The Sun.
London, England, 1827-07-17 00:00:00

LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 17, 1827.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
,_

I COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY 16.
WALKER U. MRS. MARGARET'MONK. •
This was an action to recover compensation in
damages for a libel which appeared in the Chester
Courant of the 29th of August" last.. Mr. CHITTY
opened the pleadings. The declaration alleged, in
different counts, that the defendant had published
the libel. The defendant pleaded " not guilty,"
and also that he had the leave and licence of the
plaintiff. The replication denied such leave.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated the case. The
plaintiff was a respectablejeweller residing at Chester,
and brought the action in London, where he was
not so well !mown, to recover damages for a libel
published in Chester, because he felt that it would
be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to procure
an unbiassed jury in Chester, upon a cause that in-
volved so much party feeling. To try the action
upon the merits, therefore, he came to London, where
that feeling which divides the people of Chester did
not prevail. The libel was published in a paper of
which Mrs. Monk is the proprietor. She employs
different persons, some of whom arc called editors,
some are contributors of articles, in their own
names, and some use feigned names, but she has the
benefit of their writings. The publication com-
plained of is signed " John Faulkner," and pur-
ports to be a letter, in answer to another letter, sup-
posed to have been written by the plaintiff. The
l i eenodme it -Inc eyn twi ►nags
Attorney-General hertehialaditstgheenelirbael
upon it, and asserting
to impute to the plaintiff the grossest personal cor-
ruption and misconduct. One passage--" So well
is your character understood by all who have any
knowledge of your glaring and base tergiversation,
that had the letter borne your signature, it should
have passed by unnoticed"—when translated into
simple words, meant that the plaintiff's signature
would meet with no credit, because he was known
to be a liar. This publication was two months after
the election, and surely, a sufficient time had then
elapsed to allow all party-feelings to subside. Where
an action is brought for a libel, the defendant can, if
the publication be true, plead that truth in justifica-
tion ; but if he does not so plead, he cannot nffer
evidence of the truth of the publication, which must
be considered to be false. The plaintiff asserts, that
the whole charges are false; the defendant does not
contend that they are true; and the same damages
which the jury would expect if they were groundlessly
attacked in their private as well as their public charac-
ter, by a person living in the same city where they
dwelt,—those damages they would award to the
plaintiff.
Mr. Dutton, from the Stamp-office, proved that
the defendant was the printer, publisher, and sole
proprietor of the Chester Courant.
Henry Goddard produced the paper of the 29th
August, 1826.
Both these witnesses were examined by Mr. J.
WILLIAMS, and knew nothing of the plaintiff or of
the defendant, or of the city of Chester.
The libel, which was very long, was then read.
It was signed "John Faulkner," and addressed to
the plaintiff.
Mr. JOHN WILLIAMS said, that it was only with
the view of relieving the defendant from the conse-
quences of the action that he addressed the Jury.—
The Attorney-General had kept from them as much
light as possible, and there were cases in which
light was less convenient than darkness. The city
of Ches:cr was divided into two parties; one calls
itself the independent, the-other is called the Gros-
venor party. If he (Mr. Williams) had been born'
in the situation of Lord Grosvenor, he most pro-
bably should have every disposition to retain the
same influence over the city which his ancestors pos-
sessed ; and be would say, that the Noble Lord,
who was returned at the last election, and his
brother, were both abundantly deserving of a seat
in Parliament ; but a population of 20,000 persons
may think they have a right to return a Member of
their own choosing, and may think fit to spare his
Lordship the trouble of directing their choice. The
two parties had different organs. The ChesterChroniele
Was the Paper of the Grosvenor, as the Courant was
of the Egerton party. The two witnesses whom the
Attorney-General has called never were in Chester,
and from theni no evidence could be got; but the
case should not be left in darkness through the dread
of a reply. The plaintiff was formerly of the inde-
pendent party; for reasons, however, best known
to himself, he had gone over to the G-rosvenors.
During the last election the parties were nearly
equally divided; but the Grosvenor party, after 12
days' hard fighting, at last, on the 22d of June, pre-
vailed. In a storm of that description there is a
little swell when the calm comes, and some latitude
must be given to transactions which sprung out of
and are a continuation of the election. The letter
complained of was dated, and sent on the 7th of
August, though not published until the 29th. The
plaintiff does not bring before yon the publication
that occasioned the letter, which in fact contains no
more than what the plaintiff himself chose to 'make
public—his desertion of his own party,—for there is
not one word in it relating to his private character;
and as to public character, taking the step he did, he
renders himself liable to public commentary. On
the 25th of June, a watch was presented by the
Egerton party, at a meeting convened for that pur-
pose, to a person of the name of Spencer, who was
the plaintiff's foreman, as a testimonial of his inde-
pendence in having voted on their side. A speech was
made to Spencer upon the occasion, and that speech
appeared in thedefendant'spaper,without:any ment ion '
of the plaintiff, who, however, addressed in. the paper a
very long and, he Mr. Williams must be excused for
saying, a notparticularly lively letter to Mr. Lloyd,the
gentleman who made the speech when the watch
was given. In this letter, after the most unbounded
abuse of the defendant's paper, he thus introduces
Mr. Faulkner--" One of the independents, a.Mr.
John Faulkner, was one of the foremost, who, feel-
ing some doubts of the efficacy of the immoral
principles of independence alone after having intro-
duced him (Spencer) to publicity in a manner not
very creditable either to his principles.or understand-
ing, took considerable pains to convince him that
his employer would be very well able to dispense
with his services, and would, therefore, discharge
him as an inctunbrance; and that he could not do
more than discharge him if he should displease him.
How honourable, how independent, thus to tamper
with a servant who had experienced uniform kind-
ness from his employer ! Such a mode of rendering
a man incorruptible, no one will envy Mr. John
Faulkner the credit of, nor can a reflecting public
view such mean arts, such disreputable intrigues,
with any feeling but that of sovereign contempt and
abhorrence. It should be added that at this time,
such was Spencer's feeling towards his independent
friend, that he vowed, in his own style of language,
if Faulkner attempted to interfere with him, he
would kick his seat of honour." This was writ-
ten by the plaintiff above a month after • the elec-
tion, when all the election feelings ought, according
to the Attorney-General's speech, to have subsided,
—it was written before Mr. Faulkner wrote at all,
and it was published by the defendant, who pocketed
all the affronts upon her in her paper of the 25th of
July, at the plaintiff's request, after it was signed
with his name. On the 2d of August the plaintiff
met Faulkner, and told him he would give him a
good trimming in the next Chronicle. Mr. Williams
here read some passages in the Chronicle of the 4th
of August, reflecting - upon Faulkner, one of
which stated that he (the plaintiff)
_waif ready to

meet Faulkner"fairly in the arena of public opinion.
It was after these two publications, and after the
threat to give him a good trimming, that Faulkner
took up the pen, understanding the arena of public
opinion to mean the columns of the Courant and of
the Chronicle, and not the Court at Guildhall. The
plaintiff had some time before himself found fault
with the Courant for its tameness, and for not hav-
ing sting enough; and he boasted of the trimming
he had given in it to Mr. Fletcher, to whom, he
said, he had caused many a sleepless night. To the
extent of his power the plaintiff dipped his pen in
gall—he threatened and commenced an attack, aid
now he comes whimpering, with his finger in his
eye, and asks a jury for damages: because, forsooth,
after he has himself beettstung he feels a little smart.
Is it for him to come forward ? Does he really think
there' can be different rules for different men ? The
verdict would, the Learned Counsel hoped, teach
the plaintiff that if he cannot confine himself within
the limits of moderation, his conduct will be most
likely to escape censure when it passes without ob-
servation.

Lord TENTERDEN said, it appeared that there had
been several publications on both sides, in the two
Chester papers, before the publication complained
of, and that the plaintiff-.had been of the indepen-
dent party; but on the last election had, for reasons
into which no one had a right to inquire, quitted
that party. The first publication appeared in the
Chester :rourant, and if it reflected upon the plain-
tiff, and he had chosen to have brought an action,
.the law was open to him. It seems, however, that
he thought fit to take the matter into his own hands,
to redress himself by a publication of his own in the
Chester Courant, in which he makes extraordinary
allegations against Faulkner and the Editor of the
Courant. The Counsel for the plaintiff has directed
the attention of the Court to the libel, which was
bitter and personal ; but to have the matter fairly
before the Jury, they should also attend to the
plaintiff's publication. His Lordship read an ex-
tract from it, stating, in reference to the parties,
" that folly and vice seems to have arrived at its
utmost daring." His Lordship also recapitulated
the evidence of Faulkner, " that the plaintiff told
him he would give him a severe trimming," and
that, " when he attacked persons he made them
writhe," and directed the Jury to bear that evidence
in their mind when they came to estimate the da-
mages. 'F he plaintiff was entitled to a verdict, be-
cause the publication was a libel; but if the Jury
thought that a man who had published and spoken
in the way the plaintiff had, was not entitled to
heavy damages, they would give only small damages.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Da-
mages, One Farthing.
His Loaustin, certified that the damages were
under 405., so that each party will have to pay his
own costs.