Star.
London, England, 1829-11-02 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Om 31.
(Sittings before Lean TZSTIMDIII and Common Juries.)
ROTIIIIt IL MILLIS.
This wee an action to recover £33 end a fraction, the amount of
a Proctor's bill, for taking out letters of administration, and pay-
ing 1100 stock to the defendant. It was proved that the plaintiff
had advanced Mg out of his pocket, and that the 18100 bad been
paid to the defendant. The defence was, that the espences had
been paid to a Mr. Buthi, In the City, by the authority of the
plaintiff; which Mr. Betio, it was said, had become insolvent.
The payment to Mr. Baths, by the authority of the plaintiff, was
proved.—Plaintiff nonsulted.
LlRE.—wass V. PRAM.

The Arroairev-Gmaasz (with whom was Mr. Cowry) stated
that this was an action brought to recover compensation in damages
for a libel, published of and concerning the defendant, io a Sunday
newspaper called The Newts, of which the defendant was the Edi-
tor. The libel was published in the shape of a Police Report, and'
the object appeared to be to expose the plaintiff to ridicule, and
throw an imputation on his moral character. The occasion was a
supposed conversation between Sir Richard Mole and the
at Bow-street, in relation to a foreigner, named Ferstanding; and
the libel represented that the plaintiff, with his timber leg, had
taken his station on the bench at Bow street with Sir Richard
Bernie; that Sir Richard Blnde bad then left the bench; that the
plaintiff followed him, and said that Sir Richard Birnie had said
that he was a bad moral character, or something like it ; to this Sir
R. Birnie was made to reply," What then?" the plaintiff said he
would produce a respectable engraver to testify that be was a good
moral character ; and Sir Richard was made to say that be would
be ready to hear him. A justification had bees put on the record ;
but in this case it was no justification that the report was correct,.
even supposing it to be so. When a man came to a Police Office to
prefer a complaint, or to defend himself against a complaint, it was
but the preliminary step. to further proceedings, and he maintained
that it was illegal to publish them. The truth appeared to be that
the only object of the Reporter was to create merriment, and far.
nish an amusing article for the Newspapers; and he would not
wonder If the article in question bad been found to be worth two-
pence. But it was not to be endured that pollee reports, and the
names of respectable Magistrates, should be used as vehicles for the
propagation of libellous slanders en private individuals, sad he.
hoped the Jury would give exemplary damages.
Robert Taylor, from the Stamp Office, proved the. proprietor-
skip and publications of the newspaper called The !sews.
Cross examined by Mr. Baoooitha—He did not know that any,
action had been brought against another paper, from which this.
article had been copied.
The alleged libel was then read„witielt.WatlP the effect stated-1
by the Attorney-General.
The eoly thing of any consequence: in it wet rather kidicrpus
allusion to the •Plaintin timber leg.
Mr. BROONIMS, for the Defandaut,setrind with . his. Leerned.
Freud (the -AttorraryaGeocrat), that when.; a min „cams to a-
police-oSice, either to prefer ;a complaint..or tO.defend himself,
against a complaint, it was improper. to .publish the.mparAeaud pre-
liminary proceedings But this was note OM of tiles dominion;
It sometimes happened that petionesiothen tb.,p wished to make at
complaint, eml, yet were informed by their Meads, andiew..adatiaers
thab•therf had- u. easo.at all,.went Immediately fo.flattlitir corns
plafen.imfomelsoiatalng.hlagistride. 11114 .hisAdvige. lie
coarows4, I* cook asok.ermy well., minuend. whtt
had to apply for oialloilvices.or upon what group& thielgagestrate
could justify thirespindkig so lunch of the Omit r public ma
three private matters. ,liut so it was that isiting.pgrpolis did resort
to the Sitting. Magistrates tor saith advice; but when they did
so, they had non& to complain of a faithful report being given

of the proceedings, for it was manifest that the same objections '
did not apply to cases of this kind u to cases of complaint and
defence in the ordinary course of the admhristratlon of the busi-
ness of a police office. When a man thus applied to a Magistrate,
If the matter was made public he had himself to blame for it, be-
cause he presented blown before the Magistrate voluntarily,
upon a matter which concerned himself alone. Under such circum-
stances a man had the opportunity of telling his own story in the
absence of his adversary, a practice which, perhaps, the Magistrate
ought hardly to encourage. But, at all events, a person presenting
himself in ibis manner had no right to claim the protection which
the law ought to afford to thou who came forward, and were often
compelled to COMO forward, for the furtherance of public justice.
,Perhaps. however, be could not altogether justify the remarks in
this publication about the plaintiff's wooden leg; but, considering
that the defendant copied the article from another Paper, and that,
in the course of 20 years, during which time the defendant had
been Editor of this Paper, he bad never, on any former occasion,
been brought before a Court of Justice for a libel on private or
public character—or, for what he would consider as a far less
offence. for excessive political violence, the damages ought to be
very moderate indeed.
The Jury found for the plaintiff—Damages, 40s.
DOLMAN AND ANOTHER EXECUTORS, O. swam.
Mr. Poixocx stated, that this was an action on a bill of ex-
change for £lOO, dated 11th January, 1124. It was drawn by a
person of the name of Andrews, and accepted by the defendant,
and by Andrews indorsed to the testators of the plaintiffs. He had
only to prove the testator's hand-writing to the bill to entitle him
to their verdict.
Witnesses were then called, who stated their belief that the
hand writing was that of the defendant; and one of them said
that he showed the bill to the defendant, and that the defendant
promised to settle it. None of them, however, had seen the de-
fendant write.
Mr. CAKTRILL, for the defendant, stated that the acceptance was
a forgery, probably by a certain person who had since absconded,
and the testator was aware of the circumstance, which was the
reason why payment had not been called for before.
Several witnesses acquainted with the defendant's hand-writing
swore, to their belief, that the signature was not his.
Verdict for the defendant.