In the Court of King's Bench, on Tuesday, an action

brought by Mr. J. J. Stockdale, the well-known publisher, against Messrs. Han- sard, printers to the House of Commons, was tried before Lord Den- mau. Mr. Stockdule complained that he had been libelled in a Re- port presented by the Inspectors of Prisons to the House of Corn. mons, and published by Messrs. Hansard. In that Report it was stated, that a work of " a disgusting nature, and the plates obscene and indecent in the extreme," published by Stoekdale, bad been foetid in one of the rooms of Newgate Prison.

The defendants pleaded, first, that they were not guilty ; secondly, that the alleged libel was title. A plea of justification, on the ground that the House of Commons had ordered the defendants to print the Report in question, had been struck out by Mr. Justice Littledule.

Mr. Stockdale, who sued in furnui pauperis, and spoke for himself, addressed the Jury it great length ; declaring that he was a persecuted man ; that the book stigmatized in the Commons Report was a work of science, and the plates necessary to illustrate it; and that he bad sustained grievous injury by the alleged libel. The damages were laid at 20.1;00/.

The purchase of a copy of the Report from Messrs. Hansard hay- ine been proved,

r•Sir John Campbell, for the defendants, maintained, first, that the publication was not a libel; and secondly, that the statement in the Report was true.

With regard to the first of those pleas, it was merely necessary for him to say that he should rely upon the eh cumstances under which the Report in question had been printed and published. In the 5th and 6th year of the reign of the present King, an Act of Patlighlent was passed, (5 and 6 Wil- liam faa c. 3ci,) to regulate the discipline in prisons throughout England and Wales. By the authority of that Act, Inspectors were appointed; and one portion of the duty of those gentlemen was, after having inspected and exa- mined into the state of the prisons, to make a report to the Secretary of State for the Home 1,eparunent; and by that functionary their Report was pre. sented to the licuse if Common's. The House of Commons considering the report of those gentlemen to he of a valuable character to tile public service, had ordered it to be printed ; which order was carried into effect. Next came the publication of the Report ; which also had taken place under the authority of an order of the House of Commons.

Lord Denman said, he was not aware that the authority of the House of Commons could justify the publication of a libel. It might be different where the printing was merely for the use of Members of the House, inasmuch as such printing would, under the circumstances set forth' be a Parliamentary and statutory act. Sir John Campbell said, that Lord Hale held that the printing of a petition to Parliament could not be regarded as a libel, and that no action could be sustained thereon—

Now this Report was still more privileged thaneven:a petition to the Legis.

latere, inesmueh As the House of Commit?, bad, by a specific resolution, throws alonndohe defendants the authority ef itespriveeges,_ and the document had therefore !Jerome a statutory documento Thle HOUtte of Commons hedt na tha 13th of August 1665, resolved, " Th. t Parliamontary Papers and Report; provided for the use of this Homes should he truckled accessible to the pubis at the lowest price at which they caq. be published ; and that a sutficieut nem. her be printed .for that purpoee." In the succeriing session, . on the 6th of March 1836, the House thought fit to follow up that resolntion by a series of others,—which in effect were, that the Reports and Papers of the House should be sold at one halfpenny per sheet ; that charts, 8m. printed be order of dr House, should be charged M. for each half-sheet ; that the gmers then in store should he sold at the same rate as those of the then current session; that Messrs. Hansard, the printers of the House of Commons, should be appointed to print and conduct the Pale of these Papers and Reports; and that an allow- ance of P2k per cent. should lie. made to the trade. It was perft.ctly clear, then, that the defendants, in selling this Report, had acted under the order and authority of the House of Commons, and therefore were entitled to the pri- vilege. Under the plea of " Not guilty," the first plea, the defendants were onsequently entitled to a verdict.

Sir John Campbell quoted some cases in support of his argument. Lord Denman then charged the Jury, as follows.

" Two points arise on the first issue, that of ' not guilty ;' and tlziyet arer—it fi whether the defenda s published the nista. in cpti,tion: and secondly. libel. If you think that the book published by the plaintiff does deseive the descrip- tion given or ill the pablication or the denonlants. sou will find a serili i in their favour ; fus if a man his re:Illy plIbliShell a disgusting book. with indec, anti ob- acene !dates. lie might not to complain of any one statiug that he bad dono so; and you will probably think that in such a case such a slat emeut ought not to be made the subject of an action. That ground of deftmee is not. however. one which has been taken up by the Attorney-General : be admits that the publication ot such a work woold be finnan al :nal improper. :MIL consequently, that to impute to a man that he hod pnblished it would, if the making of such imputation was not psi', ilegNI. subject the person who matte it to an action. 'lice gaest loos which I shall lease to you upon the general issue are—first, whether the publication now complain sl was made by the defendants ; and secondly. if so, tv lather that piddle:0 ion is libellous. On the tidal ground which his been sobinitted to yott. uantely, that this is a privileged pub. ication, I am b000ll to say. (as it comes berme ale as a cp.-st ion of law for my direr Ihnt,) I entirely disaaree from the law laid Is it by the learned cutin,e1 Mr the defen- dants. I inc not :to :Ire or the existence in this country of any I tody wInnever which can privil „ an s stavanf of theirs to miblish libels oat any iudiridual. Whatever ar- rangements made be nuole between the Ilouse of Commons and any poblishers whom tlwy may employ. I am of opinion that the person who poblislies that in Is pnblic shop. mat especially for money, which C:111 110 injorions and possibly rninwis to an, 011P of his Majests's subjects, must answer in a wart of justice to t fiat subject. if he challenges him for that libel. I w ish to say so emphatically and distinctly. because I think, if on the lirst opport milt y tltat anise in a coati of joss ice on suit it questiou that poiut were to be lea unsatistaetorily explained. the Judge who it thew might become in accompliee in the destruction or tile liberties if his military. and expose every in- dividual who lived in it to a tyranny no man ought to submit to I think the case quoted on that subject is nut tipplivable to tlw present. It Is not go the whole length ; and it seems to me that it is not in any respect capable I if being urged as an authority to prevent my going the lenAt I have just in stabal. 'fltereatte, ms direc- tion to yon, subject to ■vh•stion hereafter, is, that the faet of the House of Com mons having directed Meists. Hansard to publish all their Parliamentary Re- ports and Papers, is no jastilication for them, or any bookseller who publishes a Parliamentary Report containing a libel against :toy man. If yaw thinit that the book referred to is • disgusting, and the plates t(5 (01' and inde- cent,' then the defendants are entitled to our verdict ; or whether the book was merely a scieutilic esposition of a subject. which, Mr the benefit of ra itikitit must be explained and discussed in scientific wurks, ;it'd whelltel it was or si as uot des,•teing of the strong epithets applied to it by the Ttors in their Report. Supposing you should think that those epithets are not i•■• e out by 'lie chat ;ti-ter awl nature of the book itself, you will find a verdict fur the plaintiff ; and then, in the next place, you will have to say what amount of damages lie is entitled to Its reason of such publica- tion. It would he at ones' absurd and ridiculous to impute to these defeutlants any motives of a maheious nature towards the plaintitT: /mt. nevertheless, if the result of the publiesit ion has been to inflict :in injury MI the plaintitt and if they have not satis- fied you that the publication is no libel, or that the publication of it is justifiable. they must answer to 1311, d mages. There is no imputation justly resting on the motives of the Inspect:or-. or of the Secretary or State ; Ma I must observe, it seems to me that there has t ii ci a want ot caution In preparing this Report ; for I do not see why there was any necessity to publish the names of the particular books found in possession of the prisoners. The plaint in; however, says that he has suffered it great loss in cowannence ot the statement contained in the Report; but he has trot proved what situation or what trade of his has been it jured by the publication. All these matters V011 still lake into your consideration. II you thick that the defendants have a libel, you will Mal for ;he plaintiff on the first isms aml giye him such damages as you consider the ease requires; hit though sou may regaril the politica- tion as being libellous, still, if you think that tt:e rematit made on the plaintiff's book is justified by the nature oilhat took. you will flud a verdict fur the defendants ou that issue; :Mil yoa do, is tie justification %t ill then have been made out, that just ific,ition will be an ;mower tome plaintiff's claim for damages." The Jury ietired •' and, after some consideration, brought in a ver- dict for the plaintiff on the first issue ; and for the defendants on the second, declaring their opinion that the book wits disgusting, obscene, and balecent.

On Wednesday, 'an action brought by Mr. Absolon, tailor, whose house in Bond Street was burnt down sonic months since, against the County Fire Office, was tried in the King's Bench. The plaintiff sought to rerover the amount of an insurance • and the defendants pleaded diet the plaintiff had attemptt•d a fraud, l'oy setting his house on fire himself. ether several witnesses, belongitig to the family of the plaintiff, had hem' examined, the action was compromisedthe plain. tiff 'agreeing to take 3.501., instead of 17181. which he had claimed.

The Court was occupied the whole of yesterday with the trial of the action for libel brought by Lord De Bus ag.:illSt Mr. Cumming, who had accused his Lordship of cheating at cards. The tri;11 excited great interest; and among die distinguished persons present, were Lords Lyndhurst, Alvanley, and Wharneliffe. Jr is charged against Lord De Ho,, that at the whist-table he frequeutly contrived to have a violent fit of cote:bine, when his deul came, which obliged him to put his hands under the table; and then it always happened that lie turned up an honour ; and that the aces and kings in the packs Lord De Hos played with were frequently mat he'd, slightly. but perceptibly, with the thumb.nail. 'Many gentlemen swore to their havine te•en cheated by these tricks; and some refused to play with Lord De Lbs ; though others did not shun him utter his cheating had been dis- covered—they sent him at1011\111011S notes of witriline, and hoped that he had left off cheating. The play of these gentlemen viers very high sometimes ; and nee of them, Mr. Brook Greville, ad- mitted that he lrol made 3.5,000/ by play ; another, Captain Alexander, said that be was a " better man by 10,000/. for cord j•laying." On the part of Lord De Hoc, it is stated that he has a stilliiess in his finger. jointswhich prevents him from play ing tricks with cords, though be can cut and shuttle them. The trial was adjourned last night to this morning.

In the Court of Common Pleas, a long trial commeticed yesterday, and was not finished when the Judges rose last night.'elIt was an

action brought by Morison the_.pill-vender against the 1Veehly Dispatch, for a libel In accusing him of " wholesale poisoning." All the old facts about the deleterious qualities of the medicine were brought for- ward by the defendants. 7 he damages are laid at 1,0001.

In the Central Criminal Court, on Tuesday, the Recorder passed sen- tenee upon the prisoners convicted at the Sessions just closed. Sixty- one were ordered to be transported for seven years; nine for fourteen years; eight for lifeeieturiong whom was the noted John Minter Hart, for altering a bill of exchange ; seven received sentence of death for bur- glaries ; and one, Henry Pegsworth, for murdering Ready the tailor. The time of Pegsworth's execution is not axed; the Court, under a recent law, having the power of postponing it.