The ,Clo tut ,of laueea!s: . Bench,. was co copied :
On Saturday. :with, tIte trial of two actions-fer libel,' in -which -the proprietors of elte.494.-newe4 paper were defendants. In the first ease, -Mr. John Petriak Setuer4,- was plaintiff; coMplaining of et series of libels published between Ebel 18th:February 1838 and the 7th April 1030.. The principal, part Odle; libels had reference to a petition, against Mr,. Somers's return fox wee( of qualification, and insinuated that Mr. Somers had himself, misre., presented and procured witnesses to over-estimate the value of the, property whence his qualification was derived. It appeared, however, that the whole of the defendants were not registered proprietors of (lie Age till after the publication of these libels ; so damages were claimek only for the publication of the following, which related to a difference that Somers had with Colonel Gallois, a French gentleman, in Paris—, "In the Post of Friday we find the following—, We are authorized to state that an explanation has taken place between Mr. Somers, M.P. for Sligo, and Colonel Gallois, to their mutual satisfaction.' We have reason to believe that this authorization came from a Master Patrick Somers, through a medium he knows we understand as well as himself. The fact is, that Colonel Gallois, who is one of the bravest fellow:, that ever honoured the profession of arms chivalrously fidlowed this man Somers to his own dunghill, and made the blue- tering , taller' kneel for protection and implore mercy. We hope Mr. Dillea Browne will benefit by the severe lesson his acquaintanceship with the pen- liarly-qualified-for-Zero society Mr. J. Patrick Somers has taught him."
The Attorney-General stated the case for the plaintiff, but called no witnesses to disprove the libels in the newspaper. Mr. Thesiger, for the defendants, admitted that there must be a verdict against him in point of law ; though the smallest damages would, he contended, satisfy the justice of the case. Lord Denman said it would have been infinitely more satisfactory had the plaintiff produced evidence before the Jury. The defendants not having availed themselves of the opportunity to prove the truth of their assertions, the verdict must be for the plaintiff, and the Jury would fix the amount of damages. Verdict for the plaintiff ; damages 50/.
The second case possessed no public interest. It arose out of a squabble on the pier at Margate. Holt, one of the defendants, had been fined a shilling by Mr. Chancellor, a Margate Magistrate, for going upon the jetty when a steam-boat was leaving, contrary to the regulations of a local act. In revenge, a series of libels against Mr. Chancellor were published in the Aye. Lord Denman said, that in this case he thought trifling damages would not be just ; and the Jury gave the plain- tiff 10-0/.
The Court of Common Pleas, on Thursday, tried an action brought by Mr. Ingram, commander of the I,arkins Last Indiaman, against the
publisher of the Times. On the 31st October 1837, a letter ap- peared in the Times describing the Larkins to be in an unseaworthy state, requiring additional hands from the Cape on her last voyage from
India to keep her afloat by pumping. It was also said that she had been bought by the Jews to carry out convicts. It was proved that the Larkins was in a perfectly seaworthy condition ; that she had good ac- commodation for passengers ; and that after the publication of the libel the number of passengers, usually from twenty to twenty-five, had been reduced to eleven out raid seven home. Under the direction of Mr. Justice Manic, the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, with 900/. damages.
Previous page
