The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-07-07 00:00:00

COURT OF CHANCERY,44Timpa, jIIIIT i.

PERUVIAN LOAN.
Joann ANO °reeks V. xilinitit•AND
Mr. Wirruansta. Moved on the part of the Defendants.
that the injunction obtained in this cote, restraleing
Mewl. Everett and Co. Hauliers from parting with a
certain, sum of money in their hands. nod Mr. /Chide'
from Wail interfering is it; sod hfesere Gordo del
McLeod Paroiesiew, Envoys from the Perevlass Gwen
/sent-from remising themensy., be dissolve& -•
Ills Commute-1s It not a question worth, discos,
s:ng i ; whethee this Court can nterfere at all ?. I ma
bound, sittingtere in the King of this country's Court;
to know that thisconatrtis at peace with the 00vdtalz
anent of Spain; and t am bound to heave that this
count don not receptive a Peruvian Government.—
' Therefore, the question is, ought this Court to interfere
at all?
Mr. W4THOORT.L would confine himself to time elass►
tion, if his Lbedship•pleased, because certainly it soothed
to overrule alt other questions;
His Loabgair—Stippose, for instance, that money bg
some slip or ether had got into this Court, to the etas
count of the PerovianGovernment, would it not bolo
Wiese...4 to the King of this country?.
Mr. lYwrnaaat.is---The money is aot in this Candi NY
Lord.
His- Loanente—Ne, it happen. not to be ben; but
if it btrl happened to have been in Coart, what would.
havedieewthe consequence?
Mr. WETHERELL—With great deference I reply, that
n my opinion this country has so right to ask what is to
be dole with this money.
His Loamou v.—The neater way of putting the gentian
is-.-s+ What right has any permit to call upon the Kings
COillio of this country% ioterfere to forward or to pre-
vent inch negotiations?"
N,. Wen tR Lt. thOught that was just what he wanted.
Hie hoßessite—there has been a great deal said about
the legality of the subscription raising for Spain, hut with
that I have nothing to do. Yet supposing those sub-
scriptions to be legal (without committing myself either
way by saying they are or are not), I should be glad to
know whether, ise a sum of metier being paid into
Chile's shop, or any other shop, for tfte purpose of being
seat into that country, with which-we are at this moment
at perfect peace, this country's King's Court could be
called upon to interfere at all? As far as that goes, it is
is your favour, Mr. Wetherell—for unless the Learned'
Gentlemen an the other side, can, on this state of the re-
cord, say that this Court ought to interfere, then there
ought to be no injunction. And that will depend on an-
other thing, namely, whether it can be made out. that if
there bad been only one subscriber to this lean, he could
have maintained an action for the recovery of the money
is the Court of King's Bench ? And that I doubt very
math. In short, ought this Court to interfere with per-
sons who thought proper to treat with a Government
which this rouotry knew nothing at all of?
Mr. HtALD proceeded to argue on the same side, when
the Court rose:
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jute 5.
London Adjourned Sittings before Mr. Justice Burroughs,
and a Special Jury.
EDIvARDS O. SELL •AND oragßa.
Mr. Dwell opened the pleadings. This was an ac-
tion [Ora libel, chsrging. the plaintiff with having thrown
sort personal invectives from the pulpit of a Dissenting
ideeting,agaiest a young lady of distioguished merit and
spotless reputation. The defendants had pleaded tint.
Not Guilty. and, Secondly, that the lady bad assisted at
a Sunday-school, that she was a person of spotless repute-
lion, and that the plaintiff bad uttered personal invective
against her from a place usually assigned in the chapel
tor the delivery of the afternoon sermon.
Me. Sergeant Pam. stated the cue to the Jary.—The
plaintiff was a dissenting preacher of the sect of lade.
pendent,. in the town of Great Marlow, and thealefend.
ants were the publisher and proprietors of the Times
rewspaper.—Tne plaintiff was a married man and the fa-
ther of a family, consisting of five children ; he had per-
formed the duty of Dissenting Minister in• the town of
(West Marlow for a period of more than sixteen years,
and he had ever deserved and obtained the good will of
all who knew him. fie had been, and was still engaged
in trade. He (Mr. Sergeant Pell) acquitted the respect-
able proprietors of the Times of any malicious intention
of wilfully slandering the plaintiff; but when be saw
that the news of several persons bad been introduced,
as being able to prove the misunderstanding arising from
the utterance of the words imputed, he felt warranted
saying Chet to knew the defendants must have bad
communication with other persons, who, in this instance.
were fighting under their banners, and defending them-
selves with their respectable names. Again, he said,be ac-
quitted the proprietors of having published this libel
with any improper motive, but they were primarily re-
sponsible for what they had inserted. It timid not be
said to the Jory that damages ought not to be given for
what might have got into their paper withouttheir know-
Lidge, for they were hound by law to see that nothing
imoro.,.er was admitted into its columns, and if they were
guilty of neglect, they were amenable, though,
' not to the same extent as
,if they had been
guilty of a criminal intention to .defame and injure
the object of their animadventions. The present action
was nut brought to recover heavy damages front the de-
fendants, but to gain a verdict with such moderate da-
mages as would prove to the public that the plaintiff's
character had been unjustly and improperly attacked,and
to chew that unfounded imputations had been cast upon
it. The LearnedSergeaut then went on to state the facts
a hiclk were afterwards proved in evidence, and observed
that the libel imputed to the plaintiff the crime of having
used the pulpit for improper purposes,
• Mr. Beck., the son of the plaintiff's attorney, was
called to prove the proprietorship, which was admitted.
' Cross-examined,—Anether action had been instituted
in the Bucks Chronicle for the same paragraph; he had
not appliett to the defendants to give up the author be-
fore the action was brought.
The alleged libel was read ; it was inserted in The
7'idres on the 26th April, 1823 :
o A serious misunderstanding hat taken place between
the independent congregation at Great Marlon', and their
Minister, in consequence of personal 'inveetires used by
the latter in the pulpit on a young Lady, of distinguish-
ed merit and spotless reputation. We understand the
subject will be serionsly taken up by the Mends of the
injured yoanieLady."—(ftucks Chronicle.) '
iMr. John Hartford hail known the plaintiff sixteen
rears I knew him as minister at Marlow; knew the pa-
eageaph applied to him.
Cross-examined.—l'he plaintiff had bent in the lace
line; did not {wow that he lied been a cobler ; had heard
that he had been. a shoemaker in Bristol many
rinse; did not knew .that lie was about to have Marlow
before the putiliestion of this libel; he was not altoge-
ther Ealisfied with the eituation, his salary was hardly
suffii ient ; never heard it positively from the
.plaintiff
that he was ihont to heave Marlow untilafter the publi-
cation of the librl.
Pits closed the plaintiff's case.

, • , f.

Mr. Sergeant VAUGIAN submitted that the plaintiff
nmst he terdsoited on two grounds; the first was that the
vlaintitf had not shower himself tts have been >L licensed
ministry.
Mr. Jitstice 13uttenuons thought that eras to be pre-
sumed, sad refused to 'sunsuit the plaintiff on that ob-
jection.
Mr. Sergeant V4VGBAN then made the second object-
nem.. soideli wag that the alleged libel was stated:in thu
et7clarat:an to be a libid published by the defeottantt;