The Sun.
London, England, 1827-01-19 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY--(Tats DAT.)
At the sitting of the Court, the Loan CHANCELLOIL inquired of
Mr. Hcirii—e—when it was.intended to proceed with the Welleiley
case. His Lordship said it was his wish to accommodate the time
to the convenience of the Counsel on both sides.
Mr. HORNE. said, that for his own part he was ready to go as
with the case at any tune that would suit the convenience of the
other Counsel.

TIM LORD CHA.IsTISI.I.OR. —As the Court will, of course, not
sit to-morrow, you may, if you choose, go on as far As_you eaa
on Monday, as I shall be obliged to leave the Court early nn that
day, or if you prefer, you can fix it for Wednesday morning, to
he then heard through. The Council can consult and Ileac
which arrangement would be moat convenient.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.—(Tits DAY.)
The Court 'WM occupied this morning in bearing COMMONS
motions, interesting only to the parties concerned.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, GUILDHALL—('SM DAT.)
(Before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE &WA s Special Jury.)
LIBEL.
HAYTHORN AND ANOTHER V. WRITHSON.

Mr. PoLLocx opened the pleadings.
Mr. SCA 'KLETT stated the case. The plaintiffs, he observed,
were respectable bankers at Bristol, they brought this aetion to
recover compensation in damages for a libel on their charaeter is
bankers, which appeared in a newspaper called the Birmingham
Chronicle and General Advertiser. The libel was merely the
insertion of the plaintiffs' names under the head of the bankers who
had failed since the commencement of the late distress. This
appeared in a number of that paper, dated the SOth of Decem-
ber, 1825. The motto of this paper was, " I must have liberty
with all, as wide a charter as the wind to blow at what I please."
It appears that the Editor of this paper taken the liberty of
blowing at whose fame he pleases, and at what he pleases,
but he must be responsible for the foul wind which he
blew on the plaintiffs. This paper has great circulation
in the midland counties, and though the defendants were
not suspected of want of credit, still they were astonished to find
their names published in a list of bankers that failed—and very
naturally enquired of tLe defendant from whom he received his
information, but he had tint candour enough to tell them, and
even if he had, it would not make much difference with respect to
the cause of action, for it was an indisputable principle, that a
publisher of a newspaper was liable for the consequence* of any
article which appeared in his paper. The Birrainghatra Chro-
nicle was a weekly publication, and if the defendant could
show any contradiction of his publication in a London or country
newspaper, before he published his subsequent number, let it go
in mitigation of damages. The Paper containing the l l Was
then put in. The defendant admitted that he wee proprietor.
Joseph May, a clerk in the banking-house of the plaintiffs,
proved that they issued notes in Bristol.
Cross-examined by Mr. BROVGHAM.—The notes are not
payable in London, but in Bristol only.
This was the case for the plaintiffs.
Mr. BROUGHAM, for the defendant, was far from denying the.,
proposition laid down by his Learned Friend, that publisheer
of Newspapers were liable in a Court of Justice for what-
ever appeared in their papers. But, while it was conceded
that this publication was a hardship on'tbe plaintiffs, the situa-
tion of the defendant should not be altogether forgotten. Editors
of Newspapers must employ many means of procuring je;teiii_
genre and information ; the essence of their trade was io emu_
inunicate intelligence from time to time to the public ; as long as
they communicate such information as they believe to be true;
as long as they take due precaution to ascertain beforehand the
truth of the intelligence which they publish; um long their
conduct should be interpreted, and be treated at the banal
of a Jury, with justice tempered with mercy, if at any time they
erred in their communications.
The Jury having retired about half an hour, brought in a ver-
dict for the plaintiffs. Damages, 250/.

"INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.—(Tnis DAY.)
lohn Davies, a cabinet-maker, St. James's-walk, Clerkeawall,
was opposed by two creditors named Ford and Lewis.

Mr. Ford stated that the insolvent had represented to him that
he had an order to complete for Lord Chief JustiCe Abbott to the
amount of 100/. and that the latter then owed him IBP/. is
this representation witness lent the insolvent forty- pouids
on his acceptance, which was afterwards dishonOured.--,-
This witness, however, acknowledged that be should baVa
lent the insolvent the money, if he had not made that reprosenti-1
ticn.
Mr. Lewis then stated that lie was a creditor for 1151., and
was going on to oppose the Insolvent, when he was stopped, oN
admitting that he had received a dividend by way of compromise,
as had also Mr. Ford.
The Insolvent was remanded generally, in order to correct his
papers, on doing which he will be discharged.

. _
A • OF THE PUBLIC- JOURNALS,

; The last arrivals from North America bring us a con-
tinuation of the series of diplomatic papers, submitted to
Congress by the President. In a long extract of a des-
patch from Mr. Gallatin to Mr. Clay, on the subject of the
• decisive letter from Mr. Canning, of the 11th of last Sep-
tember,-addrested to. the former of these gentlemen, the
American Minister here takes considerable, and perhaps
mrght add ostentatious, pains to unravel the alleged
complexities and difficulties of the successive English
statutes for regulating the commercial intercourse of
foreign nations with the British Colonies, which had
been enacted by Parliament, from the year 1822 to
1825, inclusive. It will be recollected that when Mr.
Gallatin was taxed by Mr. Canning with a serious
error in stating the existence of a perfect equality be-
' tween the ships of Great Britain, in the ports of the
United States, and those of the United States in the
British colonies, Mr. Gallatin confessed that he had over-
• looked a restrictive provision in the laws of the Republic,
by which that supposed equality was, in fact, overturned.
He further attempted to explain the continuance of the
unfriendly clauses which Mr. Canning had described, by
expressing a belief that the American Government had
been engrossed' by other objects, and had not directed its
care to those particular provisions of the law. In the
course of examination into the series of English acts of
Parliament, which are the subject of Mr. Gallatin's pre-
sent despatch, there is nothing to complain of on the score
of apparent candonr, and as little with regard to the gene-
ral temper of his observations. It seems to us, however,
perfectly dear that the whole despatch was framed with a
view to meet the eye and draw the serious attention of
Congress, that fair and creditable means might be afford-
ed for retracing those steps in the legislation of the United
States with reference to the British colsmies, which bad,
after (we are hound to say) long forbearance on her part,
at fast imposed it as a positive duty on Great Britain to
interdict the vessels of the American republic from the
ports of our West India islands, and to cut off her citi-
zens from that advantageous commerce with our colonies
which had been eagerly accepted by other States, and in
a less selfish, monopolizing, and unreasonable spirit. We
are led to anticipate some speedy relaxation of the ob-
.noxious parts of the American commercial code, bearing
upon the shipping interest of this country, and -it will
-then remain for the British Government to reflect how far
the well-being of its own subjects might be affected, by
listening on any conditions to the overtures of the Ame-
rican Minister, for a re-admission of his fellow-citizens to
that, colonial trade from which their own laws and the en-
croaching policy of the Cabinet of Washington have ex•
eluded them.—Times.

IKnowing that a motion was to be submitted yesterday
by Mr. Chambers, at the Meeting of Magistrates of the
_County of Middlesex, " That every Court held for the
i
iless
specially
ibyuasido
business of
.tibisanCtiotuinty
ia7ahneotahnermotion,open Cour, n
in Court, unless
the re-
sult of which the public isdeeply interested, was to follow,
namely, " That a Commission be appointed to inquire into
the state of the Pauper Lunatics of this County, ' we dis-
patched a Gentleman belonging to our Establishment, to
the Meeting, in the belief that Mr. Chambers's motion
would be agreed to. We were aware, from the disclosures
respecting some very ugly jobs, which have recently been
made, that the Middlesex Magistrates have better reasons,
perhaps, than the Magistrates of any other County, for
deliberating in private. Allowing them, however, this pre-
eminen.ce, we still conceived that a great reformation had
been effected in the character of the body, since the appoint=
ent of Police Magistrates, and that, generally speaking,
they were no longer what Mr. Burke described them to
be, " notoriously men of such infamous characters, that
they were unworthy of any employ whatever"—men whom
a gentleman " would not. sit down to dinner with—to
whom he would not speak, nor suffer them to enter a room
where-he was." Though, therefore, we might not be so
romantic as to expect - from the Body the renunciation of
that hankering after jobbing, which is to be found even i
among men who hold their heads very high in society, We
yet expeeted—frer the example set by so many Counties
of which the Magistracy never lay under a slur like that
of this County, of holding their meetings on public business
in presence of the public, and enabling those affected by
their resolutions tobecome acquainted with the reasons for
adopting them,—that the Magistracy of the County of
Middlesex would seek to revive unpleasant recollec-
tions, and to awaken suspicions, by adopting a course
wit. ich always implies the existence of a consciousness
of \wog, We may safely lay it down as a gene-
ral rule, -o.'at men only endeavour to shelter their
conduct from observation, when they are conscious that
it will not bear observation. In no country in the world
isliueb a rule more applicable than in this, whatever will
bear the light is studiously thrust before the public. We
confess, therefore, we were not a little surprised when the
result was communicated to us, that it was decided by a
large majority that the proceedings should continue to be
conducted with closed doors, as they have been hitherto.
We have been favoured, however, with an account of the
debate on the occasion. Mr. Chambers was seconded by
that exemplary Magistrate, Sir Peter Lurie, and sup-
ported by Mr. Allen, of Union Hall, Mr. Ilyng, the
County Member, and another Magistrate, whose name is
not mentioned. A Mr. Flower alone spoke against the
motion, except the observation of Mr. Michael Angelo
Taylor, that in the county of
,York the public were not
lallowed to be present at County Meetings of the Magi-
strates (a practice which, with all due deference to so great
g lawyer as Mr. M. A. Taylor, it would be well for the
Cot:Tity of York to change as well as the County of Mid-
dlesex; be held equivalent to an unanswerable argument.
This Mr. ,Flower (a City Flower, we presume) aspires, it
would scent, to. the character of facetiousness, but evi-
dently had not tip remotest conception of the real merits
of the question before the meeting. The question was,
whether any set of men ought to have the power of laying
heavy taxes on the public, without even allowing that pub-
lic to know the reason for so taxing them—and whether
.any set of men ought to be allowed, without even the
cite& of publicity, to dispose of the sums of money arbi-
teeki imposed by them I ? Nye have always understood,
that apte;:rding to all Constitutional analogy, the possession
of power Inslolved responsibility, and that the public haven
right to observe' the proceedings of those who put their
hands in their pocket:: But this facetious gentleman quite
lßu tthe ,is;gad for e
forgot the public ; for t,&: only ,
reason he as
ing the motion was, "the appearance of
irenet Paid' (he
-
gentlemen of the
line often had the - effect of preventing men from deli-
vering their sentiments."
added, alluding to the Police Magistrates) could not live
without seeing themselves in print," and thin, f' if he were
disposed to speak as much as would fill the large pages of
the Morning Herald, he would be silent if he thought
that what he might say would be blazoned before the pub..
, I
Iriewc nenast
fodaryw-"isiti
should not
Tnghebroetharewmhaatnytrhne;
nsasyvialondhawvhea'jtertytiegyooddo
be blazoned before the public; but if Mr.
Flower had 'viewed the question with reference to the
public benefit, and not self gratification, the suspicion
might have come across his mind, that one of the advan-
tages derivable from publicity would be the inducing those
ate) remain silent, who have nothing to say but what they
wazild be unwilling to have blazoned before the public
next ay. We are. far from wishing to insinuate that the
public eiN:ld not gain greatly both by the wit and the
eloquence of ..Mr. Flower; and were he to withhold
either, from a drea.:l of being blazoned before the public,
his modesty would, we fear, be doing-an injury to his
merits. But there are two
.descriptions of Magistrates
whose silence the public would not lose much—
those who propose what they are ashamed to see blazoned
before the public from its wickedness, and tlume who titter
(what we are sure Mr, Flower would never utter) pueri-
lities and absurdities calculated to lower the character of
the Magistrac-i in general estimation, 4nfl to give pain to
their friends, if their own insensibility secures them from
feeling any. As far as we have observed, publicity has
hitherto operated rather beneficially hi the way of repres-
sion, and it is only in this way, we think, that the elo-