Star.
London, England, 1825-12-21 00:00:00

GWITHLAN V. TURKEY.

This action was brought by the plaintiff, a merchant
at Oporto, against the defendant, a wine merchant, to
recover 721. The action was founded upon a supposed
false repre.entation, all. ged to have been made by Mt.
Tuckey to the plaintiff's agent.
The defendant was asked whether a person named
Burton, who cart ied on business at Poole, in Dorset-
shite, was competent to pay for four pipes of wine?
Mr. Tuckey represented him to be a man of property,
who was to receive a fortune with his wife. The wine
was accordingly furnished, and a bill of nine months
taken in paymeut. The bill was dishonoured, and the
wine fell into Vie hand, of the defendant, who became
A judgment creditor against Burton. Under these
facts it was contended that the plaintiff had lost his
wine through the deceit of the defendant, who had
alipti-cl the wine to liquidate part. of his own debt.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 721.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Ditealasaa ^-0.
BROWN V. MAY, GENT.
This was an action brought against the defendant,
for having published several libels t f and concerning
the character of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was a Dis-
tenting Clergyman, and the defendant an attorney, and
both parties were residents in the parish of St Matthew,
Bethnal-green, and had taken part in the disputes of
that parish. It aivi.eated, that on a contested election
of Vestry Clerk, libels had been published on both sides.
The pre,ea defendant had brought an action against
Mr. Brown, which was ttied in the Court of King's
Bench, when that Gentleman tried to gise in evidenc •
the libels which he said Mr. May had published ag..inst
him. 'The Court, however, refused the evidence,
! leaving Mr. Broun .to bring his cross-action, and a
111.1s:ha was, ihtleiOrep taken for Mr. May, to whom

the Jury awarded a sum of 100/. as damages. Mr.
Brown was subsequently taken under a writ of t'apias
ad Satisfaciendum, issued by Mr. Mat,. on the verdict
and judgment given in the Court of King's Bench, and
on that suit he still rensained in custody.
The CHM? JUSTICE recommended that some course
should by adopted to put all the causes of dispute at
rest, and the plaintiff. wfmse Counsel declared his o.lly
wish vi as peace, offered to withdraw a Juror, on con-
dition that he should be liberated from prison on the
execution issned at the suit of Mrs May. After some
hesitation, the defendant's Counsel accepted the offer,
which the Chief Justice said was very fair and honour.
able. The result of this is, that each party pays his
own cosu.

LIBEL.—PICKERSOILL V. THWAITES.
The plaintiff is a vendor of certain specifics, and the
defendant the Editor and joint-proprietor of the Morn-
ing Herald Newspaper. The ac.ion was brought to
recover compensation in damages for a libel inserted in
that paper on the 28th March last.
Mr. Serjeant TADDY stated the caw. He began by
expressing his regret that matters of liSel had been so
frequently discussed in this Court. But still he hived
that in the discussion of this question, some good won d
be derived ;o the public. He admitteJ that the public
press was a great and useful engine when well dire.. ted,
and very properly was made the guardian of our liber•
ties, and with these liberties, our happiness. Wit when
directed aga'nst private character, its mischievous
effects could not be too much reprobated nor too severely
punished. The plaintiff was a vendor of De TC O'S
medicine, living in a shop in the Strand, when another
person named Canham, caused an advertitement to be
inserted in t!.e charring Herald of the 28th March last.
(Here the Learned Serjeant read the libel, and it pur-
ported to be an attack of a rival upon the pretensions of
the plaintiff. The rival's name Gotham, lyit
has lately died ) The pretensions of the plaintiff wre
caller] impostures, his medicine a deadly compound,
and his conduct dark and dangerous. No man ought,
in duty to himself, to tolerate such libels upon his
charactir and conduct, at!.cl to recover compensation
for the injury thus inflicted upon him he now brought
this action. _ _

The proprietorship of the defendant was admitted.
The paper of the 28th of March, containing the alleged libel (in
the advrrtisement pzge),was also put in and read, and the license to
sell medicines.
James Layer—l know the shop 466. in the Strand. I once
bought medicine there, some time ago. De Veluo's Syrup was sold
there, of which 1 bought some.
Cross-examined—The shop was small; I was not so unfortunate
as to take Pickersgill's syrup.
William Pickersgiil examined—l am the son of the
plaintiff; several chemists buy De Velno's Syrup. After
March our business almost totally declined.
Cross-examined—l know Berner's•street very well ;
we began the shop about November last year. I know
Mr. White of Cambridge. My father assisted su aw-
ins schedules for insolvent debtcrs before he opened
this shop. My father advertised in The Herald (a
manuscript put into the witness's hand). I cannot say
that I took this to the dewspaper. My father did
not manufacture the medicine; I think he sold two
hundred bottles. Mr. White might have assisted my
father with money, but I don't know that he paid the
rent of the house. I did not hear my father say he was
the agent to White.
George Busby White was called upon his subpoena, but he did
not appear.
Mr. Serjeant SPANICIR (with whom was Mr. S. TAY-
Loa) addressed the Jury for the defendant. He la-
mented the many cases of libel which came before them,
but he thought in most cases, that people might be left
to themselves. This was a contest between Quack
Doctors, and the smallest possible damages would sa-
tisfy the justice of the case. Here there was no malice.
The libel complained of was inserted amongst the other
advertisements, and, in truth, this action was only
brought to puff off the De Velno's medicine for the
plaintiff. From following the vocation of drawing
schedules, and giving open air to insolvents, he as-
sumed the most analogous occupation, and smoothed
the passage of the ailing to the realms of bliss. Mine
was no proof of the value or composition of this medi-
cine, and if it were not good in itself, its vendor could
not look for damages for the loss of so pet ilous a calling.
The LORD CillEt JUSTICR, in recapitulating the ev►-
dence, observed, that newspaper proprietors were an-
swerable, and ought to be made answerable, for the in-
seitiol of libels in their journals; and perhaps they
would be taught by the lesson of this day not to insert,
in the shape of advertisements, matters of an indelicate
and disgusting nature, which daily meet the eye of
every member of every family. The paper containing
the libel was one in general circulation, and it would be
for the Jury (iii the absence of all proof of special da-
mage) to award the plaintiff reasonable compensation.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages One Shilling.