The Sun.
London, England, 1842-12-10 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 9.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius before Lord DENMAN and a
Middlesex Special Jury.)
EGAN V. THE GUARDIANS OF THE KENSINGTON UNION.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff to re-
cover a sum of money alleged to be due to him for
services which he had performed for the union. The
plaintiff had gat as assessor, for which he had charged
at the rate of five guineas a day. The case went off
by the defendants agreeing to pay the plaintiff 1001.
Verdict for plaintiff, damages 1001.

LIBEL—BAKER V. WILKINSON.
This was an action brought by the High Sheriff of
Rutlandshire, against the proprietor of the Leicester
Herald, for the publication of a libel. It appeared
that the plaintiff was a great agriculturist and a
feeder of stock, and that he had obtained several prizes
for a certain fat steer which he had fed. There was
afterwards an accusation brought against him that he
had misrepresented the age and feeding of the steer,
and in the course of the controversy, frequent
allusions were made to the plaintiff's stock-
book. Meetings were held en the subject, at Leices-
ter and Stamford. Pamphlets were published, and
while the controversy was at its height, the alleged
libel appeared in defendant's paper. It was in the
form of a letter to the Editor, and was headed " The
Cheating Sheriff of Rutland." The letter itself was
dated Limpston, April 6, 1842, and purported
to be written by F. Brown. It stated, that as
regarded Mr. Baker's herd book, the writer who
had lived in plaintiff's service for upwards of
six years, had made frequent entries in it, and
that to the best of the writer's recollection
that book contained something much more like 300
pages than only 6, as had been represented in the
Times of March 30. The letter was followed by a
paragraph, in which the plaintiff was denominated the
mean, lying sheriff.
The SOLICITOR- GENERAL (with whom was Mr.
Hill), for the plaintiff, stated the circumstances con-
nected with the controversy relating to the age, and
said that the plaintiff had only brought this action for
the purpose of vindicating his character.
The clerk from the Stamp-office was called to prove
the proprietorship of the paper. It appeared, however,
that there was a verbal difference between the Stamp-
office record and the statement in the declaration as
to the residence of the defendant and the place of pub-
lication of the paper.
Mr. KELLY objected that that variance was fatal to
the action.
Lord DENMAN having heard the Solicitor-General in
reply, directed the cause to proceed, but stated that he
would reserve the point.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL objected to the point
being reserved.
Lord DENMAN could not reserve it if the Solicitor-
General objected.
Witnesses were then called to prove the purchase o f
the paper at defendant's office, who were cross -exa-
mined as to the meetings held about the steer,
but from which nothing of importance was elicited.
A letter from defendant to plaintiff, dated June last,
and apologising for the insertion of the libel, was then
put in, and also an article in November last, in defend-
ant's paper, relating to the action, and stating that
Sir W. Follett was retained for plaintiff, and Mr.
Kelly for defendant.
The case for the plaintiff having been concluded,
Mr. KELLY, for the defendant, admitted that the
verdict must go against his client, .but he submitted
that the smallest possible amount of damages
would fully satisfy the justice of the case.
He denied that the plaintiff had brought this action
bona fide for the vindication of his character, because
if that had been his intention he would have put wit-
nesses into the box, who could have told the Jury
what had occurred at the Walton and other agricul-
tural associations, who could have given them some in •
sight into the transaction. On the contrary, the
plaintiff had taken advantage of one strong expression
in the heading of an article in a local newspaper, in
order to snap a verdict. The plaintiff himself had pub-
lished a pamphlet on the subject, and what right had
he to complain of another person publishing an article
in a newspaper on the same suVect ? Ile submitted
that nominal damages were all that the plaintiff was
entitled to recover. With regard to the apologetical
letter that expressed defendant's regret for the'publi-
cation of the libel, the defendant stated that if he had
been aware of plaintiff's defence at Leicester arid
Stamford the article would never have been published,
founded, as it had been, entirely on the report of thc
Walton Committee, and yet after that plain tiffeon t nued
his prosecution. It appeared that at the meeting at Stam-
ford Mr. Baker had been unanimously acquitted of the
charge of misrepresenting the age of the steer, but
why had he not brought his action against the Wal-
ton Committee instead of against the present de-
fendant, who had merely published an article founded
on the report of the Committee. The defendant had,
in his letter of the 14th June, offered to let
judgment go by default ; and he did not envy
the feelings of the then prosecutor, who, after
such a letter could have continued this action. The
only reason why judgment had not been suffered to
go by default was, because the defendant had been
advised that it would be better for him to have this
case tried before a Judge with a special Jury, than
before an Under Sheriff, and the difference of ex-
pense would not be more than 101. or 201.
Lord DENMAN in summing up said, that the letter
complained of as a libel
i was wholly unintelli-
gible when taken by itself, but unfortunately
it was headed " The Cheating Sheriff of Rutland,"
concluding with these expressions, " We wonder what
the lying Sheriff will say to this, how will he wriggle
out of it ?" Will his friends assist him. They are
underdone brown." And with this witticism, for the
Jury would recollect that the writer of the article
signed his name F. Brown, the article concluded.
Now, it really was a miserable thing that the Jury
and Court should have their time occupied by stuff
like this. He could not help expressing his regret
that persons occupying the station filled by
the defendants, who must be men of education,
and of intellectual attainment, and who ought
to have the feelings and manners of gentlemen, in-
dulged in the use of abusive and vulgar language
such as that which he had just read. It seemed as if
the editors of papers thought it incumbent on them to
follow the example set them by two persons in a
work of fiction, with which, no doubt, all who heard
him had been frequently delighted, and who, because
they happened to be editors of rival newspapers,
thought themselves privileged to indulge in the
lowest and most abusive expressions against each other.
The question was to what damages was the plaintiff
entitled. He could not help expressing his opinion
that all such language ought to be treated with con-
tempt by men of character. With regard to the man-
ner in which the case for the plaintiff had been
brought before them, he must say that he never saw
a voyage of reputation embarked -on with sails so
closely reefed. It was absurd for the Sheriff of Rut-
land to come here to vindicate his character before a
Special Jury of the county of Middlesex, who
had never heard of his name before, and no one of
whom knew anything about him. With regard to the
defendant's letter of the 14th June, he considered that
was a very proper letter ; and if the plaintiff had not
thought that a sufficient apology, he might have re-
quired a fuller apology, or have called for the name of _
the person who had written the letter; but instead o f
that, after reading that letter deprecating his .ange.ra,,
and apologising for the insertion of the le tterr,_ptainti
brought defendant here to meet the visitation of the law.