The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-11-10 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S HENcH, WiSTMINSTAR, Nov. 8.

MAY O. DROWN.
The SOLICITOR GENIIRAL moved fur a rule to show cause
why the verdict in this case, which was an action for libel
arising out of die contests in the parish of Bethnal Breen,
should not be set aside and a new trial granted. lie relied
on three grounds of oil •ction : first, that evidence tendered
on behalf of the defendant was improperly rejected :second.
that one of the introductory allegations in the declaration
was disproved ; and third, that the libel had been altered
after the publication of tie defendant, and was set forth as
altered, and not as originally published. On the first point,
he stated, that at the trial be offered to prove a series of
libels by the plaintiff on the defendant ; but that the Loan
Cuter Justice refused to receive them, though lie allowed
general evidence to be given, that before the publication
in question, the plaintiff bad distributed papers defa-
matory of the defendant, leaving it to the plaintiff,
if be chose, to enter into the particulars of those
papers. Now be submitted, on the authority of
the cue," Fieserty v.Tipper," that be Lads right to read
the specific articles in evidence ; and urged. that to hold the
contrary would be to make a witness a pate of what was
or was not libellous ; that in an actiou for criminal con-
versation, evidence of specific acts of infidelity committed
by the husband was admissible; and that in this instance,
the very libel declared on was provoked by this series of
antecedent libels. On the second point, he drew the at-
tention of the Court to the prefatory inducement in the
declarations which alleged, that certain monies had been
raised and applied to support the prosecutions against Mr.
Mereeron ; whereas the evidence was, that tbe money was
not applied to sustain the prosecutions while in progress,
but to remunerate the parties. who bad instituted them,
after their termination ; and as every count alleged the
libels to be written " of or concerning the matters afore-
oaid." this variance was fatal. The third point, respecting
the publication. was abandoned by the learned solicitor,
on an Intimation that there was sufficient pro .f that
the defendant bad recognised the papers in their altered
' form.
The COURT, on the first point, intimated a strong opi-
nion in favour of the rule, as originally laid down by the
LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, that in a trial of an action for libel
neither party can go out of the issue to introduce specific
facts, though be might shew a general course of behavi-
our; because no man can come prepared with evidence to
disprove or explain the extrinsic circumstances alleged
against him, and because the allowance of the introduction
of such extrinsic circumstances would lead to the admission
of an infinity of similar evidence on the one side and on
the other. As, however, the learned solicitor bad stated
that the publication complained of by his own slanders,
which would give relevancy to the papers excluded, they
granted a role to show cause on this point as well as on the
question of variance.
Mr. ScaaLcrr, for the plainiff, admitted that a paper
war had existed in the parish : but said the libels com-
plained of were far deeper seated, and of a more malig-
nant character. than the mere squibs by which they, were
preceded.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL eXp r cl his confidence that
the reverse would appear, and took his rule to show cause.