The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-06-12 00:00:00

CASE OF LIBEL.

THE KING V. FRANKS.—This defendant was brought up to
receive the judgment of the court for a series of libels, published
in the Sunday Herald, reflecting on the character of Mr. De
Mole, a gentleman connected with the Merchant Tailors' Com-
pany, and on his deceased brother. In this case the newspaper
had given up the author of the articles complained of as li-
bellous. _ _

The Attorney-General having prayed the judgment of the
court,
Affidavits were read in mitigation of punishment, during the
reading of which
Lord Denman said the court would like to have seen some
expression of regret.
Mr: Hall, on the part of the defendant, would take upon him-
self to express the great regret of the defendant that the article
against Mr. De Mole had appeared.
The Attorney-General said that, after this long, malignant,
systematic series of libels, he had only to call for the judgment
of the court. _ _ . .

Hall addressed the court in mitigation. The learned
gentleman informed the court, that his client was a tradesman
who, for nearly ten years, had been endeavouring to reform the
Merchant Tailors' -Company; but, failing in his attempts to
effect that object, Mr. Franks had fallen into that state of mind
which sometimes attended I hose who, having long sought re-
dress, and met with nothing but disappointment, became irri-
tated, and then furnish articles to newspapers. When in this
state of mind, the articles in question had been furnished by Mr.
Franks. When it was to be determined whether it was Mr.
Franks or Mr. Smith, the editor, who was the author, although
it was proved that Mr. Smith wai in court, he was not put into
the box. He was bound to admit that a person who furnished
materials, and gave a general authority for their insertion,
was answerable for the use made of those materials. His
friend had said that he hoped, for the honour of the law
of England, that no man would be made answerable for
a libel who was not cognizable of that libel. lie was glad
his friend was the champion of the law of England, but
such was not the law now. The court, would not look at
the matter as though the party was now on his trial, but that,
though in point of law he might be answerable, yet when they
came to apportion punishment, they would look at it with a
different eye, and would feel that it was little more than a no-
minal liability. Mr. Franks had had no small measure of
punishment already : these proceedings had been hanging over
his head eighteen months. The defence to a criminal informa-
tion was attended with a very serious expense. If matters
stayed here, this gentleman had had a severe lesson read to him.
lle had deserved well of the public for his exertions, and his
efforts to correct the abuses had cost him £1,200, and he had
deci'eased in the eye 6f every body in his courage and good in-
tentions by suffering himself to become heated, and wandering
into a private slanderer. Was this, therefore, a case calling for
a heavy punishment—that Mr. Franks should be put on a level
with those who made slander their bread, with those who, if they
;found fault Vith public abuses, did It not from any motive of
-4rinciple, but for private profit ?
Mr. Hoggins followed on the same side.
_ _

The Attorney-General, in aggravation, said, his friends would
have done as well if they bad spared a remark made in address-
ing the court, that of insinuating that there was some miscon-
duct on the part of M. De Mole, and it was most extraordinary
that the insinuations should come at the very close of the ad-
dress, on the part of the defendant in mitigation of punishment,
when in the whole course of,this proceeding, neither in showing
cause against the rule for a criminal information, nor at the
trial, had there been the slightest tittle of evidence of charge or
insinuation against M. De Mole, and from the evidence it
was clear that it was wholly without foundation. If Mr. De
Mole had done or said anything to provoke Mr. Franks, he
might have brought that before the court, but he knew by his
silence he had no such provocation, and he now stood without
excuse. He could not but sincerely think that a gentleman
like Mr. Franks, who had had a character given him by per-
sons of the highest respectability, must be aware that he bad
grossly misconducted himself. He should shrink from the duty
devolving upon him if be were not to say he did appear most
grossly to have misconducted himself. He was, in point of mo-
rality and conscience, as well as in point of law, answerable fur
this verdict, and be stood before the court as the author of the
libel, and he (the Attorney-General) did, fur the honour of the
law of England, maintain, and deliberately and sincerely main-
tain the position he had ventured to make, that by the law of
England no man was liable fora libel unless the jury should be-
lieve that he did recognise that libel, and that if a libel should
appear in a publication, and the jury should believe the party
charged did not in any manner promote the publication, but
disapproved of it. and that it was without his knowledge or as-
sent, he was not liable to the justice of the country. But was
there any pretence for saying that Mr. Franks was in the situa-
tion of a person who was the registered proprietor of a news-
paper? Who furnished the articles? Mr. Franks. Who re-
vised the proofs? Mr. Franks. Although he might not have
written every article, Mr. Franks Inrniabed the information;
the proofs were sent to him and were returned by him, with the
corrections, with which they afterwards appeared. If be had
confined himself to the abuses existing in corporations he would
have deserved honour, because all persons were
.now of opinion
that there must be a reform in corporations ; hut the mode Mr.
Franks had adopted retarded information, because he mixed up
personal slander and those abuses together.—The learned
counsel then called upon the court to pronounce such a judg-
ment upon the defendant as they thought the case deserved.
Mr. Channell followed on the same side.
The learned Judges having consulted together a few minutes,
Mr. Justice 'Littledule proceeded to pass the sentence of the
court. It appeared the defendant had considered there were
abuses existing in the Merchant Tailors' Company, which he
was desirous of having investigate.] ; he had made two applica-
tions to this court, but without success; he afterwards petitioned
the House of Commons, and after this he had published the
litrels in question. It would appear, therefore, that in the first
instance he had endeavoured by all legal means to redress the
abuses in the Merchant 'railorst Company, and, failing in that,
he had published this series of libels. If this had been done in
a single instance, it n jgl noLperhaps have been worth attend-
ing to; tiniVrifid -continued them for several weeks. It did
not appear distinctly that he had written or published them, but
there was little doubt but he had furnished the information.
There was no doubt, however, he hail. written all the other
articles with the exception of that against Mr. De Mole.
There was uo doubt that they were very respectable. men, and
of most respectable character, but that was not to be a ground
to suffer them to escape unpunished for having published such a
series of libels. Taking all the 'circumstances of the case into
consideration, the judgment of the court was that he. should be
imprisoned for one month, and should pay a fine of £2OO, and
be imprisoned till such fine should be paid.

BARRON V. LUSHCOM BE.

It appeared that the• magistrates here bad granted their
warrant to distrain for rates, having previously examined the
accounts. They afterwards withdrew their warrants in order
to reconsider the accounts. The question was, whether they
could do this?
The court decided they could not withdraw a warrant unless
it was bad.

LONDON POLICE REPORT.

HATTON GARDEN.-MONDAY.

CHARGE OF MURDER.—An unusual degree of excitement pre-
vailed in the neighbourhood of this office in consequence of the
report that two inhuman murders had been perpetrated—one in
St. Giles's, and the other in Clerkenwell ; and long before the
commencement of business immense crowds of persons assem-
bled round the office, every avenue leading thereto being
thronged to excess, and the most intense interest was mam-
festeci.

At eleven o'clock Mr. Laing took his. seat, when he gave or-
ders that the officers should prevent as much as possible the
office being crowded; but, notwithstanding this, the anxiety, of
the. public was so excessive that the moment the prisoners
charged with the murders were brought from the station-house,.
the pressure was so strong that the magistrates' room was imme-
diately
AlAnt twelva.o'clock, Mary Sibley was placed at the bar,
.charged with, the, wilful murder of
.Mary.tSibley, her daughter,
.aged nine years. The:following are the Circumstances attend-
•ing• tbii. horrible ;caie. The prisoner appeared to .be about
thirty-eight years old, her countenance careworn, a long, dark
visage, a black piercing. eye, and aquiline nose, and her de-
meanour was strongly indicative of a deranged mind. She was
dressed in a black silk dress:

Mary Ann Cobble, of 7, St. Helena place, Clerkenwell, being
sworn, stated that she lodged in the same house as the prisoner,
and she knew the deceased, who was •nine years old: Witness