Court Of King's Bench, We...
The Times, 1824-02-02T00:00:00

Thir, -it will be recolected, was an action by the person usually caUled Sir Gregor- At'Gregor, against the principal proprietors of the .Morning Herald fera libel. 'The article charged as libellous was an account of an application made by Captain Antrim and Mr. Prince, a common councilnian, at the Mansion-bouse, to the Lord Alayor Elect, on-behalf of two orphan childrens wlhos. parents liad emigrated to the Poyais settlenent founded by the pliintiff, and like many others had suff&red bitter disappointment and disease, and hatd digd on their passage to England. Besides the general issue, therc were two sets of pleas on the record, one class averring that the statements imputed by the report to Captain Antrim an Mr. Prince were true, and the other alleging merely that *he article was a correct, fair, and faithful report of the proceedings at the Mtansion-house. At the trial before the Lord Chief Justice, at t}uidh.dL, the jury found for the rdainttff on the first set of pleas with a shilling damages, and for the defendants on the se- cend; tuLbstantially finding that the truth of the allegations in the report was not proved, but that it was a correct account of the proceedings. MIr. XcitAnDs now moved for a rule to show ciuse why judg- ment should not be entered for the plaintiff, non obstante veredito, on the ground that the pleas found for the defendants were no legal answer to the aetion. He did not conceive that in this case the ima. portant question would arise,whether an action will lie for the publi. cation of a faithful report of judicial preceedings; for it was not even alleged that the Lord Mlayor Elect was acting as a M14agistrate, and therefore it appeared to he a mere conversation affecting the plain. tiff's character, which a by-stander thought fit to take dowin and publishl to tne world. Now he submitted, that on no principle could the correctness of' such a ivc,t justify the pablisher, even if the in- formants haPd been sufficiently ,'ycribed to crnable the plaintiff to seek redress from themn. The case of" :iz~7d Northamrpton," in 12 Coke's Reports, 133, which had been doubted, wet no farther than this-that if a man verbally states that " A told him so and so," and proves that "A did tell him so and so," he is 1rttitied; but it did not decide that a man might print and publish slan- der, which before was merelv verbal. This distinction was recognized in the cases of " Blell v. Stone," 1 Bos. and Pul. 33S1 '" Austin v. Culpenper," Skinner 124; and *, iMaitland v. (3oldney," 2 East, 43(* antd was obviously founded in reason and justice. Bat, supposinlg the pri,ciple of Lord Northampton`i ease to be recognized a s extending to written or printed slander, still the party printing the words of another must describe his informant in suCh a manncr as to enable the individual.attackcd to proceed against him for damages. Here tile person into whose moath the chief irn- putations were put, was mercly designated as " Air. P-rince," which was clearly an insufficient description. On both grounds, thiere- fote, the learned counsel submitted that the pleas found for the de- fendanti we e no answer to the action, and that the plaintiff was entitled to jitdgment, which will give him costs. The Cou tT granted a ruie to sh7Ow caause,'Tequesting to be fu- nished with a copy of the declaration and of the pleas, before it should come on for argument. Y.AYER V. POIN'TER. This was an action vried at the last sittings in London, in which the plaintiff soitght to recover damages for tlte injury done to a va- luable horse by the careless dtiving of the defentlant's servant. It appeared thac Air. Pointer, a gentleman residing in the couirr', be- ing in tov. n fof a short timne, with hi8 barouch, hired horses for the day of a liverv-stable-keeper, who sent his man to drive thenm, sc. cording to the orders he might receive. Near Bank-buildings, in thecity-, the coachmnan dtove against the horse of the pai7ntiff, and greatly injured him. The Lord Chief Justice thought the action mniscotceived, and that it should have been brought against the owner of the horses, as lie could not di"tinguish the case from that of a person travelling post, on whom no liatility rested for the conduct of thepostilion, anid nonsuited the plaintifl Mr. A]lnAIIANC nOW mov-ed fo, a rule to show cause w hy the noti- suit should not be set aside, and a verdict entered for the plaintiff: lie contended that the defendant weas liable, as the coachman was, for the day, placed under his directions, and was paid by him for his aervice.Tnthecases of -'1Lotan v.Cro3s," 2 Camibell, 4i4; and "'Hallv. Pickard,"3 Campbell,187 it was holden that the remedy of the owner of a carriage for damage done by a siranger while is was let to hire, was not trespass, but case, because he had parted with the possession to his customer; and hence it followved that the customer was to b?e considered, for all purposes, as thie temporary nmaster of the vehicle. A glass-coach weas not like a hackney-coach, or a post-chaise, regu- latedl by act of Parliamertt. and over which there was not an entire control by the hirer , and in this case the barouch by whiclh the injury was done was the dlefendant's property.I Th1e Loan CHIEF .JtUST!CE._-But the barouclie would have done nothing without the hiorses: it really was perfectlv innocent. (A laug11). Mr. Justice BEST said, he should find great difficulty in consider- ing the coachman, who received his three or five shillings fronm the hirer at his option, as his servant. The COURT, after some consideration, granted a rutle to show cause. TlIr KTS\G V. 1i1TE COUPORATION OF 1T1TE 'Gs&DOV. Air. BOUtGHAMS mioved for a wvrit of mandands,. requiring the Corpurationi of Huntingdon to proceed to the election of a new Mayor. By a by-law of the corporation, the office of any alderman beinig absent for six months became void, and it was the dtity of the burgesses to lili up his place. The present Al ayor had been non-resident for this period, atid therefore his office was vacated. It becanie the more necessary to make this application, as the office of Coroner in the sown was held by a post-captain ill the navy, anti its dIities performed by two aldernien, wlho hind no legal right to ex- ercise its functions. The CcrNT inquired if any request had been made to tbe corpora- tion to elect antotbier mavor. Mr. BROltttGAi repiiel, that no request had been made, buit he did not deem it requisite. The Cotuar said, they never granted a manit mionus until after alt. plication had been milade, and haa proved fruitless. They there- fore refused the niotion. THE aItG V. rItDE. The ATTOSNEv-G_E sERAt. moved for jttingsent on Robert HYde, who suffered jiudgnmettt by default to information charging hiun with lighting a lire on the coast of Dorsetshire, by way of signal toa smugglng vessel at sea. The defendant expressed lis contrition, and resolution to abstain from suggling in future. The Co t ar sentenced the defendant to be kept to hard labour in Dorchester gaol for two calendar months. At the rising of the Court, proclamation was made tbr a holyday on Monday (this day), being the Purification of thie Virgiu Mary. COURT OF rN'G'S BENCI?, WEmTMDSTR, JAx. 31. %MArr.Mwalt lV. TIWA'TTES ANll AN'TMRR.