In the Court of King's Bench, tin Tuesday, the Attorney-General
moved for a rule to show cause why a criminal information should nut be filed against the proprietors of the Satirist for a libel on Mr Samuel Digby. He stated that Mr. Digby, who was a gentleman of ancient family and irreproachable character, bad incurred the enmity of the Satirist people by gaining a verdict with damages against them for a libel; and that on the 20th of May 1836, it was alleged in the Satirist that he cheated at cards— The libel stated that Simon Dighy, more generally known as " King Digby," for his skill in palming the king at the game of Ecarti-, and who had long en- joyed an unenviable notoriety among the Legs, was now living in humble re- tirement in Devonshire, but had attended the last Epsom Races, and had been recently in town, sharply looking out for flats. Mr. Digby applied to this Court for a rule for a criminal information for the publication of that libel ; and founded his application on an affidavit strongly and directly denying the truth of the imputation thus cast upon him. Cause was shown against that rule on the I lth of June ; und on that occasion there was produced the affidavit of a Mr. Thomas Shepherd, stating that he and Air. Digby had been about four years before that time introduced to each other ut Brighton, when Shepherd lent some money to Digby ; that soon after the introduction Digby called at Shepherd's residence at Pimlico, and dined with him ; that after dinner Digby proposed to have a game at cards, saying that he would give Shepherd his revenge for the few pounds which Dighy h id won of him at Brighton ; that they played together, and Dighy won a large sum of money from him ; that Shepherd suspected it was not won fairly ; that he seized Dighy's hand, and found that he had palmed the king, and that on being detected Digby became very much alarmed, confessed what he had done, and returned the money. This affidavit purported to made by a person who described himself in it as Mr. Thomas Shepherd, of Frederick Street, Hampstead Road ; and upon the alle- gations contained in it the Court thought there was sufficient to discharge the rule, and the affidavit was published in the report of the proceedings in all the newspapers. As Mr. Digby knew the story of Shepherd to Le a fabrication, and as he had never been in Shepherd's company, he resolved to have evi- dence which would prove the falsehood of that person's affidavit. He accordingly contrived to etivounti r Shepherd at a solicitor's office. Shepherd denied all knowledge of Digby, and did not recognize him : be swore that he had never dined or played at cards with Digby. Shepherd was then prosecuted for perjury ; a true bill was found against him, hut he absconded. Earl Dighy, Lord Gage, Colonel Shaw, and other gentlemen, spoke to the excellence of Mr. Digby's character from long acquaintance, and declared that he was not ad- dicted to gaming. It was proved that the affidavit of Shepherd was chiefly in the handwriting of a person connected with the Satirist. The Court granted the rule.
Yesterday, Mr. Adolphus applied for a rule for a criminal informa- tion against the proprietors of Belts Nero Weekly Messenger, for a libel
on Mr. Henry Moreton Dyer, the Marlborough Street Police Magis- trate. In Mr. Dyer's affidavit the circumstances under which he ap- plied for the interference of the Court were stated. It will be seen
that they grew out of the assault on Mrs. Prescott and another female, the manner of dealing with which by the Magistrate attracted much attention a fortnight ago, and was severely commented upon by several newspapers. Mr. Adolphus stated the substance of Mr. Dyer's affi- davit—
On the 26th of last month, a person was brought before him by a Police- officer, who gave his name as John Smith, for a violent assault on a female. The case was heanl, and another individual came forward as a witness upon which another female declared that he was one of the parties who 11;d ndtted the assault, and he was accordingly put to the bar. After the hearing of the case, Mr. Dyer fined the defendants 51. etch; and he stated as a reason for exercising that summary jarisdiction, that the females would not like to ap- pear in a catirt of justice as prosecutrixes. The fines were immediately paid. On the Sunday following, a report of the case appeared in the paper in ques- tion; to which there were several observations appended, charging Mr. Dyer with having suffered the parties to conceal their name; and stating, that in the district of Marlborough Street any person might commit an assault upon re- spectable females for the small puke of 5/. that being the sum charged by Mr. Dyer, and that any miscreant might insult the mother, wife, or sister, of any respectable party in that district for such a payment; that, had the scoundrels who assaulted this female been of the lower order, how extensive would have been his worship's indignation—the scoundrels would have been committed for trial and their real names exposed. On the 6th of November, a week after the prior pub- lication, there appeared another string of observations reflecting on the conduct and character of Mr. Dyer in his magisterial capacity. This was the way in which Mr. Dyer has been treated. He stated in his affidavit that he had no reason to believe that any other names belonged to the parties ; that
he had inflicted a penalty of M. each, which was the highest amount he could direct them to pay ; that Mr. Conant had sat with him on the occa- sion, and had concurred in the act ; but more than that, he stated that he had referred to the females and asked if they were satisfied, and they expressed their thanks. It was painful that a gentleman like Mr. Dyer should be called upon to swear that which in such a case he was obliged to do—namely, that he knew nothing of the parties; that he was not actuated by any partial feeling ; and that he had never received nor been promised any gratuity, fee, or reward.
Lord Denman said, he did not think that was imputed. Did Mr. Dyer state that he believed the parties gave their real names ? Mr. Adolphus said, that Mr. Dyer distinctly stated that the first man called himself Smith, and that he had no reason to suppose his name was not Smith.
Lord Denman granted the rule.
Previous page
