The Sun. — 1845-11-29 (London, England)

MATHEIN TRENDIER PEARSON.  This was an action for libel brought by the Duke of Brunswick against the present proprietor of the Satirist, and the Duke to-day appeared in Court and conducted his case in person, in a Court unusually crowded. The proprietor of the Satirist was defended by Mr. Cockburn, Q.C., and Mr. Hugh Hill. The Duke opened his case by stating that he had, during the greater part of the ten years that he had been in this country, been assailed by the Satirist newspaper with charges of the moat libellous and calumnious nature, and that feeling their object was only to intimidate him and induce him to purchase exemptions fcom this sort of persecution by giving to the libeller of his life and conduct money, he had determined to prosecute the editor. There were two allegations of libel in the declaration. The first was, that the defendant had published on the 3d of November, 1844, a libel in the following words : " Our Old Reader, who dates his letter from Charing-cross, is assured that Mr. Gregory is better than, under the merciless and unmerited persecution which he has experienced, we could be led to hope. He has been sustained under his savage and unchristian' treatment by mental energy alone, and we mistake much if he will not have abundance of energy left to make his enemies quail, be they the worthless occupants of great houses, or the grovelling dabblers in legal filth. We understand it is the intention of Mr. Gregory to give to the world a statement of all the facts in connexion with this extraordinary case—extraordinary as being from its commencement sustained in strong truth—extraordinary from the legal injustice which has been done him, and most extraordinary from the worse than' Bastile' treatment to which he has been subjected under the tyrant sway of judicial and Tory despotism. Mr. Gregory will be much gratified, we are sure, by the generous and manly expressions contained in the letter of An Old Reader,' and we shall take the earliest opportunity, after the termination of his unjust sentence, of laying the letter before him. " Several correspondents have expressed a doubt en the subject of the statement made last week of an attempt on the life of the Duke of Brunswick, grounding their suspi_ _  cion on the improbability of some of the details. Many things, however, seem improbable, which, nevertheless, are found to be based on truth, and this, we believe, is one one of them, and, with reference to the apparent anxiety for the concealment of the facts, it would not be difficult to assign very  plausible reasons for such a course, especially when it possible that the ends of justice may, by that means be best answered. We did not, our readers may be sure, publish the statement in question on light grounds; and even those who are most sceptical on the subject may, if they take the trouble to make a little inquiry, easily learn that a rumour of the leading facts was in circulation for several days before we gave it the additional publicity of our columns." The second allegation of libel was upon a passage which subsequently appeared in the Satirist, relative to the examinenation of T. 11. Hocker, before the magistrate, at Marylebone Police-office, when Hocker was charged with the murder of James Deluxe, upon which occasion the noble plaintiff obtained a seat on the bench by permission of the magistrate, to witness the proceedings. The libel ran in these words : "