The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-09-01 00:00:00

The JUDGE then summed up.r After some general re-
larks upon the importance of the case, he told the jury, that
they must know no distinctions in point of right between the
Roman catholic religion, the religion of the state, or any form
of tolerated dissent. All were equal in the eye of the law ;
and in the eye of the law all were equally entitled to redress
for any injury they might have Sustained. The plaintiff came
before them as a priest of the Roman catholic religion ; and
he sought compensation in damages at their hands for that
Which he characterised as a foul libel upon him, imputing to
him practices derogatory to his character as a man, and cal-
culated to injure him as a priest. The learned counsel for
the defendant was wrong when he stated, that in the eye of
the law this was not a libel. That Mr. Stowell lead the pa-
per in question, there was no manner of doubt. That was
proved, and not denied. The defence suggested was matter
of law. The law of the case the jury were bound to receive,
and he had no doubt they would receive it from him. He
would state it as distinctly as he could, and if he .rmade an
error. the Court of Queen's Bench would set him right. In
the discharge of his duty, therefore, he told them, that the
law, as stated by the learned counsel for the defendant, was
entirely wrong. There was no such principle known to our
law as that a man might go to a public meeting and read docu-
ments to the disparagement of the character of another in-
dividual. God forbid that we should ever,live in such a state
of society as that. Referring to the evidence of the priest
as to certain doctrines of the Roman catholic religion, the
learned Judge said there was one answer to which he felt
bound to advert. He meant the answer to the question
Whether it was part of the doctrine of the Roman Catholic
church that a priest had power to 'forgive sins. He thought
there ought not to go abroad upon one side or the other any
prejudice about peculiar tenets, because the witness might not
have fully explained his answer. The witness said it was
part of the Roman Catholic doctrines that the priest had
power to forgive sins according to the words of Christ, and
that any person denying such power was accUrsed. This was
really beside the subject, but he must caution the jury against
taking the answer of the witness literally. Ile was no advocate
there for the Church of Rome—God forbid, if she wanted one,
that she should have one so feeble, or so little inclined to her
doctrines as himself, to advocate her tenets ; .but this much
he must say, if the jury had asked that gentleman to inter-
pret a little more minutely what he meant by saying the priest
had power to forgive sins—he (lid not mean he would give
the same interpretation to the Words as'a Protestant clergy-
man would, but that it would have approached much nearer
to that than the phrase taken literally, appeared to do. So
would the words that any person denying that power was
held accursed. In reference to the subject of damages, his
lordship said that when a libel was proved the law implied
malice, but in assessing the amount of compensation, the
whole circumstances of the case were to be taken into consi-
deration. Heavy damages ought not to be given against a
party who had libelled another without any intention of ma-
liciously injuring his character. That the defendant had not -
gone to the meeting for the deliberate purpose.of traducing
the character of Mr. Hearne, might be inferred froM various
circumstances. All his remarks referred to Maynooth. The
amount of damages would be a question for the jury ; and he
would conclude by reminding them that it did not appear
that the defendant at the tinre he uttered the libel had any
deliberate malice towards the plaintiff, or any intention of
injuring his character.
The Jury then" consulted ; and, in the course of a few
minutes, they delivered a verdict for the plaintiff, damages
408,

Previous to the rising of the Court, the Ju Oen intimated,
that, as the great will cause, Blundell v. Lord Cainoys, would
commence on Monday, the witnesses in other cases might be
d►smissed till Thursday. The Jurymen, who resided be-
yond five miles from Liverpool, his lordship also stated, might
be relieved till the same day.,
The Court adjourned about six o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-
THE GREAT WILL CAUSE.-13LUNDELL V. LORD CANIOYS
(Before Mr. Baron ROLFE and ;'1 special jury.)
This hnportant cause commenced this day. The Atter.
IleY-General, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Crompton, and Mr. \Vat.
"n, appeared in support of the will ; and the Solicitor-
General, Mr. Cresswell, Mr. Wightman, and Mr. Martin,
fur the defendant.
At six o'clock when the court rose, the ATTORNEY-GENE-
RAL had not concluded his opening address. The learned
tentlernan after giving a bare outline of the history of the late
L'lr. Blundell, produced and read an immense mass of cor-
respondence between that gentleman and his friends, for the
Purpose of showing that fdr many years previous to executing
the will in dispute which was on the 25th of November, 1834,
and to his death afterwards, he was of perfectly sane mind,
and was so regarded by all his' friends and associates.
In the crowded state of our columns, we are reluctantly
compelled to withdraw our report of the Attorney-General's
BPeech, as far as it has hitherto proceeded ; but in our next
our readers will find the whole proceedings.

-.MONDAY