Star.
London, England, 1826-10-21 00:00:00

.
. • -
lice reports, they said, ores of.great utility to the cgm
munity, and, tlftrefere, its the'esual sitain of such publi.,
fertions,tbe misforjtmes, the foibles 'and sometimes the
sorrows even of mar fellow-creatdres, time to be held up
to ridicule and odium. Let Mr. Bourke, therefore, hive
the law administered to him as he would lay it down;
and in a case like this, which was a mere question of
controversy between two rival reporters, the Jury must
call to mind the old proverb of the pot and the kettle—.
(Loughter).—lt was quite clear that no injury could pos-
sibly accrue to the plaintiff, and as no one could know
that the alleged libel referred tb him, but those who were
acquainted with all the circumstances of the case, the
Learned Counsel felt convinced that the Jury would
find this was no libel at all, and so pronounce a verdict
for the defendant.

The Loan Cuter JUSTICE, in his address to the Jury,
stated the nature of the plaintiff's complaint. The de.
claration charged that the defendant, intending to injure
the plaintiff, and bring him into disgrace, trussed it to
be represented that the plaintiff had maliciously fabri•
cated a letter to Spilsbury. If that was the meaning of
the alleged libel, said his Lordship, it is a matter for
which the plaintiff is entitled to maintain his action.—
He considered the evidence of Plank and Roe deficient
in proving the stars conveyed the natne of the plaintiff;
but there was another witness. Mr. Purse, however,
had stated, that he knew the stars related to Mr. Rout ke.
If they believed the defendant intended to designate the
plaintiff he was entitled to their verdict. A deal had
been addressed to them to obtain a verdict, on the
ground of the plaintiff being a Reporter. I cannot say,
observed his Lordship, that I agree with the Learned
Counsel for the defendant in thinking that is a ground
for you to find a verdict for the defendant, because that
would go the length of depriving a man of the benefit
of the law of the country. I would apply the law im-
partially to all.
The Jury found a verdict for the defendant.
BOVRIL!' V. CIACIVENT.

This action was brought by the plaintiff against Mr.
Clement, as Proprietor of the Morning Chronicle and
Belts Life in London, for alleged libels in those Papers.
The publication in the Morning Chronicle' Was the same
as that in the Courier. The other in Life in London
differed, inasmuch as the plaintiff was designated in
words 44 Ihe Times" Reporter.
The evidence in the former case was admitted to apply to this.
Mr. Hoe examined by Mr. Scatturre—Remembered
Edmonds having been excluded from the Office, and
applying to me to know what was the cause of his ex-
pulsion ; cannot recollect that Edmonds had complained
that The Times Reporter had given such an account of
his expulsion as might induce others to believe he had
been shut out on suspicion of fabricating the letters to
Spilsbury; did not hear Mr. Harnett say that he exo-
nerated the Reporter for the Morning Chronicle and the
New Times from any share in the letter. Edmonds has
not been to the Office since.

Mr. Harnett charged the reporter of The Tines with the fabrics•
tion of the letter, in a private communication to witness, in the office.
Mr. Eicaai.err again addressed the Jury for the defendant, and
repeated his former arguments. _ _ _

The CHIEF JUSTICE addressed the Jury, and observed,
that with respect to the Morning Chroniek he would
not trouble them with any remit ks, as eleven of the Jury
were in tbe,box on the.fast trial, which was for the same
matter. With respect to Belts Life in London, The
7 inies reporter was substituted for the.stars. If the
Jury were of opinion that the plaintiff was known to
many persons as The Times reporter, he was no doubt
entitled .to their verdict. for in his Lordship's opinion,
the publication was a libel.
The Jury renamed a verdict fur the defendant.

JAMBS V. RICHARDS.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a Dissenting Clergy-
man, against the Proprietors of The Age Weekly Newspaper, to
recover a corlipensation in damages for a libel published in that
Journal of the 20th Oct. 1835. The libel imputed improper motives.
Mr. Sea mum stated the case. He described the plaintiff, who
bad long resided at Birmingham, to have been much injured by the
libel, and claimed large damages from the Jury.
Having called witnesses iu support of his case,
Mr. DINNAN addressed. the, Jury • for the defendant ; but the
Jury, under all the circumstances found a verdict for the plaintiff.
Damages, 5001.