The Sun.
London, England, 1829-11-02 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, OCT. 31.
LIBEL.—WILKS V. PIIIPPS.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who
is a bookseller and printer residing in Chancery-lane,
against the defendant, who is the sole proprietor,
editor, and publisher of The News, for a libel. The
article which formed the subject matter of this ac-
tion was accidentally copied from the Morning
Journal daily newspaper into The News of the
11th of January last, and was as follows:
" BO W-ST REET.
On Monday, Wilks, the well-known bookseller
in Chancery-lane, came to this office, and seated
himself upon one of the benches till Sir Richard's
attention was undivided. The Chief Magistrate,
_ _

however, having caught a glimpse of the timber leg
belonging to the redoubted man of books, uttered
come pithy exclamation, and turned his attention
towards making his escape. The gentleman with
the wooden member, however, perceived Sir Richard,
and made such expeditious use of his time and limbs
that he was enabled to present himself to his notice
before he had made his way out of the office.
Sir RICHARD---What do you want, man ?
Wilks—l have a morning paper in my hand,
which states that you, in a private conference with
a man named Ferstandeg and a reporter, stated that
I was a man of bad character or something like it.
S;l' RICHARD—What of that ?
Wilks—Did that occur here ?
Sir RICHARD—Not in this office.
Wilks—Did you say so?
Sir RICHARD—Yes ; what of that ?--(Laughter.)
—What do you want here ? Get along with you.
Wilks—l can—
Sir Richard had, however, obtained an egress
from the office before the little man could proceed
farther, but he determined to say another word, and
therefore ran out of the office as fast as his wooden
and his natural leg would carry him, and again caught
the chief Magistrate of Westminster as he was going
into his private door.
Wilks—l will bring a respectable engraver to
prove that I am of a good character.
Sir R. BIRNIE—WeII, bring them here and I will

hear them.
Sir Richard here shut his door, and finished a
colloquy w hich for singularity had never been
equalled or produced so much laughter and merri-
ment to the spectators, among't whom Mr. Halls
and Mr. Robinson were ready to burst with exer-
cising their risible faculties."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that the plaintiff,
Mr. Wllks, was a bookseller and printer residing in
Chancery-lane, who had the misfortune to lose a leg,
and to hare its place supplied by a wooden sup-
porter; in consequence of which, lie had been
cruelly held up to ridicule in the most wanton, un-
necessary, and unjustifiable manner, by the report
which formed the foundation of this action. There
were very few men who liked to see themselves
held up to ridicule and published in a newspaper as
objects of reproach, on account of any natural or
personal defect which they might have the tnisfor-
tune to labour under. The libel in question was an
attack upon the honour and character of a respec-
table individual, and when the credence which was
given to newspaper reports was considered, there
could be no doubt but it was calculated seri-
ously to prejudice his client in the estimation, not
only of his friends and acquaintances, but of the
public at large. He (the Attorney-General) would
not say every body, as he knew that neither him-
self nor his Learned Friends around him were in-
fluenced by such matters, but still it could not be
controverted that the great mass of the people were
in the habit of forming their opinions from that
which appeared in the newspapers, believing, of
course, that all they read in a public journal was de-
serving implicit credence. The Learned Counsel
then proceeded to read the libel and comment on it
as he proceeded, after which, he observed, that it
was evident it was the object of the reporter to excite
the laughter of the public at the expense of the plain-
tiff. It was clear that the whole design and object
of this witty report, was to hold the plaintiff up to
the public as a person of bad character, and that
purpose was fully accomplished, as no doubt those
of the readers of the amusing story who laughed at
the singularity of it, placed the fullest confidence in
its truth. lie hoped that the Reporter would be
called to prove the correctness of his report, and
then it would be seen whether the observations of
the plaintiff and of the Magistrates were fairly given.
As to the amount of damages he would say nothing,
but assured that the Jury would give the plaintiff
a full and ample compensation for the injury which
his feelings and character had sustained by the ridi-
cule and scorn which had been cast upon them.
The publication, &c. being proved,
Mr. BROUGHAM proceeded to address the Court
in mitigation of damages. It was, he said, very
far from his intention, as Counsel for the defendant,
Mr. Philip, to endeavour by any means to excuse
any attempt which might be supposed to have been
made, to hold tip to ridicule or scorn any person la-
bouring under either a natural deformity or accidental
defect. Such an endeavour he (Mr. Brougham)
divlaimed, as it formed no part of the instructions
he had received from Mr. Phipps; who had autho-
rised him to say, that such attempt would neither
be just nor praiseworthy ; and that in publishing
the report which gave rise to the present proceed-
ing, he hail no such object in view. This was a
case very different indeed from that in which a party
had been brought before a Magistrate by necessity.
The plaintiff had thought fit to go to the police-
office to hold a conversation with the sitting magis-
trate. This conversation was actually given, and all

that took place faithfully and• accurately described;
wherefore in his (Mr. B.'s) view of the matter, the
plaintiff had no cause whatever of complaint; as
he had brought the consequences, whatever they
might have been, upon himself, by the course which
he had taken to remove from his character the asper-
sion which Sir R. Birnie bad cast upon it in his in-
terview with the poor foreigner, (Ferstandeg). His
(Mr. Brougham's) learned friend, the Attorney-
Gesei al, had expressed considerable doubt as to the
legality of reporting the proceedings at a Police Office
which possibly might or might not be well founded,
but whether that was so or not, was not very mate-
rial as the point at issue between the parties in the
present case was wide of that question, and left it
wholly undisturbed. He (Mr. Brougham) however,
agreed with his Learned Friend the Attorney .Gene-
ral, respecting the turtling of parties into ridicule in
police reports. He cons►dered that the turning into
ridicule of those who appeared at a police office, for

the purpose of prosecuting a criminal, or who were
brought there in the character of defendants, was
not only highly improper, but well calculated to de-
feat the ends of justice. Where, however, parties
entered the presence of a Magistrate, under other
circumstances, and with other views, the case was
different; as in that case they sought thet>i►selves the
publicity which they obtained. It not unfrequently
happened that parties who felt themselves aggrieved,
after making an unsuccessful appeal to a solicitor or
counsel, who informed them that they were en-
titled to no redress, proceeded to the next po-
lice office, and besought the sitting Magistrate
for advice, and after telling their own story, of course
to their own advantage, were dismi•sed with" Oh, my
poor man, I'm satisfied you are greatly wronged."
He (Mr. Brougham) often felt astonished to see
magistrates giving a certain degree of countenance
to such applications, which they must know were
made for some private object. This wa: the case
in the present instance. The plaintiff, no doubt,
went forward in order to make an ex-parte state-
ment in his own favour against the poor foreigner,
who was not present to defend himself. The
Learned Counsel then proceeded to read the libel
and demonstrate that it was not of the invidious
character ascribed to it—after which, he observed
that if any one had cause to complain, that person

. _
was Sir Richard Made. With regard to the re-
port, it appeared to have been written with great
impartiality and fairness; and even more of what
had fallen from the plaintiff was given in it than of
what the magistrate had said—as the report not
only contained all that took place in the pub-
lic office, but that which occurred in the pas-
sage up to the Magistrate's shutting his door
to put an end to the conversation. This being
the case, he, Mr. Brougham, submitted that
the damages which the Jury would assess
ought to be merely nominal. In measuring
the amount of damages to which the plaintiff was
entitled, the jury would have to take into their con-
sideration the character of the publication in which
the libel appeared. It was not a principle of The
News to hold persons up to public ridicule or wil-
fully to attack private character, and the tone which
distinguished its politics gave it a place in the esti-
mation of all wine and good men. Having said thus
much, he ( Mr. Brougham) would commit his client's
case to the discretion of the Jury, with a full con-
viction that the verdict would be that which the jus-
tice of it required at their hands.
Mr. PLATT (who was with Mr. Brougham) was
proceeding to call a witness, when
Lord TENTERDEN observed, that he understood
no witnesses were to be examined.
Mr. BROUGHAM said, he had stated as much in the
outset to his Learned Friend, the Attorney-Geaeral,
and therefore would not depart from his word.
Lord TENTERDEN then summed up the evidence,
and the Jury without much deliberation returned a
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 40s.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, OCT. 31.
GODEFROY V. DALTON, GENT.

This was a case involving a very important ques.
don, as regards the liabilities of attornies to their
clients for the consequences of any mistake made in
the conduct of a cause. The circumstances out of
which the action arose were these :—The plaintiff,
Mr. Godefroy, had been out riding one day in his
gig with a friend. The latter drove. A little boy,
named Dubois, who was amusing himself with a
ball, ran across the road just as the gig was coming
by; and before the gentleman who was driving
could pull up the horse, the boy was between its
legs, and received some injury. An action was
brought in the boy's name against Mr. Godefroy, as
owner of the gig, to recover compensation for the
injury. The process, however, was served on Mr.
Godefroy's son, and not on himself. He applied
to Mr. Jay, an attorney, then of the firm of Messrs.
Jay and Bytes, and stated the circumstances to him.
Mr. Jay informed him that the process might be set
aside for irregularity in the service of it, and also
expressed his opinion that Mr. Godefroy, who was
not the person who hail been driving when the acci-
dent occurred, had a good defence to the action.—
Mr..Godefroy then directed Mr. Jay to move the
Court to set aside the proceedings for irregularity,
which Mr. Jay promised to do. The application,
however, was not made in due time, and the de-
fendant not having put in his plea, the plaintiff sign-
ed judgment by default. Mr. Jay subsequently,
upon the plaintiff complaining that the action
had not been defended, told him he would attend
the execution of the writ of inquiry, and mention the
fact of the irregularity in the service of the process.
No person, however, did attend on the part of Mr.
Godefroy, and the jury awarded him to pay 151.
damages. lie then commenced an action against
Messrs. Jay and Byles for negligence in not making
the application to set aside the proceedings, and also
for not defending the action. Upon this occasion
he employed Mr. Dalton, the present defendant, as
his attorney. The cause having come on for trial
before Mr. Justice Burrough, at Guildhall, the plain-
tiff's counsel tendered the prothonotary's book
which contained the entry of the signing of the in-
terlocutory judgment as evidence of that fact. The
defendant's counsel oljected to the evidence, and
the Learned Judge held that it was necessary to
produce an examined copy of the judgment. The
plaintiff's attorney was not provided with this ; and
the other evidence being rejected, the plaintiff was
nonsuitcd, and had therefore to pay both his own
and his adversary's costs in the cause. The omis-
sion by Mr. Dalton to provide himself with this
piece of evidence, whereby the plaintiff had lost his
suit, constituted the ground on which the present
action was brought, which was, like that against his
former attornies, Messrs. Jay and Byles, to recover
damages for the injuries sustained through the alleged
negligence of the defendant in this respect.
The defence rested on three grounds. Ist. It was
contended that no damage was sustained by the
plaintiff in consequence of the nonsuit, because he
could not have recovered against Messrs. Jay and
Ryles even if he had had the proper evidence. 2dly,
It was not proved that the plaintiff had retained
Messrs. Jay and Byles to defend the action, or to do
more than make that application to the Court, which
it appeared would, if made, have been wholly un-
availing; and 3dly, which was the main ground of
defence, Mr. Dalton had not trusted to his own
judgment on the subject, but had advised with an
able and experienced Counsel, not only upon the
particular point in question, but upon the whole of
the evidence necessary to support the action; and
that Learned Gentleman, who was in extensive prac-
tice, and had been for thirty years at the Bar, ad-
vised him, that as the negligence was the gist of the
action, and the signing of the interlocutory judgment
only alleged as a consequence of that negligence, the
entry in the prothonotary's book would be sufficient
to support that allegation.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said the question was
one of great importance, and he would therefore re•
serve it for the consideration of the Court above.
His Lordship, however, took the opinion of the
Jury upon the fact, as to whether the plaintiff had
• • retained Messrs. Jay and Byles merely to make the
motion to set aside the r--; _ling., or generally to