Star.
London, England, 1822-05-29 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

ri

`f

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, MAY 25.
LIBEL UPON AN ATTORNEY.
JONES V. STEVENS.
'This was an action brought by the plaintiff against
the defendant to recover damages for a libel. The
damages were laid at one thousand pounds.
-Mr. JERITIS stated, that the plaintiff was a Gentle-
man, carrying on the business of an Attorney, at
Henley, in Staffordshire : and the defendant was a.,
law-bookseller, in Bell-alley, and well known to the
profession. The libel, which was contained in a pam-
phlet addiessed the Master of the Court of King's
Bench, under the signature of " Paul Wilkinson,
was one tending to vilify a most respectable class of
Gentlemen, the Clerks of that Court (the Court of
Exchequer), whom it charged with fraudulent prac-
tices, in drawing up declarations without stamps, and
charging the duty as if stamps had been used. The,
libel asserted that they put the proceeds in their owe
pockets, and thus defeated the revenue. It did net
stop at these foul charges, but went on to vilify even
the Learned Judges themselves in strictures, upon a
case where a party to a bail bond having, through
some neglect, fixed the bond, separate actions were
commenced against himself and his two bail, and
treble costs incurred, amounting to L'2l. 17s. upon a
debt of £l5, and the Court refused to relieve the
parties until hese costs were paid. This, which was
a common proceeding, over which the plaintiff could,
from the circumstances, have no controul, was made
the foundation of the libel ; which went on to hold up
the plaintiff as the A ttorney who had commenced treble
actions for the sake of obtaining treble costs ; in the
bills of which stamps were charged that had never
been used ; that he had carried on a " cheap shop" at
Stafford, and one atHenley, and employed as his assist-
ant a man named Hammond, who was once a journey-
man tanner ; and that with him he long rioted in prac-
tices of a most profitable nature ; but that ultimately
they quarrelled and abused each other; when the
plaintiff, having got the start of his assistant, prose-
cuted and had him transported for inaccuracy in his
accounts. The libel said, that whilst concord pre-
vailed they were par ;labile fratrum, but that after
they had separated, the lion was without his jackall,
and in want of provender, which he sought for by
advertising for business. The libel concluded by ac-
cusations against the character of the plaintiff, and
charging him with carrying on disreputable business.
The Learned Counsel said he could find no terms
sufficiently strong to express his feelings as to the
malignity and wickedness of the whole, which was
only equalled by the conduct adopted in defence of
the article, in making the records of the Court the
vehicles of still fouler slanders. He animadverted at
great length upon the pleas of justification, which as-
serted that the whole of the libel was true, and that
the plaintiff was in the habit of carrying on business
upon the principle of "no cure no pay. There were
certainly some facts which were interwoven in the
whole, but they were distorted with the worst design,
for of themselves they were innocent. In conclusion
he called upon the Jury to appreciate professional
character, and to protect it and compensate the plain-
tiff by most exemplary damages.
On behalf of the defendant, a long attempt to jus-
tify the libel was made by. Mr. BROUGHAM, who
called evidence to speak against the general charae-1
ter of the plaintiff; but the Learned Judge (Baum'
WOOD) over-ruled it as inadmissible. Two witnesses
swore that they considered the plaintiff and his as-
sistant, who had been transported, as par while An-
trum or birds of a feather. A long argument ensued
as to the admissibility of certain evidence in justifica-
and - questions were reserved for the consi-
. Judges.
Joon in his charge, said it was for the
Jury to say whether the libel, which he believed to be
one, had been fairly justified.
. a on consideration, returned a
plaintiff—Damages £5O.
until halfpast ten o'clock at night.

as to me aunuaa..",
ii tion, and some que
111 derision of the.l-a
11' Ili Baron WOOD, If
If . Jury to say whethe
A 1
A; a most scandalous
The Jury, after
verdict for the phi
The case lasted
h..
IIV
Ii t„