The Sun. — 1849-08-04 (London, England)

HARRIS.) IN RE MATTHEW F. PEARSON. This insolvent, formerly the proprietor of the Satirist newspaper, was opposed by Mr. Cooke, on behalf or the Duke of Brunswick; Mr. Birnie supported. A clerk to the opposing creditor's solicitor prcdnced the record of an action for libel instituted by the Duke of Brunswick against the insolvent, in which he re30vered a 'verdict for 1,500/. The costs were tax, d at 2101., no part of which, or the damages, had been paid. In reply to Mr. Coomt, the insolvent state that he had now no interest in tthe Satirist, having disposed of it in 1146 to Mr. Carroll,  To Mr. BIRNIE the insolvent said, in December, 1843, Mr. Gregory, the previous proprietor of the paper, appeared as a theatrical performer, and a person was deputed to attend on behalf of the Satirist and criticise the performance. On Mr. Gregory's next appearance at the Haymarket Theatre, in June, 1846, the same course was adopted, Mr. COOKE said his Noble client sought the protection of this Court to put an end to a course of the moat violent, cruel, and malignant persecution, by means of libels, that ever any person had been exposed to. The Duke had suffered an inconceivable amount of annoyance, and had tried all the powers of the law to protect himsell from the vile slanders, not one part of which had ever, in the course of the manifold proceeding•, been even attempted to be proved, although there was scarcely a single crime, not even murder, that had not been at some time imputed to him, and in this case the jury appeared to have fully appreciated the Duke's position by awarding extraordinarily heavy damages in hopes that the vile system may be stopped. During these proceedings his Highness had been put to enormous costs, and doubtless the parties had expected that of the 15,0001. which he had expended in defending his character from their base attempts he would rather have" applied some part in a way more in accordance with their wishes and interests. The jury had by their verdict recorded their opinion of the enormity of the offence, and he (Mr. Cooke) submitted that the case was one meriting the application of th• full penal powers of this Court. Mr. BIRNIE contended that libels were not necessarily malicious; and, although a proprietor of a publication was civilly liable for the acts of an indiscreet servant, yet it was necessary to prove the existence of malice before calling on this Court to remand an insolvent. I❑ this case the majority of the libels imputed to the insolvent appeared in the Satirist long before he had any connexion with the paper at all; and the only two which appeared while he was exercising any control over it were critiques written by gentlemen on the establishment in the ordinary course of their duty, who, having gone to witness the performance of Mr. Gregory, were disgusted with a scene most scandalous and un-English in its character, which, in the warmth of their indignation, they described in fervent t-arms. But those articles did not mention the Duke of Brunswick, nor was there the least allusion to him, and the verdict had been obtained at the trial by an ingenious mode of fixing upon the insolvent the liability of articles which had appeared in the paper before his connexion with it. The Learned Counsel submitted that this Court, having the opportu❑ity, which the jury had not, of hearing the insolvent's own evidence, and hearing his denial of any intention to libel the Duke, would consider this case to be one in which there was no malice proved, and consequently no ground for a remand. Mr. Commissioner lisaßts deferred his judgment until Monday.