Star.
London, England, 1824-07-28 00:00:00

BARSIELD V. NICHOLSON.

His LORDSHIP.—In this case the first question was,
whether the Practical Builder was, or was not, a piracy
of the Architectural Dictionary? With respect to that
question, if the case were put upon that, it would have
to go to trial at law.
Mr. HEALD wished it rather to be decided on the
equity of the case.
His Lordship then expressed his opinion, that as Mr.
Kelly now sent the Practical Builder into the world in
the name of Mr. Nicholson, he must submit to have
the injunction go against him to the extent that he
should not use his name for the future; but his Lord-
ship did not think Mr. Kelly ought to be restrained
from publishing the-work in his own name; and which
he thought would be no great hardship, for Mr. Kelly
had said it was not his intention to employ Mr. Nichol-
son any more.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY 27.
LIBEL.—AUSTIN D. BOOTE AND OTHERS.

Mr. CAMPBELL opened the pleadings, and stated that
the plaintiff had been Churchwarden of the parish of
Mile-end Old Town, and in that character received 2001.
for the use of the inhabitants, which he invested in East
India Bonds for the benefit of the inhabitants. The de-
fendants published a libel, imputing fraud and false-
hood to the plaintiff with respect to this sum of 2001.
Mr. SCARLBTT detailed the circumstances at length.
The money was paid •by the Regent's Canal Company.
The sum in question had been paid in part, and Mr.
Austin had invested it in East India Bonds, in order to
procure the advantage of interest. In every parish—no
doubt for the benefit of the public—there was a minority,
and that minority was of come always in the right. The
defendants were members of the minority in this parish.
The accounts of the Churchwardens were published quar-
terly, and, he must inform them, this wasa very useful
practice. The minority thought proper to republish the
accounts, in which the 2001. were stated to have been in-
vested in India Bonds; 21. 19s. 21. were entered as
interest. In their comments upon these accounts, the
piece of ground for which the money was paid, and
which was called Rhodeswell, they entitled Roguesvrell,
in italics. They also said that inquiry had been made,
and it had been found that no India Bonds had at all
been purchased, and that Mr. Austin, when this was
stated to him, had only replied. " Oh, then you must
charge me with the interest." The object of this ma-
licious publication was to get favourite Churchwardens
of their own elected. In that they failed. He had en-
tered all the particulars upon the record, in order to
prove the falsehood of all the charges, well knowing
that the defendants could not enter a justification. The
plaintiff was a man of opulence and great respectability.
Money was not his object, but to clear his char acter from
aspersions maliciously attempted to be thrown upon it.
Several witnesses having been examined for the pro-
secution, the ATTORNEY-GENERAL addressed the Jury
for the defendants. Mr. SCARLETT having replied,
His LORDSHIP summed up. Although it might ap-
pear that the defendants were not actuated by malice,
still as they suffered themselves to be over-ruled by
others, they were answerable in this action. As a ver-
dict must pass for the plaintiff, the Jury, in discharge
of their duty, and to enable them to estimate the
damages, must on the one hand take into consideration
that the defendants had checked the publication of the
libel ; and on the other hand, that although they were
persons who had signed a resolution highly compli-
mentary to him, they had not, by any personal com-
munication, done anything to appease the feelings of
the plaintiff.