Star.
London, England, 1825-06-23 00:00:00

AUCKINGHAM V. BANKS'.

This, it will be recollected, is an action for a libel by
Mr. Buckingham, whose expulsion from India has ex-

cited so muchlttentichx, against ?4r. Jr. W." Banket, for
a libel. The alleged libel was contained in a letter, de-
livered open to the plaintiff at Calcutta. in the, year
18z0, by a Gentleman new in India. The defendant
having pleaded the general issue, and also justifications
alleging the troth of the maim s of charge, in Easter
Term, 1824. applied for, and 'Attained a postponement
of the trial until the arrival of two witnesses from Sy
ria, who were expected to support the special pleas. At
this time, the plaintiff was advised that as the letter
WAS in the ha-id-writing of the defendant, some pencil
marks in the margin would sufficiently prove that he
had published it; and therefore he did not avail himself
of a commission to examine witnesses in India. In
October last, the defendant's witnesses arrived, and the
cause was set &win for trial; but in February, Mr.
Buckingham discovered that his proofs of publication
were deficient, and that he should be'defea:ed without
art opportunity of meeting a ju,tification on its merits.
Under these circumstanees he withdrew his rec n d ; and
the defendant has now carried down the cause by pro-
viso, and it stands for trial at the adjourned sittings in
London. 0.. F. iday last Mr. Brougham, on behalf of
the plaintiff, obtained a rule to skew cause why the
trial should not be postponed till the return of a com-
mission from India?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL and Mr. GURNEY now
showed cause, and contended that there was no pre-
tence for supporting the rule. The plaintiff had always
been informed that the publication would not be ad-
' asked, and he knew as early as February last, that he
was not in a condition to prove it; and could he now
ask for a postponement of the. trial when the defen-
dant') witnesses had been kept eight months in town at
a reat expense, and when he did not even suggest any
expectation of obtaining th:: attendance of his own wit-
nesses from Calcutta?

Mr. BROUGHAM and Mr. HILL, in support of the
rule, urged that this was a m-re attempt on the part of
the defendant to obtain costs, which the Court would
not sanction.. The plaintiff had always considered the
truth or falsehood of the libel as the main question in
the cause; and for a long time thought his evidence of
publication complete. Even now, Mr. Bankes did not
deny it; but he expected by this measure to nonsuit
the plaintiff, and obtain all the costs of the proceeding.
The COURT said, the rule for poitpontog the trial
must be discharged, unless the plaintiff would consent
to pay the costs ancuirred by the detention of the defen-
dant's witnesses in London. It now appeared that he
never was in a situation to try the cause ; and he ought
to hive made his application earlier. Mr. Brougham
might, the:efore, make his electi.m either to allow the
rule to be discharged, or to consent to pay such costs
of the Syrian witnesses as tl.e Master should allow.
Mr. BROUGNAM took time to consult with his client od the alter-
native proposed by the Court.
IN THE MATTER OF HOLLPIGBURY.
_

Mr.l3m.Lamo moved to make absolute a rule for striking Charles
Paulet Hollingbury off the rolls, for attempting to extort money
from Josiah Taylor, of which he had been convicted.
The Co WIT informed Mr. Bulland that they had already ordered
this person to be struck off the rolls, and therefore it was unneces-
sary for him to make his rule absolute.
This day Trinity Term ended.