The Sun. — 1827-04-23 (London, England)

STEWART AND ANOTHER. This was' an action against the proprietors of the Courier Newspaper, for a libel upon the professional character of the plaintiff as an attorney. The defendants pleaded, first, Not Guilty; and second, a justification of the truth.of the alleged libel. Mr. GURNEY (with whom was Mr. PARK) stated the case. The plaintiff was an attorney, carrying on business in the City, and he had thought it necessary to bring this action for the vindication of his character, on account of a libel published in the Courier Newspaper, of which the defendants were the proprietors. He (Mr. Gurney) believed he might say, it was very seldom indeed that the Courier had been the subject of actions or indictments for libels on private character, and for that reason, when a libel of the nature in question appeared in its columns, the person slandered must be more than commonly anxious to remove the unfavourable impression which a pub. lication, under such circumstances, was so likely to produce. About three years since the plaintiff was called upon, in the course of his professional duty, to defend a person, the atrocity of whose crime had created the greatest sensation in the public mind—he meant a man named John Thurtell, who was tried, convicted, and executed at Hertford,, for the murder of Mr. \Veare. Undoubtedly the duty of the plaintiff, as attorney for such a person, was most anxious and arduous ; and if he (Mr. Gurney), who had conducted the case for the Crown on that occasion, might go out of the way to make the observation, he must say, from his own personal observation, that he never saw an attorney for a prisoner show more zeal and activity for his client. The plaintiff was, therefore, extremely hurt to see a paragraph published in the defendants' paper, conveying an imputation that he was wanting in feeling for his client's situation. Now, whatever might be the crime of the party accused, those who were interested in the conduct of his defence must necessarily feel great anxiety for his fate; and the libel in question having attributed to Mr. Fenton an absence of consideration for his client's interests, he thought it right to bring this action, for the vindication of his character against the attack so made upon him. In so acting, he by no means sought to put money into his pocket; but character, to a professional man, being of vital importance, he felt himself compelled to come into Court for a reparation of that injury of which he complained. Mr. SCARERTT (with whom were Mr. BROUGHAM and Mr. F. PoLLocK,) here interposed, and said that, as his Learned Friend had stated the plaintiff's object to be simply the vindication of his character, he (Mr. Scarlett) had no objection to state, on the part of the defendants, that nothing was farther from their intention than to wound the feelings of Mr. Fenton by the paragraph in question. The defendants could have no motives in disparaging the professional reputation of the plaintiff; who had, doubtless, conducted himself zealously and ably for the interests of his client, on the trial alluded to. The defendants were sorry if any expressions were used in their paper, painful to the plaintiff's feelings; and bearing no malice towards him, they could have no intention of questioning his respectability. After making this acknowledgment, he wished to spare the plaintiff the pain of having a matter farther gone into, which, no doubt, must be unpleasant to his feelings. He (Mr. S.) was the rather inclined to make, this reparation to the plaintiff's character, in consequence of the justice done by his Learned Friend to the reputation of the paper in question; and having done so much justice, particularly to Mr. Stewart, who had been connected with The Courier for twenty years, he was authorised to Fay, that the defendants were sorry the plaintiff should have taken offence at the publication complained of. He should forbear saying anything further, than that there was no intention on their part of wounding his feelings or injuring his character. Mr.  GiTat,sie stated, that Mr. Feuton was quite satisfied with what had been said by Mr. Scarlett ; and in testimony of his sincerity that his client's ob ject was not to put money into his pocket, he would consent that a Juror should be withdrawn.  A Juror was withdrawn accordingly.