The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-11-08 00:00:00

portion of those costs, to whidls'hit ilfatrbtais so anneeesaa.'
rile put.
Mr. PITTESON and Mr. WeNTWORTII fOllOllll6l on the
same side.
SouCETOR Ostscaal. said, the understanding lasi
Term decidedly was, that his Learned Friends alsould
Make their election betWeeti catering upon the merit, and
allowing the rule to he 'discharged without costs, according
to the udual practice Of the Court. • He begged to call their
Lordships' attention to the nature of the case. It was true
the original publication containing the libel had taken
plice long before his application to the Court ; bat their
Lordships would take into consideration the repetition of
the libel. The libel was published in November, and • It's
application to the Court was made in the following: Term,
so that even in the case of Magistrates be was fully in time.
He admitted that nothing had been selected for prosecu-
tion In the last, which had not appeared in the original
publication ; but a person situated as Sir 11. Lowe was,
Might pot at first have been aware of the extent to which
the libel was likely to circulate; he might not have thought
it worth taking notice of ; but when he found it repeated
over sod over again—when be saw it copied into all the
qewspapers, and made the subject of general conver-
sation, he felt it big duty to apply to that Court for re-
gress.

Mr. Justice Beer asked if the complainant's affidavit eon.
Weed statements to that effect ?
Mr. PHILLIPS : Not one word, my Lord. The work in
question bad gone through four editions before Mr.
Solicitor Ueneral made his application to your Lord-
ships.
The Somme OZNERAL : So, then. my client is to be
libelled in four successive publications, and the repetition of
the offence is to be pleaded as an excuse.
Mr. PHILLIPS: My Lords. Sir Hudson Lowe does not in
his affidavit pretend to assert that the fourth ?intim' con-
tained one word. which was not to be found In the first.—
They complain of a work published on the 6th of Novem-
ber, at which period they mast have been aware of its exist-
ence, and vet they made no application to your Lordships
until the Hilary Terns following.
The SOLICITOR-01111E2AL repeated, that his application
was made in the term following that in which the publica-
tion took place, so that even in the case of a filagistra'e
he was perfectly in time. His Learned Friend stated that
the Court had made &certain stipulation when he male his
motion. He was not aware of any stipulation having been
made. Their Lordships asked him if he could direct their
attention to any case, as a precedent? To which ha
replied that he was not then aware of any such case, lie
had heen asked if he knew of any similar application made
at a period so distant from the commission ut the offence?
To which he answered, that he knew of no line drawn
(save in the ease of magistrates). but understood it to be
entirely at the disrretion of the Court. lie believed that in
the ease of the libel against the late Empress Catherine,
the application was made more than two terms After the
publication.
Mr. Justice BIITLIT observed, that that might hare been
a very different case, an Ambassador might have to await
instructions from his Coon. Here the complaint was of
injury to character; in such a ease the Court would expect
the complainant to be so far alive to his own character as
to apply promptly.
The Souctron-OerreaaL said. the rule had been enlarged
at the request of his Learned Friends.
$1 r. PurLLtrs said, the role was enlarged by consent in
Easter Term, and at that tithe the Solicitor-General knew
that he had Le precedents, and ought not to have put
them to the expense of sending to France tor witne.ses.
Mr. SCARLICTT followed JO the same side with the Soli-
citor-tieneral.

Mr. PHILLIPS said, be was ready to give up the costs,
if Sir Hudson Lowe woad swear he had not read every
word of the first edition of the work In question (a laugh.]
The Cain Jorrica said, it was the practice of the
Court, where a rule was discharged upon a preliminary
objection, not to allow costs, and be saw nothing in the
present case to induce them to depart from that rule—
Rule discharged without costs. The Court rose at half-
past three o'clock.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-FRIDAY.
&tan:TS in Bunco.
ZDKARDS V. DILL •ND OTHERS.

This was as action brought by the Ker. G. Edwards,
minister of a dissenting chapel at Great Marlow, against
Charles Bell and others, the printer and proprietors of
The Times newspaper, for a libel, by having published a
-certehrparittiph, cliirgiog Lint with having made his
pulpit the vehicle for female slander, in pnblicv attacking
the character of a virtuous young la•ly, a member of his
congregation. The paragraph was copied from a country
paper (the Bucks Chronicle.) The case was tried at the
sittings after last Trinity term,before Mr.Jostice Burough.
The defendants Pleaded the general issue, and also entered
a special plea of justification—via., that he (the plaintiff),
from a certain part or station in the said chapel, then and
there usually assigned to him the said plaintiff, for preach-
ingor delivering the sermon or discourse, did utter and
publish of Miss Fair, a young lady of spotless reputation, a
personal invective in words to the following effect —" I
have something to say which I have thought of mentioning
for some time, namely, the improper conduct of one of the
female teachers ; her name is Miss Fair. Her conduct is
a bad example and disgrace to the school ; and if any of
the children dare ask her to go home, she shall be turned
out of the school, and never enter it again. Miss Fair does
more harm than good." The case went to the Jury upon
these Issues, and they bond a verdict for the defendants on
the plea of justification, and for the plaintiff on the general
issue—Damages, 40s.
Mr. Sergeant PIM!. this day moved for a role to show
cause why the verdict should not be entered for the plaintiff
on both pleas, notwithstanding the finding of the Jury on
the plea of justification. Ile grounded his motion on two
points—the first, that the words in the jnstilic,tion,
44 from a certain place usually assigned," Sic., did not suf-
ficiently designate the" pulpit." from which it was sail in
the libel the words were delivered. He contended that
the words used did not necessarily imply the pulpit, and
therefore that the pleas was erroneous..
Mr. Justice Peatc.—" Head the words of the justifica-
tion."

Mr Sergeant PELL then read the words.
Mr. Justice Buttammtt.—l had some doubt e the time
of the trial whether the words of the plea solficiently de-
signated the " pulpit," but I directed the Jury to find for
the defendant on the jostilieation, and that the plaintiff
should have the advant tie of the opinion of the Court upon
the point after, if be pleased.
Mr. Justice l'a Mi.—Suppose, brother Pell, I sly to you,
" I heard a very excellent uiscourse on Sunday last from a
reverend friend of yours, delivered front the place usually
assigned to him fur preaching," would you cot understand
bytt that he spoi•e from tire pulpit ?
Mr. Sergeat.t I apprehend this ease is
diffriam hero. It I am t.. 111 ttr.t a into has used gross
LogruaLT ~gaiu it me 1..n,1 Isle pulpit. and on int; Pry I find
that it was .ti.ut from a pew, the cow would be te'
dilrerent. 'foe le tri.ed Sergeant then %veld on with Ilia
second pniut, t•.;:t tie ward; of the jastilicati evsn if
they were proved, were nut a rutlicient d..feuce tor the action.
171 on this stib.;eet the le mica Judge who tried the ease had
some iluitias

Mr. .11. BIYRNOI.IIIII.-1 SAW no objectign to the evi•
donee wit a I mention. 1 bail nu doubt that the para.
graph w+a libel, au l l to:d the Jury to lied fur the plaintiff
un die erne' ul

Mr. 4t.reca4t unilerstoosl your Lords Lip at the
trial to ex I rem% a dunk of tit.. jotd ticAtion.
Air. J ;Lee Pt:art...vow —Ye.; hit that wits as to whethir
the words of the iskt were a ',Ali: v. 4 Jtxiou..tiaa of th•
.. pulpit."

Tile..-frATksius