Star.
London, England, 1829-07-17 00:00:00

LIBEL.-SAVNDERS V. MILLS.

Mr. Sergeant Wilde stated the case for the plaintiff to
the jury. This was an action brought by Mr. Saunders,
a respectable attorney, residing at Bristol, to recover com-
pensation in damages from the defendant, who is the pro-
prietor and editor of the Bristol Gazette, for a libel re-
flecting on the character of the plaintiff. This libel was
contained in a report of the proceedings at the Gloucester
Assizes, in an hction brought by Lord de Clifford against Mr.
Saunders for a trespass, and if the report was a fair one,
the defendant would have an opportunity of proving to
the jury that it was so. The report, however, was a partial
one, and reflected so much on the character of the
plaintiff, that he felt it necessary to bring the present ao-
tion to clear himself from the imputations it contained.
Mr. Sergeant Ludlow, for the defendant, contended,
first, that it was a report of proceedings in &Court of Jed*.
tice, and was copied from the Observer; and, secondly.
' that the defendant offered to insert an apology, which the
plaintiff refused to accept of.—Tho Observer was then put
in containing the libel, and a letter offering to insert the
apology, which also had appeared in the Observer.—Mr.
Mills, jun. also was called, and proved that his father bad
verbally offered to insert any explanation which might be
offered by Mr. Saunders himself.---The Lord Chief
Jut-
tice said, that if an editor gave a fair, plain, honest, un-
varnished statement of the proceedings in a Court of
Justice, he might be successfully defended in an action,
although it might hurt individuals ; because it was eon-
' sidered right they should bo made public. His Lordship
was not prepared to say, that giving the mere speech of
Counsel, without following it up by evidence, would give
the party a right to protection, because Counsel are often
misinstructed. To write that a person keeps a poaching
1 establishment, is to vilify him, and therefore, when printed
and published, is what the law denominates libel. This
did not appear to be a speech of counsel, but it was a
statement of the editor. It was but fair that if are side
was given the other should be given also. His Lordship
then commented upon the publication, end said that it
appeared to him to be a libel. Moderate damages would
be sufficient. They would consider the subsequent *in-
duct of the defendant in extenuation of, bat net as an
answer to the case.—The jury consulted for about five
minutes,and gave a verdict for the plaintiff—damages 501.
CONSISTORT COURT, Juar
DOUGLAS V. DOUGLAS.

This was a suit of separation brought by the wle whist
Richard William Globe Douglas by reason of adultery.
The allegation asserted that the ponies were married in
1815, and continued to cohabit till 1828, during which
period four children were born ; that while this eohabite-
don continued at their residence, Laurel Cottage, the de-
fendant seduced and conveyed away from her friends
Miss Julia Nugent Brett, with whom he carried an
an adulterous intercourse, and resided for e °midge-
able time, under the name of Smith. 'lle judge pro-
nounced sentence. It was requisite. he said, in suits
of this description, for the court to have the fullest
proof of the actual marriage of the parties. la his
opinion, the peculiarity of the Christian name of the
defendant, so much insir3d on as to the gasifies of
identity, did not appear quite so satisfactory. The proof
of facts may vary according to the circumstances of the
case, and this the court will take into its consideration.
The husband is now as insolvent in the Fleet, sad the
lfact of the adultery had been freely admitted and clearly
proved. lam therefore inclined to think the *ream-
stance of the marriage sufficiently established ; with this
view the court pronounced for the separation.

WYNN; 0. WYIXI.

The snit was commenced in this Court by the wife for
restitution of conjugal rights, and opposed by allegation
on the part of the husband, which asserted that at the time
of his marriage with the promoter, she was sot truly •
widow as she described herself, but that her former bus-
band was then living in some distant part of America.—
Dr. Dodson, on behalf of the wife, opposed the admission
of the allegation. as it contained no proof of the marriage
with the person Robert Shaw, alleged to have been living
in America ; and was of that vague description which
would prevent the possibility of any sontradiction of the
artioles.—Dr. Addams, on the part of the husband,
said that the proof of the former marriage rested with
the wife, who refused to supply the requisite information.
The JUDO! said that the allegation, in its present
form, was inadmissible, and if the Court should reject it,
and compel the husband to take home his wife, and
proof should be afterwards ebtained that a former hus-
band was still living, it would be insisting upon the con-
tinuation of an illicit connexion between the parties. This,
difficulty was perhaps to be avoided by giving the hus-
band further time—for there could be little doubt of a
former marriage, the lady having described herself as
Mrs. Shaw, widow of Robert Shaw--and if the husband
was willing to pay into Court a sum of money as 'ai-
-1 mony, he would allow him to bring in fresh proofs till
next Court day. If this was rejected, the Court would
feel itself bound to refuse admission to the allegation.