
4 °` May, six sheep, value 9/., the property of Wm. Ro-
gers, the younger, of Bethnal-green.
The prosecutor stated, that the cheep were seen by him the
thin before the day he missed them ; he had 156 in the field,
°
~114 the sheep stolen were of 3
different sorts; he saw the whole
L ,4teep Westal's Livery-stable, Curtain-road, en the 25th ;
le officerat
took him there; knew them directly he saw them;
there was no place. where the sheep could have got out ;
lb searching carefully round the field, he found the marks of
4 cart having been backed up to the pailings, a piece of
Which was there broken off, which wet notgs,
so the night
before-
By Mr. CLARICtoN.—The sheep were in three fields;
Were open to each other by gates ; two of the fields joined
the high-road ; net even a hare'eould have escaped through
the hedges of those fields. The sheep were alive when
Witness found them at the stables; is positive that there
Were no sheep of the sort stolen within that parish or the
two adjoining ones, and witness believed not within
twenty miles.
k "'ahem Burt, of No. 35, Turk-street, Bethnal-green,
thewths prisoner, who came to him on the 10th May,
and wanted him to kill six sheep for Trim; prisoner said,
rkr. Green, a person whom witness knew, bad sent
iti soner to him to get them killed ; the prisoner said, that
4 had bought the sheep of his brother ; witness went and
liiear the sheep, and asked bim what he bad given for them till Illewered, 1/. Ss. per head ; witness said he would kill
aid
tek though they were not fat enough ; prisoner s
e Wished them to be killed, as he did not want the
.111•1(,).uhle of taking them out of the neighbourhood again ;
iaLgteess met Mr. Armstrong, the officer, on the Friday ;
-;" the prisoner in a yard at Air-street-bill- on Friday
4.ht
ht; they were waiting for him to kill the sheep ; Arm-
Wit
eg canoe in and asked witness whose sheep they were, .
fleas answered, they were his, and lie was going to kill
thaietn„,,, 11e asked where witness got them. Prisoner then
~e/„,,7aat them,ay- g lie had bought them of a Mr. Eames,
i.;„"°brb,l3uc-ism. w Armstrong then took the prisoner
Saw the
ee.°L...gtedir- ' Saw Mr. Rogers at the office.
same et delivered to him that he (witness) was to kill. -.408a. examined . y
b Mr. CLARISON.—Did not keepeda
cooks 1,
them h but killed sheep for any one who wanted
on —'. Knew Armstrong before lie went to him
on this b
they. were in his
"ineea himself. Said the sheep were his, because
care. Green had told him ten days be-
iorl that he was going to send him such a job.
be-
John Armstrong, officer, deposed that the prisoner came
him on the 11th of May; went to the Curtain-road,
asV saw Green, the prisoner, and the last witness, toge-
Iv, they. Witness asked whose they were ? Burt said they
ere his, but the prisoner subsequently said that he had
bought sheen, Prisoner
above-mentioned. Knew Green before ;
he is a gas man. One of the sheep is-here.
By Mr. Ci.catasou---made no mark on that sheep:
drove them himself to- the livery stables, and believed this
Sheep was the same.
Thomas Garton, an officer, received some sheep on the
14th May. 'Had the custody of them in Mr. Westal's
stable ; gave them
sheep. up to Mr. Rogers ; they were the same
• ,
The prisoner, a renawatehalZ
in his defence, that he simple looking man,
man
that he had had a little money, honest,
and hardworking a a
butcher's shop ; hut that not and and
tended to open
the
London markets, he had started t the way o
0 gOOO Beckonsield, to
buy seine sheep from among his fre met with a man M whom he told.his inte,,tia`'" the road he
said that he would save him that trouble, am% ii
to e coulder sell
The man
ll
him some. They went to a public house
after some time, prisoner went with the man a aleid and
which were six sheep in a fold. It was moonl The
'ban said that those six were the only ones he last'
for sale,
and the prisoner ultimately gave him twenty-eight shil-
liags per head for them, and assured the Jnry that he
drove then' away without- any knowledge of their not he_
ng the property of the man. He had driven them tot wn
41 pen° daY. Had not made any alteration in the marks,
411.1" tnumber of them ; and, after having kept them
1111. tell days, without trying to put them away, he
-", assisted the in driving them to Westal's stable.
11, L., . officer
t Zq directed him (the officer), as nearly as he could,
111) 1 .-' Place where lie obtained them, by which mean, I!...eed discovered the owner of them ; and Mr. Rogers
'art ha,, .
tl en, as oPportunity of seeing them before he described
Laid toldsequently could swear to them safely. The man
, him that he might say he bought them of his
brother, which illee he did, as his brother-in-law's name was
stated, and lived at Beckonsfield, near Woburn. lie then
et that he had always attended church till lately, had
his schoolmaster schoolmaster in the country, and again declaring
Wh tll°°enee, 'ffe referred them to his appearance, as to
ether he looked like a thief.
vice thou
however, notwithstanding this plausible de-
-Flelthout hesitation found him " Guilty."

LAW TNTELLIC4ENCT.-(rITT4 DAY.)

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

ACTION AGAINST THE SUN.
(Before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.)

POUCHES V. THE PROPRIETOR AND PUBLISHER OF THE

eUN NEWSPAPER.
Mr. PATTISON opened the pleadings. It was an ac-
tion brought by the plaintiff Louis John Pouchee against
the defendants, for a libel, charging him with certain mat-
ters said to have passed before the Court of Requests. The

defendants had pleaded Not Guilty.
Mr. BRoucin-Ard stated the case. Ile believed he had
the satisfaction of addressing gentlemen who had before
now assisted in the administration of justice, by

sitting as jurors, and, if so, he need hardly say
that as there was no cause which depended more on the
peculiar complexion of the facts, or on the impression
which was to be the result of those facts than a case of
libel, so there was none in which it was more important
that the Jury should pay an anxious and a steady attention
to all the details than in that now before them. He was
about to state to them a case, which, when they heard
the proof, and without proof he could not call on them
for a verdict, they would he was assured pronounce to be
second to none as to the malignancy of the attack on
the character of the individual, as it was second to
none in importance upon the more general principle.
The defendants were the proprietors of the Son news-
paper—a newspaper of great respectability and long stand-
ing. It was established so far back as the commence-
ment of Mr. Pitt's Administration, and enjoyed his
patronage ; it was then the organ of the Government—for
that, the Learned Gentleman believed, was the phrase
sometimes given to such publications. This newspaper
had since passed into other hands ; and though its ori-
ginal patrons were now no more, it enjoyed the re-
putation of a most respectable and ably-conducted
print. But the consequence of that respectability—
the necessary result of that reputation which he
allowed that it possessed, was to give greater force to facts
which it might ever unwarily admit into its columns; the
plaintiff, therefore, had still greater reason to complain,
still larger reparation to ask, because this print was one of
those which rarely, if ever, on former occasions, was pol-
luted by personal slander. However, in admitting its
general purity and respectability, he must feel, and
so he trusted would the Jury, that this very circum-
stance, creditable as it unquestionably was : to the
Newspaper, must make any deviation from its gene-
ral rule much more prejudicial to the character
of the individual whom it attacked. The defendant,
who was by trade a type-founder, and held a respecta-
ble situation in Somerset-House, was the Proprietor,
or the supposed Proprietor, of a Weekly Newspaper called
the " English Gentleman ;" and whether he was ever
the Proprietor or not, was at present immaterial. The
Learned Gentleman's own opinion (as we understood him)
however was, that the defendant was the Proprietor, and
that by some arrangement the expence was to fall on
another. The circumstances of the case were these. A
Reporter thought proper to summon before the Court of
Requests the defendant for a claim for work and
labour done for the English Gentleman. Mr.
Pouchee answered the subject matter of the com-
plaint, and the claim was dismissed. The Court of
Requests was one the proceedings of which were seldom,
if ever, reported. Whether it was on account of its small
jurisdiction, which did not exceed 40 shillings, or from the
no very great celebrity of the persons who practised in it,
or from whatever other cause it might arise, no one ever
thought of reporting its proceedings any more than those
which occurred in a Magistrate's private office, or what
took place before a Judge, in his chambers at Sergeant's
Inn, or at his private chambers. Many reports, it was
well known, were given of what took place at police-
offices. This gave rise to discussion as to whether that
which occurred before Magistrates ought to be made most
public by being inserted in the three hundred news-
papers published in this kingdom ? It was said with
great earnestness, that it was improper to give publi-
city to such proceedings, inasmuch as what took place
at a Police-office was ex-parte, that it was not final, and
that it was rather leading to justice than an administration
of justice. Upon this subject it difference of opinion pre-
vailed among the most worthy and eminent men, well skilled
in legislation, and who had devoted very serious atten-
tion to the probable results of such publicity. Some
thought it would be highly detrimental-to,publish it, others
thought it would be beneficial, and I (said the Learned
Gentleman) am among the latter, although, in forming that
opinion, I differ from those whom I habitually respect.
But that is not the question now before us ; for all agree
upon this point, that if reports go forth to the public, they
ought to be reports of what passed, and not of what did not
pass. That newspapers should not insert that which never
took place, and send it forth to the public as if it had taken
place. That they should not publish that which was all a
mis-report—for this was much more destructive, and mush
more likely to contaminate the pure source of public
justice than any thing which could be conceived. All
agreed in reprobating the perversion of the Press to the
purposes of private malignity; by which a person, from
feelings of animosity, sends forth a slanderous misrepresen-
tation to gratify the appetite of the public. All agree
that it is criminal to attribute to counsel what counsel
never uttered, and to make witnesses swear what had never
been given in evidence ; and above all to put into the mouth
of the presiding Judge a sentence, not one word of which
escaped his lips, for here the Judge is made to pronounce a
severe and sarcastic attack on the defendant's character. This
was a piece of conduct not to be defended—it was the
grossest abuse of the liberty of the Press—it was the
basest scheme which private malignity, or most perverse
ingenuity could devise. It enabled one man, not in a manly
fashion, but borrowing the name of another, to slander and
revile an innocent person. Such a practice, must, lam sure,
be abhorred as the greatest crime, and that as such it ought to
he dealt with, whenever and wheresoever it occurs, none,
I trust, doubt. If the slander were anonymous, it would
then be -only backed by the little authority which
an anonymous charge deserved. If I send forth
a charge under my own name, it possesses all the
weight which my own name can give to it • but
suppose I make any of my Learned Friends near me say,
that such a person dealt dishonestly with his tradesmen'
that he did not pay his debts of honour ; I make this
charge not on my own siuthority, but on the authority of
those respectable persons whose names I use. Then I
barb the slander with the weight derived from their charac-
ters—l coin from my neighbours' brain what my own
malignity suggests, I lay the scene in a court of justice, I
attribute abuse to others as if uttered' by them and sanc-
tioned by the judge, and then this goes forth armed with
all the authority which a judicial proceeding commands,
and I trust that in this country it will always command
attention. I will now read to you the libel, the truth
of which the defendants do not dare to plead. If the report
only said what really occurred, that Mr. Pouchee
had been summoned, and that the Reporter did not sub-
stantiate his claim, there would not be a shadow of com-
plaint, and the defendant would not have uttered one word
of remonstrance. But, instead of that, we have a baseless
fancy, and slander, one of the most malignant that could be
devised, or could proceed from the malice of those who insert
articles in newspapers for profit, because we all know
that Newspapers are established for gain, to be derived
from their sale and advertisements.
The Learned Gentleman then read the Report
" COURT OF REQUESTS, LEICESTER-SQUARE.
THE ENGLISH GENTLEMAN.

Edward Dixon Pouchee, of Brydges-street, and Louis
Pouches, of Stage Coach-office, Somerset-horse, were
summoned before the Commissioners by a Reporter, for the
amount of reports furnished to a weekly publication called
the English Gentleman, of which the defendants were
proprietor?. The Reporter's claim amounted to about 4/.
The defendants did not deny that he was entitled to that
sum, but they denied their own liability, as neither of them
was the registered proprietor.
Edward Dixon Pouchee was first called, who simply de-
nied his liability.
The Reporter said that he was convinced that the defen-
dants were the bona fide proprietors, and that they lurked
behind the shade, and put men of straw forward as the
ostensible proprietors, in order to evade the debts and other
responsibilities incident to a newspaper : it was a species
of swindling that ought to be exposed, and which no honest
man would resort to.
The. COMMISSIONER apprehended, that unless the Re-
porter should adduce some evidence of Edward being a
proprietor, he could not fix his liability.
The Reporter said that he was net prepared with such
evidence at present, but he would have him up again on a
future day.
Louis Pouchee being called appeared by Attorney, who
said that the Reporter might safely leave the matter entirely
to that gentleman's honour and sense of justice.
The v.
-°mmissioNEß—Well, on such conditions, we will
dismiss the case for the present. Other gentlemen may pride
themselves in not paying their tailors ; but the English
Gentleman
_ alone can boast of not paying its Reporters.
_You see, gentlemen, that lie attributes a witticism to the
-;ornrnissioner I thus embalming in the- point of an epi-
gram this atrocious slander. We all know that there is no
better mode which the most ingenious libeller can devise, of
doing grievous injury, and of giving force and intensitylO

lei-Action, than by steeping the lie and venom In the spirit

of a jest. The falsehood of itself would soon evaporate, but
only steep it in the venom of a joke, and then' you will
make a deep impression, and give to the lie a pun-
gency which will be long remembered... It is not by a dull
statement that you can effectually do harm : No, no,
the lie will not be a good- keeping lie unless pic-
kled in a joke.— (A laugh. )--- Here the Commis-
sioner is made to he witty, though perhaps he
never uttered a joke in his life;—(a laugh.)---but the
libeller either invents himself, or borrows from another, a
joke, and uses it by a chemical process, for the solution of
the plaintiff's character. I have, continued the Learned
Gentleman, opposed to me an antagonist who never makes
a greater show than when he has a little case. He can
declaim and quote—indeed I see that he has a little paper
before him,--(a laugh)—he can quote, Gentlemen, and
misquote, and may misrepresent me in the same manner
as his client has misrepresented the plaintiff. I trust,
however, he will not lend me a jest, whatever else he may
laugh.)—When, Gentlemen, my Learned Friend
has addressed you; when you have heard and weighed in.
your scale all that he has said to you, you will retire, ad-
mitting, no doubt, his talents; but all his jokes and all his
eloquence will pass innocuous over your heads, and you
will return a verdict for the plaintiff. My Learned
Friend will keep up appearances before you, and will
slip in a little about the truth of the libel, and the difficulty
in every case of establishing justification. But I can tell
you a little of what took place behind the curtain ; I can
tell you what took place when this plea was drawn up, or
rather—for my friend could not be engaged in drawing it
up—what took place at the consultation at his chambers
in the King's Bench Walk. Oh, said Mr. Brougham, I
know as well what passed as if I were sitting bythe side of my
Learned Friend. When my Learned Friend looked over the
pleadings he said at once, why not justify? All this passed
in a Court of Justice. The attorney hummed and
hawed, and said, he had been advised by the Special
Pleader not to do so. But, said my Learned Friend, the
Sergeant, never mind the. Special Pleader : apply
instantly to the judge for leave to amend your plea and add
a justification, otherwise we shall be cut out from proving
the truth of the report. The attorney loooked queer ; he
paused for a minute or two and said that it was rather
awkward, but so. it was, that the thing did not pass as
stated in the report. What, said my friend, did nothing
of the sort occur? No, replied the attorney. What, was
there not a joke? No, not one word. Is every thing then
false ? All. How much are the damages laid at
in the declaration, asked my friend? Go instantly, offer
any terms, propose an apology, insert as much as ever they
please ; fill every column of the paper with praises of the
plaintiff; do any thing rather than come to a trial,—
(Great laughter.)--But notwithstanding all this, said
the Learned Gentleman, I Well know the topics which
my Learned Friend will urge in his address to you. He
will tell you that this is a mere squabble between
the editors of rival papers ; that the plaintiff is only the
editor of a weekly paper, and that he himself attacks other
people, and he will ask you what impression an attack of
this sort can make on the character of an editor. Now,
Gentlemen, I take leave to put you on your guard, and to
tell you, that if any man contrives to make the Press instead
of being the blessing, become the curse of the public, his
most sure way of proceeding, is by urging that principle,
and holding up editors as men of no. reputation, be declar-
ing that they are of a degraded caste—that they are to ask
in vain for reparation for injuries done to their character—
that in vain they go to a Jury of their country for redress—
that they alone are to find the avenues of justice barred, and
the hands of the Jury withheld, that with respect to them
justice is as powerless as blind. Let this principle be once
established ; let it be for once declared that no man of
good character will fill 'the situation of Editor,
and you will do that which its worst enemy
could scarcely wish—you will do more to de-
grave that Press ; possessing as it does great force,
that mighty object powerful for good or for mischief than
the most devoted enemy could require. You will fling it
into the hands of men, who baying no character to lose,
will batten on the character of othe.s ; and then this
. great source of public knowledge, this grand instructor
of the people becomes, not a blessing but a curse,
and falls into polluted hands, guided by reckless

hearts. Never is the Press, in such jeopardy as
as when attacked, and its respectability denied by its own
members. I have often heard it lamented, that owing
to the pampered prejudices of some the direction of the
public Press is this country has not fallen into such hands
as on the Continent.; that there are men of the

highest respectability, of the most liberal education, and
enlightened - character, connected with the Press of
this country, I have no doubt, but there is not among them
that constellation of talent, which you see in other coun-
tries. In Paris, for instance there is Etienne, Jouy, and
Benjamin Constant, the _last of _whom, _one of the ablest
men in the day, is the avowed Editor of a public print.
If you, Gentlemen, by our verdict, sanction the principle
that Editors are men of no character, and they
are with impunity to be slandered, adieu to the
respectability of the Press. The question now be-
fore you is not, whether we are. to have three -hun-
dred newspapers—for these we already have--:-nor
whether the public will be instructed by that Press; the
only question is,whether the people are to be well taught ornot,
whether this great public instructor is to be in the hands
of honest men, of men of delicate and refined taste, or of
being of the. lowest description, ready to prostitute what
talent they have for gain. You will do your utmost to
prevent it from getting into such base hands, and will, I
trust, save it from the headlong ruin which must follow
the adoption of the opposite principle.
Mr. Mallison, from the Stamp-office, produced a copy
of the SUN, of the 7th of April, containing the libel in
question. The witness said that the plaintiff held a situa-
tion in the Stage Coach-office, at Somerset-house.
Joseph Coleman produced from the Stamp-Office a copy
of the affidavit, which stated that the defendants on the
record were the Proprietor and Publisher of the " Sox."
[The libel was then put in and read by the officer of the
Court. ]
Mr. Beoranaat.—That is my case.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE then addressed the Jury for the
defendant.—Gentlemen of the Jury, my Learned Friend
has said that he had some experience in my mode of con-
ducting business. On this point my experience is on a par
with that of my Learned Friend, and I mention it because
it is the only point on which I have the slightest pretension
to appear at any other but the humblest distance from my
Learned Friend. With my knowledge of my Learned Friend's
mode of conducting a case; aware, as I am, of his habit of
indulging even to fondness, in the greatest irregularity; and
confessing my surprise, that before a Court and a Jury, he
could Lave indulged in so much matter, and referred to so
many topics in his statement, which be knew he could not
adduce evidence to prove ; notwithstanding my long ex-
perience of my Learned Friend's habits, I confess I felt sur-
prise at his conduct this day. With respect to the rest,
that my Learned Friend would make a powerful dis-
play of talent, that lie would bring those varied
talents to bear, by which you have been entertained this
day, no one who had ever heard his name could doubt; but
that those great powers and varied talents are not always
applied to the elucidation of truth, when my Learned
Friend, in his character of Advocate, does the best he can
for his client, admits of as little doubt. My Learned
Friend has given an imaginary account of my mode of con-
ducting a case, and the account he has given of me
may with more truth be applied to himself. He desired
me to attribute any thing to him but a joke, and yet my
Learned Friend is well known as a master joker—(A
laugh)—but his address, this day, has proved how little
jokes hare to do with the facts of the case. My Learned
Friend too, has alluded to the use of sarcasm, but who
"knows better the power of sarcasm, and who uses it oftener
and more successfully than my Learned Friend ? But
surely my Learned Friend knows that a feeling heart,
and principles devoid of guile, are not incompatible with a
love of sarcasm. My Learned Friend is a living in-
stance of how much good feeling and high honour may
exist in conjunction with a superabundance of sarcasm._
As for Inc I am a plain unvarnished man, and as such I
sliall proceed to lay the facts of the case before you, with-
out any of those meretricious ornaments which my Learned
Friend has applied to its own case, but which would be
totally unfit for me to use. When I have brought you
back from the topic with which my Learned Friend
has entertained you, you will find this to be a case
of not much difficulty, nor much importance.
With respect to the character which my Learned
Friend has given of the " Susi" newspaper, that it
is widely circulated, and hitherto has been unknown as a
paper remarkable for containing libels on private character,
I perfectly agree with him. By this observation, my
Learned Friend has admitted that the Sex is conducted
with talent, that its information is quickly obtained
and accurately reported,. and of those facts there
can be no doubt.; but surely, Gentlemen of the
Jury these are not circumstances of aggravation.—
These are circumstances which, when the Proprietors of
this paper are brought before the public, should induce you
to give their case your candid consideration. My Learned
Friend's statement shall be the foundation of my observa-
tions ; and in that statement lie has admitted that the libel
was inserted unwarily. My Learned Friend has observed,
that my efforts are great in proportion to their weakness,
and I call on you to apply that maxim to the present case.
r My Learned Friend has been forced by the weakness of his
case to declaim about the propriety .of protecting the

characters of editors of newspapers, as if any one ever
dreamt of refusing them protection when they came into
a Court of Justice. He spent half an hour on general topics
in alluding to the advantages derived from reporting the
proceedings of a Court of Justice, and the necessity
which existed that those reports should be accurately

drawn up—before he Caine to the libel, which, in my opinion,
contains less of slander than any Paper I ever saw
brought into a COurt of Justice as a libel, in my life. My
friend wishes the proceedings of Courts of Justice to be
made public, and so do we all, under proper re-
strictions. Those Courts in which questions have
arisen, relative to the right of reporting, are only
courts of inquiry—courts to promote inquiry, and
to put justice into motion ; but the Court of Conscience,
from whence the present Report came, is a Court to hear
and determine. My Learned Friend has admitted that
the plaintiff in this action is the Proprietor of a News-
paper ; but that, by some private arrangement, he
is not to pay the expencea,—in short he is to receive
the profits, without incurring any of the responsi-
bilities. He says that the whole report is false—
that there is not a word of truth in it, and yet he
admits more than could be inferred from the report. He
admits that the plaintiff is a proprietor, but that he is not
to pay the expences. I will read the libel to you, gentle.
men, and you will perceive by it, that the reporter comes as
a plaintiff in the Court of Requests, which as I have before
said is a Court to hear and determine, and a Court where
any matter supposed to have any thing-of public interest is
sure to be reported. If there is any thing of interest to
the public—any name that will bear it out—if my Learned
Friend, for instance, had quarrelled with a hackney-
coachman, he would be sure to see a report of it
in all the papers to-morrow. If the nature of the
case, or the name of the parties, give the case any
public interest, it is certain to get into -the newspapers.
Then what is the present case ?—a reporter summoned a
Newspaper Editor, and the case is given as that of the com-
plainant. If a newspaper gave a case—for instance the
present case only on. the part of the plaintiff—if it gave,
for instance, my Learned Friend's statement, would
any one take the whole for truth? If my Learned
Friend thought so I am sure he would not have stated
many things which he has done. Well, the reporter is
nonsuited as you shall hear—(the Learned Sergeant here
referred to the Report)—the plaintiff was nonsuited,
and he was angry very naturally—nothing more common
for us than to see plaintiffs angry. He cannot prove
his case—and if he had proved the arrangement which my
Learned Friend admitted, it would have been quite
sufficient; but he cannot prove it, and the Commissioner
disinisses the charge. ,Now, these facts are all stated in
the report, and then it concludes with-a joke :—" the Eng-
lish Gentleman, was the only Gentleman that did
not pay its Reporters." Here the name of the English
Gentleman, you will perceive, is not applied in derision
to the plaintiff ; but it is the name of the Paper, and can
have no allusion whatever to the plaintiff if lie be not the
proprietor of the Paper. The reporter was made to say,
that the plaintiff, lie knew, was the bona
.fido proprietor.
do not know, Gentlemen, whether the words bona
fide can be properly applied to a Gentleman who makes
a private arrangement, by which lie receives the profit*, but
shrinks from the responsibilities. The facts stand thus :
The reporter summons the plaintiff and is dismissed, be-
caused the plaintiff allegea that he is not one of the pro-
prietors. But what does my Learned Friend now say?--
why, that the plaintiff is a proprietor, but that he is not
liable to the debts. The reporter, in his anger, says that it
is a " species of swindling which ought to be exposed."
What is a Species of swindling ?—The particular act of
which the reporter complained—and is not applicable to the
character of the plaintiff in any other transaction—nor ap-
plicable to him at all, if he is not the proprietor of the Eng-
lish Gentleman. You are now in possession of the libel of
which. Mr. Pouchee complains—on which my Learned
Friend has been brought into this Court, and for which
Mr. Pouchee has thought it necessary to bring four actions
of libel to clear his character. Ido not know how to account
for this multiplied litigation, -unless I were to refer to my
Learned Friend's observation; and ascribe it •to a
quarrel between one rival proprietor of a newspaper
and another—though I am sure the proprietor of the
Sort would not condescend to act under the influence of
such motives ; however, four actions have been brought,
from which no person-will benefit but the attorney, whose
bill of costs must amount to an enormous sum. The
, worst part of the 'statement is true, because my Learned
Friend admits the plaintiff takes the profit of the English
Gentleman, but is not liable to the payment of debts—be-
cause he is a secret- 'proprietor, taking the profit
hut escaping the responsibility. My. Learned Friend is
also a great friend to the Liberty of the Press, and has
called upon you to protect it ; but is this a way to protect
the Liberty of the Press, when people of property skulk
behind others of no property,- and' take the profit them-
selves? I put it to yous.---is this a way to promote the re-
spectability of the Press ? No homiest man has a right to
shrink from his•reapcnsibility., -Let persons avow them-
selves as proprietors who are so ; but if, like the
plaintiff, they continued as priVate'prOprietors, whilst others
are put forward to Meet. the• eesprinSibility; each persons
are the greatest ehethiei teiethiTibert,±4f the Press:l My
Learned Friend has charged 'rue 'with mis-quoting, but I

defy any man at the bar to convict me of mis-quotation,
and I must say, my Learned Friend has put a most un-
candid construction on a joke of the simplest kind—l say,
of the simplest kind, and I give him the benefit of the word
simple, to use it as he thinks proper. The term—
" English Gentleman," does not apply to Mr. Pouchee.
The sentence is—" The English Gentleman' alone can
boast of not paying its 'Reporters ;" and, reading the pas-
sage, ran any one doubt the fact that it is a mere play on the
word Gentleman, as applied to the Newspaper, and, as Bush,
that it is neither more nor less than a bad joke reflecting on
nobody. • Then, here is the report of a case in the Court
of Requests, inserted in a paper of great circulation—
of a good character—that character depending on its giving
those reports expeditiously, for it is well-known that
the Sine makes great • exertions to give the reports ex-
peditiously. In this paper the report which you have
heard was inserted, and if this be matter of complaint,
it is one of the lowest cases of complaint that I ever heard.
How often, both here and in Guildhall, do we try cases in
which there are secret partners ; but those are different
from the present—where, for public purposes, the proprie-
tors are obliged to register their names. Then what injury
has been done to the character of the plaintiff—what motive
could have prompted the insertion of the libel ? Look at the
manner in which a newspaper is conducted—the haste with
which every thing is got up.--(I admit that this is no excuse
for a deliberate intention to slander. )—But where there was
no intention to slander, no injury has been done ; and not
one of you would have dreamed that such a speech could
have been extracted from such a case as that with which
my Learned Friend has amused you. The plaintiff has
given no proof of damage ; and the question is, whether
you will sanction a litigious persecuting spirit in a case
marked by the entire absence of personal malice. My
Learned Friend has said, that the Scat Newspaper has
hitherto been remarkable for maintaining a character for
acting without any infusio'n of private, personal, or
malicious feeling. In the present case, my clients disdain
any such feeling—they are responsible, no doubt,
for what they have unwarily admitted into their
Journal ; but my Learned Friend has himself admitted
the truth of that part of the report which militates most
against the character of the plaintiff. The ,article was ad-
mitted and inserted in the ordinary and usual way. Under
such circumstances I am confident you will be of opinion
that the smallest damages are sufficient. I am not in-
structed by my clients to utter any thing disrespectful to
Mr. Pouches; but they hope that you will consider the
circumstances, and after that consideration, that you will
be of opinion, that as there was an entire absence of ma-
lice, the smallest damages will meet the justice of the case.
The case having closed,
The LORD COM` JUSTICE proceeded to charge the
Jury. It has been admitted, Gentlemen, by the Counsel
for the defendants, that the plaintiff must receive a verdict
at your hands. As to the amount of damages, that
is a question entirely for your consideration. Some
subjects, however, have been adverted to in mitigation,
to which I think it my duty to refer. I do not
think that the libel having been inserted in a hurry, or having
been received in the ordinary course of business, is any excuse.
It is the duty of those who have the management of news-
papers not to insert any thing in a hoary, and not to publish
it until they ascertain its truth. If this were an excuse,
a im,n may knock another down in the street, and then plead
that he was in a hurry. It has been stated, and truly stated,
as far as I have been able to judge, that the SUN is a
paper generally conducted with great care and respecta-
bility, and that it is not one of those papers which are
in the habit of devoting their columns to the
slander of private individuals. In the case of a
criminal charge, undoubtedly general character does
and ought to weigh on the minds of a Jure ; but the
question in the present case, is what compensation you ought
to give to the plaintiff for the injury done to his character ?' It
may be said that, because the plaintiff is a man of good
character, little or no injury has been sustained by him,
but if this doctrine was • admitted, every man of
good character would be subjected to the attacks of
those who thought proper to libel him. As to the
propriety of publishing the proceedings of a Court of
Justice, I am of opinion that the law allows a man to
publish the proceedings of a Court which is not sitting
to examine, and to see whether any charge is against parties,

but to hear and determine those charges. It may be im-
proper to publish the proceedings of Courts which sit only
to investigate the conduct of individuals; but I agree with
Mr. Justice Lawrence that the law admits that Courts
of Justice, anti I hope it will ever continue to admit
the proceedings of Courts of Justice to be published, and
that great good has arisen to the public from their publica-
tion. The Proprietors, however, are bound to give ac-
curate reports, especially when those reports reflect
on the characters of individuals. If the proceed-
ings of a Court of Justice—l mean of those Courts
whose judgments are final, be not properly and ac-
curately given, the slander is much aggravated.—
The difficulty we are placed in here is, that we do not
know whether such proceedings ever passed in the Court
of Requests. One can scarcely think, after all that has
passed, that the report was a pure invention ; but
there is no plea on the record, and no evidence
has been adduced, which could inform us whether what
is stated had passed or not. We do not know, be-
cause the defendant does not defend himself on the
grounds that it is true. The Plaintiff is summoned
to the Court of Requests for 4/. by a Reporter—he
denies his responsibility—the Reporter states, or is
made to state, that he is convinced that the Plain-
tiff is the bona fide proprietor, and that the transaction
ought to be exposed. It was a question whether this was
the means which the reporter contemplated of exposing the
transaction, but if Mr. Pouchee was not the proprietor of

the English Gentleman the allusion could not apply to him.
You will perceive, Gentlemen, that the libel contains a
direct charge of gross fraud; and will give such tem-
perate damages as will compensate the plaintiff fur
the injury done to his character. I again beg to
to remind you, that we know nothing of the proceedings
in the Court of Requests. If any thing had passed there
it would have been easily proved, but no proof has been ad-
duoed on the subject. A verdict, it is conceded, must
be for the plaintiff, and you will consider the amount—
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 251.

POUCIIEE V. GnANT.

The CnrEr Juszten said, he believed this was a ease
between the same parties, and for the same libel.
Mr. BROUGITA3I said it was, but that they would not
trouble the Jury. His Learned Friend and himself bad ar-
ranged that a verdict should be taken for the same amount
as in the hot case.

The verdict was accordingly taken by consent for 251.
POUCHES V. STEWART AND OTHERS.

This was an action for the insertion of the same article
n the New Times Newspaper.
Mr. BROUGHAM said, that in this case an arrangement
had also been entered into that a verdict of 201. should be
taken for the plaintiff.