Star.
London, England, 1831-06-28 00:00:00

LAW REPORT'S.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Juxt 27.

ILICHNOND V. wiLis.
This was an action foe libel The plaintiff appeared in
to advocate his own cause. He commenced his ad-
dress
eer.n
to the jury by stating, that it was no overweening vanity
on his part that induced him to appear in person, and plead
in his own behalf; but that being a prominent actor in the
scenes which might possibly come under the consideration of '
the Jury, he thought that he was better able to do justice to
his feelings on the subject than if he employed a gentleman
of the Bar for that purpose. He had a host of legal learn-
ing opposed to him, but he trusted that his Lordship would
interfere where it was necessary, and give him that legal as.
sistance, which should any technical point arise, he
would stand so much in need of. But he would here observe
that it was his wish, that any technical objection should be
laid aside, and the real merits of the case be brought fully
and fairly before the Jury. The action in question was for 1
alibel published in the Tinges newspaper sometime since,
and which he believed he would be enabled to trace to the
defendant, who was now a Member of Parliament, but who
had formerly been a solicitor in Finshuryaquare, in which
libel lie (the plaintiff) was designated as a Glasgow Spy,"
and the Editor was cautioned against publishing any state-
ment% which he might make at St. Luke's vestry meetings,
as by doing so, he would lay his paper open to actions being
brought against it. This was the libel of which lie com-
plained, and which he did not doubt but he should be able to
bring home to the defendant. If the tlefendan, justified the
libel, he would go into a history of his life as connected with
the circumstances to which the term Glasgow Spy applied ;
and he would lay before the Court such evidence as would
warrant him in feeling, what he had a long while felt, that
the period in question was the ptoudest of hN whole life.
The plaintiff, after commenting upon the cruelty which
such a libel inflicted upon him, who had brough, up a
large family by his honest exertions, proceeded to call the
' following witnesses

Mr. Harrison, the assistant Printer of the Times. de-
posed that he received the letter in question from the Editor,
and it was inserted.

Henry Drake, formerly a clerk in the defendant's office,
but now a clerk in the office of the defendant's son (the de-
fendant having given up his business to his son), deposed,
that the letter shown to him, and In which the libel in ques-
tion was contained, bad tot been written by him. Upon
looking at it again, he perceived that the lest line in the
letter was in his handwriting. The superscription was alto
in his handwriting. lie had not any recollection of having
received any instructions from the defendant respecting this
letter, nor had he the slightest recollection of having received
any instructions on the subject front any person. A person
named Scott had been a clerk in the defendant's office. He
was discharged. Does not know where Scott is new.
Mr. R. Wilke, the defendant's son, was the next witness.
He remembered taking lip the Times, which contained the
letter charged with being libellous. He had not any recol-
lection of having communicated with his father respecting
that letter. Knew nothing whatever of the letter hiinst If.—
His clerks frequently, with his pelmission, would write or
copy matters tor his father.

Mr. Brown, the plaintiff's attorney, deposed to his having
had a communication with the defendant on the subject of
the libel, subsequent to the present action being brought,
which was in February, 182'J. The defendant had offered
to apologise for having published the libel

Sir J. SCARLETT with Messrs. GURNEY and
PLATT, appeared for the defendant), objected to this eti_
Bence, on the ground that the interview in quesdon was had
fur the put pose of die action being settled.
Lord TENTARDEN decided that the evidence could not
be received.

The witness, in reply to the plaintiff, said that he had
made every exertion to find out Scott, who had been clerk to
the defendant, but was unable to do so.
The plaintiff here intimated to the Court that he had no
further evidence to offer to the Court respecting the defen-
dant's being the author of the letter in question.
Lord TIINTIRDIIIII You have certainly not made out your
case; perhaps you may be able to do so upon a future
occasion.

The plaintiff was consequently nonsuitetl.
Amongst the witnesses subpmned by the plaintiff to give
evidence respecting him, in Mt the defendant had gone nn
with his plea of justification, were the Lord Advocate, Mr.
J. Hume, and Mr. Kirkman Finlay ; the two former sat in
the inner bar near to the Attorney General.