Court Of King's Bench, We...
The Times, 1824-12-15T00:00:00

iulr. DY. ULARrM Stated, that this4to Ia brought to recover the sum of 161., being the auiournoit bil fortbusiness done:by the plaintif", as a clieltor of the Court7olf Chbancery. -When the jiery ieard that thist was the whole charge ibr conducting a Chancery suit to a succesfal issue, they would scaf'cev drink it excessive. A bill had been regularly delivered under the 'tatute, and no orie now ap-. peared to defend the action. The defendant here started up on the floor of the court, und said he appeared to defe-ndin person. Thre delivery of the bigl was then rTioved, and general evidence given that the business wiasdone.. The defendaut, who, though an iliteratina, conducted hiciself with perfect decorum, shortly ceqss-examinedl the vimtriacsa, atnd elicitedt the raetthat he was admitted to defend the Chancery suit in fortmi parsperis. The LoRD CHIEF JUSTICE intimated an opinion,that the plale.. tiff could not recover for any charges tirade, after the defendant was admitted to defend sin for-nac pau~peris, except for money out of Mr. LARE obervd, hat n te Cort f CanceA'yIt was not soliito, bt oly acouselanda clrk ii our and subosirtted, tha ifth pliniffchse o mply soictor he was bound to pay The LoRzD CHIEF JUSTICEr, ho;wever, held, that if an atlorxnejy actecd for a partv who had bean admitted to defendI as a psupc!f, hL- must be understiood to give his services for nothing. The dierenaant stated, that he ha given three sovereigns to the! plaintiff' in the presenceor bythre hznis ofa Air. Taylor; and thatita wasi agreed he should pay no more. Ilir. Taylor was called, at the desireof the Lord Chief Justice, bcit had no recollecton of any such payment. The defendant, after repeating his assertion that the paymenft wasq actually made, gave the ]ury a statement of his misftir- tunefs. He bad married the execuitrix of the late Dr. Ste- vensn and had found himself imtnediutely in the hands of lawes To these he liad paid several sums, amnounting to btwc 200l. and 3001., while he baa only received 911. from tire estate. To comnplete his distresg, a bill was filied in Chan- cery ag-ainst himself and his wife; arna he was obliged so put in an answer, or be committed to the Fleet for conte-mpt. He ap- plied to the plaintiffi, who engaged to take the Jrroper measures in order- to his defence irrfer-m4 pauper-is, anid gave htm three'SDvereigns, the last of which be raised by pawning his clothes. He had now nio funds to emplov counstel ; hut relied for justice on the favourable consideration of the juy The LoTitD CHIas uSTIC-e asked the defendant if he had aniy Witnesses ? The defendant replied, that. he had none, except his wrife, wrho saw- the money paid ; and pressed that she might he examined in his tav~our. The Lo"tj CRitES, JusTIcE said this could riot be allowed. Equal justice mnust be done to ull parties, whethe pliniii orV defendants~ rich or poor;- and this could be effected only by adher-. ing to the rules of evidenice as established by law. Ile wat of opi-. nion, that the defendant was not liable for any busines perfonied aftr he was admitted to defend as a pauper ; but he was liable foez P the measures taken previous to such adrisisien, and for the money acttially laid out aferwards. These, on an irLapsetlon of the bill, appeared to anirount to 21. Is. 4d., and as there was no evidence of payment, the verdict ought to pass in faivour of the plainitiff' for ttirat. surns The Jury accordingly found a verdict for the plgintfiEDamzges,. 21. ts. 4d. BEAVAN V. JOSES. This was an action on the case, against tire Matrshal of the Kisig'g Bench prison, for sufTering Sophia Sauniders, a prisoner, comamittecd to his cutstody at the suit of the plaintiff, to esc-ape and ga at larize. Mr. SCARLETT opene-d the ease on tire part ef the plaintifl a Raper-manufacterer and uipholsterer, arid who was a credliror of Mirs. 'Sophia Saunders to the moonontof 12291. 1lls. 4dl. ['or thissumi she had been detained at his suit, in the custody of M4r. Jones; she, had been allowed thke benkefit of the rufles on finding security for the Miarshal; hut sho had esamped under circumstances which the juywould probably think entitled the plaintiff' to recover the ,whole sumr. On the 6th of June last, this lady, who was supposed to be a prisoner ii tihe King's Bench, took a house at Baysweter, not indeed in her own name, but as Mrs. Stampr Sutton Cooke, a name pretty well known in this court. On the 24th of July, sher left Bayewater, and took a house, No. 9, Beaumonmt-street, whieret shbe continued to reside till October, when she was retakten. Mr. D'owres, the plaintiff's attorney, net wishig to bring an action against the Marshal, but to regain the security derived from ;re im.. prisonmeril of the debtor, gave notice to the Xasha]s,but tireprisoner was not retaken and, after notice for I1th of October, as sLhe was not produ-ed, the bill was filed.. Now, in the interval, she had been irviag In a splendid stvle ; hiring and using catriages,arid keepng up an appearance whkich fairlly induced the exprotation that if she hadl beet in ct tody, she would have paid the debt, fortshe whole of whchte pli.nti had stince recovered a judgment. Of course, the farrshal in these cases was indemnified, and as soon as the datusges were recovered, her friends would pay them, and she would be set at liberty. To'support this case the proceedings, azeainst Sophia Staunders. liar comsinitment to the custody of' the AMasahbJ, and the originial debt and final judgment f-or the same amounit and maSts, were pztt irs and proved. 1t was furtherprovedl t1hat sae resided at Bays%rater and Beaumont-street during the periods stated by Mtr. Searlett; andt that she kept a tilbuirv, hired carriages, and lived in an expensive style; but it was also piroved that she never paid any thing. The! ladiy herrself was in court, and was pointed out by tIre Witnesses. Mfr. CASXPDELL, after taking a formial obyjection, which was or. served for the opinion of tlre Court, addressed the jury an to the amount of dansagez, which, het contended, should be merely nomi- nal. as there was nio oro9f that he had lost any thing, and it was niot verv likely that a lnay would pay him who hagi atdne onle else The LOLD CssrEr JUSTICE tOld the jury~a the plaitf a unquestionably entitled Lo their verdict. They were, however, to give him such damages oalyas in their soumd discretion thev thoeght he had actually sustained rin consequeiiee of the escape. The lady was Bot shut uip in the wells of the prison, hut was permitted to live 'in tire rules ; and therefore they would cojnsidecr whet'her it was pro- bable she would have paid -this debt if strictly confineda to their boutidaries. The Jury, however, afterretiring for half an hour, found a verdct for the plsinntifi` o tire full amount of his debt-.1291. lfis. rid. A-DA5I V. KELLY. This wait an actiton by Mr. Knightly Adams, a brok-er and' dealer in. canal and other shares at~Paddlngton-green, against Alr. Kelly a gentlemnan residin in his neighbourhood, for slander. Tire Ae. claration otested, tliit 'the dlefendant uttered to a reporter for the fjbstruvr newspaper, words imputing that the plantiff biad cOml- mnitted suicide so consequence of pecuniary einbarrassinrenta, in order to their publication in that journal, It also contained a cont, chrig the defendant with having caused to bepulse intie Obs ,c'r a paragraph to a similar effbet. The plca -as"' slt guilty. " lllrSCARLE,TT opened the case on behalfof the plaiutiffT There were public journalists wvho not only made free wit'h character, but somietimnes assumned to t1hemnselves the privilege of taking reway ife. ['his prerogative of killing was employed as earlv as the reig of Queen Anne,wbcn a writer, to whonur his tiwn ar esterity were snuch indebted, the well-knuwn Mr. IacBik fstpol- sied tie death of Partridge, the almssae.ack r,adthnubi- ed a full account of the melancholy casrpetorfyisown jrediction. MVr. Partridge was obliged toptestta ewsaie but Mlr. Bickerstaff sitill insisted that the contrdcinwisier. illete, since though the alnranack..maker had declared that he was no biin,~e had not ventured to assert thjat ha did not die -at the time related6.191 by the author.' The-LoinDbRIEr JUSTICE.....Isnot M3r. Partridge alive still? Air. GunJrEY....Yes, mny Lord; and tstill follows lits old avocla- tion. (A laughi.) AMr. SCARLsETTcontiriued.-4f the newspapers would follow the example of this'excelleut author whose wit, though k-een, was ,nSth- ot o, enice, and would otrlydeaoutfictitious deathatoflctitiouscrma. rmeters, they wonuld deserve thanks for adding to the stock or harm.- less amusement and pleasure: but when they falselyvannounced the dleathis of individlun's, in a manner to create a-belief in Sts truth, and inspired alarm and distress among all theirftilends and relatives, thydsrve to pay In damaeges for the misery thev inflicted. The c-ase of MUr. Adams was still -worse. He 'was a mian of reispectable chlaracter arid competent fortune, who belonged to the Society of Friends, arid wassweli known undertheapaellation of QucalerA&Ya:er Whilelhe wisalivearid well, in easays unembarrassed circumnstancees, sadmaking aconsfortable provision forhisfamuidy,hbewasanariunced ins the Observer of the l7th of October, air having committed suicide in coDnsequen3ceof the erbaTrraSMent ot'his pecuniary afrairs. The pa. ragraph wag headed "1Suicide;" and ran in these termns--"~ On Sa. eur-day morning Air. Knightly'Adams, a brok-er in canal and other sharer. reaiding at Paddirigto-n-green, was found dead, having sus- pended himnself by acordafrom a eam in his kitchen. The deceased- was a very eccentric man, anid few parsons 'in the imetropolis were mnore generally known. Hevwas comintnlycalled Quaker Adams, bring of that religious persua,sion.- Pecuwary difficulties aregsaid to be ttire cause of his commnitting tire fastal act. This stini- ment mettlire eyeoftire friends of Mr. Adamso, wo were, f course, exceedringly surprised, and hastened to ascertain its trath. When they foiund the supposed suicide alive and viell, they took hlumediate nic-arsuc to procure a contradiction of the report and to tmece the calumny to its source. By the fauirneez of the Qt-tor of the Oiver-, verr, they were enabled to do both ;the re"art was coiintrdicted in the most express terms in the Mdrzing- Clirordick of tae following day, and its author discovered in the person of Mir. "RtUy the de. fendant. 11r. Kely was areighbourof Mir. Adams, analrad con. calved some atnimosity agaipst hirto, though, for what re-ason Mlr. Adams could not conjecture. On Saturday,,the16thbof October,Ire met at Marp-lborough-strerst office a reporter, wlroum he lenew to be engaed for the OZscrver, and having told him hi could Sive him inbriir,tio'nwkich would make an interesting article for the uewspa. pers, invited him to a neighbguring tavern. At- this plisce, in Iris presereen anid that or* s everal otlier perso.ns conniected with the pree, bie relatedl the story in muLch stronger language than that ussed in the paper, seating' that -a ~viatiw w'suld' Iee I,00l byth ilihlatins ndthat Mzr. Adams bad urade an ttept o dow bisal eibterimonths before.' There 'wag sotonewor oftonirin he hol stteent ; and Mr. Adarns now kouht or uc a erdct s igh techMr. Kc1fr., and otbers dis. posd o sred flt reoes, ueflmlsoz. T%e,defenzant bad n--4 W5de thea ensetion ini mere Laisa?% iisCopxse. but had delilscratciy nirpers bY which it might be aeyc Ittretntmrl htthe party 'had died, but hatd d"dunder icrcunmstanceR of reat Ignominy...wu calculated to prodce =d siEuch damages as they would feel just if. the euse 1aec their own. The veprt was; lldmotl aellu ided t" was then called to suppoilthe ~al.tff' cse.li satdht he *sattending the'olic~-offlce.Ala- ; e,VnStX5 dacs nmonly knownbof October, n iaen hefietAdr. Kelly, dirngt'severa year, and was'acquanvedc witbr.the escutio whch e flle. Air. K-elly said, "W ave you hearti of a b chocy ademaerstaAre whi^lich has taken place this morning at Pldia,, p it wcn I fma ke an interpe.tng case for the newspapers. Tbe~tn~syepjedin the negative;. inct Mr. Kelly bge nt ;r tu the rnq wice of Wiles tavemn, where hermight re the patcalars In this place, in thepeec farpre o Ib~Swtay paprs,ed four or five ohrpnn esi,"h * hulatathe cto hchIalue aspctiar emarrs.scrnent_hata lvieso taelade hisd nwralnF e a by hiusdefalcatdien;andthat." ilr had a skped wto h 2 pg.tv ws; s his canlly replied, a lt is a n nm named Kn ih tly Ireri canlandohersares 'iewsfounauspnded ihsorning in b a k k ith e m f h o m ah i b e a um b y a ro p e ." r d at h e w it n es sa sk w rdtKe lly If easa ph se the m w sce?erepli the o fam sre ow t ndtnest w il bkehal added, po,hic the pu e niar. Tenberrasenti e case widow lady woud os I,0iI Ii, defalcation; Ltd that be had attempted to down Isiutelf in the canal eighteen months before." sr. Kelly t gave citnceis his cadi, aia invited bhim to call on him. w the. ith of this circumstantial relation, wnitneqs wrote at paragrph and. sent it to the Oltserver; and the parugraph now Prodted accordlngly appeared in that paper of the following day. The pritress, was usked, on cross-examinatiots by fr. GURNEY, ifhe bdi uot beon turned out-of newspaper offices hor incorrect re_t port-, which h I otvellr denied. There was one case which he hatl repr (r2inwg w ited an aceo ception a h Lewis v Clement,"gby rtarty ho conceived himself aggrieved; but thiswas3the only case ~~i ha evr ocured.He had ncvir reported an inquest on a Gerson as deat twho aippeared afterwards to he alive, nor any thing of that nature. lithad sent a paragraph to the Observer, but would fOt swear it was the same in terms with that iaserted, as it night, and probably did, receive some verl altrtions fromr the editorrn nr. SCArILE?T now prtPosed to read the paragraph in the Ob- ser-re in suppott of that count which chargedT the defendant with havinge Rocurd the publication of a libel. tir. (UasIES objected to the reception of this paper. The allega- tion Wmas that the defendant esivied and procaired the publication of ahe rtain libel,wl lh was ast forth In terms. Now itpdid not apfar that the paLRp inted was the same that the reporter wrote, which cDOldo ny be provedbythe production of that paper,orbyevidence of it~ exactI contents if lose. It was contrary to all tbc rules of evi- ritten, tFprove l identity by a comparison beWeen the spbstapce Paid the testimony of the witness. e AIr s cAITT contended, that the case was not within the ge- MaK1 rule, that ihe paper itself must be produceda; becase the alle. gatiOn -as, that she defendant procured a libel to be publisheid ; and tbe article it-at would show tnat it must have proceeded froi the malignant suggestions of the defendant. The LoRD tisetEPF JUSTicr, held, that the Observer could not be read, witliout proof theat it correspoobed with the paper sitten by eudmonds, which could be shown only by the paper it- self It was merely proved that Edmonds wrote something, whielh he sent to the editor: and that afterwards a paragrph appeared ; atd eurely this rread o legal proof that the defendant caused the publication of this libel. To establsh this, the paper itself, if in e=iiarence, was the onily evidence; and therefore the printed article csuld not be read. FMr. Conod, a reporter for the Sunday papers, corroborated the statene trt of kllr. Edmonds as to the conversatiob at the Prince of Valms taverba; he did not circulate the rumour, but reserved himself for the inquest, which ir. Kelly saidcwould be held on Monday. _rs. Kvitty arrett, a widow carrying on business as a baker in tH arrowrotd proved that t lr. Adams carried on buslness as a broker, and had bought and Aold shares in the inperial Gas Coin- pany for her on commcission. Mr. Gubc re shortly addreased the jury for the defendant. He perfectly agreed with hi learned friendl that it was very incorret for the newspapers to kiu people before their time ; but then the news- pxpesn themselves or their reporters were chiefly to blame, and nor '.he idlet gonsp fre omt whor theroS indfheormation was cletdifbMr.wa Edmonfts had been as prudent ca the other witness, and m reserved himselffor the inquest," proich of course never was hld, the ruynour would bavedies within the wallsoftheavern where it was mentioned. He could not help thinking ar. Adams would have made a much mnore saltstt eXample if he hadi brought an action against the re- prter, =h7tus gavD currency to the go'ssip, which would otherwise 9hive beer harmless. He hiad probably brouight the action to show that he vas alive: that end wwas certainly effeted; and surely the defendant would be abundantly punished topr his intligeretion by paying all the costs of the caute. The LOAJ CunEF JUSverCE aid that the plaintiff must have a verdict onl the codnts~ for words, and the only question was for what damages. Now it wvas niot mere idle gosstip in wlMch the defbndant indul-ged;- because it was clear, fromn the evidence of Edmonds, that his purpose wras to procure the publication of the sttory in the pnblicjournal.,. Whether it was so published or not there was no evience, because the newspper was excluded from the case, but rMill it was clear that suich was his design. The jury, would there- fore say what damages a mnan ought to pay who cirMuated suchi a story with such a purposie, without the least t'ouutdation. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff'-Damage, 201. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, W ESTXMiWTnIL DEc. 1A- rilimirPE: V. RIA?-?.-.