On Monday, the Court of Exchequer as occupied for some
time in the trial of an action'for damages, brought by Mr. Bond, a broker, against a Mr. Douglas for a libel published in the True Sun of the 26th of October last, and written by Douglas. The alleged libel was as follows- " Seizure of Church-rates—On Monday, Richard Bond, who, after several brokers of the parish refused to consent to be made the willing instruments of oppressing their fellow rate-payers, acting under the warrant of Sir C. Forbes, one of the self-elected Church Trustees of the parish of St. Na- cres, made a seizure of the goods of Messrs. Engall, of Kentish Town, for Church-rates. The conscientious broker seized two pairs of shoes, which may be seen at Mr. Bond's shop, No. 54, Seymour Street, Euston Square." It was contended that the publication of this libel, which was also placarded about the parish of St. Pancras, was calculated to injure the plaintiff in his business of a broker. There was no proof of any damage sustained by Mr. Bond; but Lord Abinger, who animadverted strongly on the folly of resisting the payment of Church-rates—which he said was the " idlest " and " silliest " thing in the world—charged the Jury against the defendant ; and a verdict was given against him, with 100/. damages.
In the Court of Common Pleas, on Tuesday, Mr. John Raphael, Returning Officer of the borough of Finsbury, brought an action for 28/. against Mr. T. Duncombe, M. P. • that sum being the balance due on a claim for expenses incurred for poling-booths, clerks, and printing at the last election. The circumstances were these--
Previously to the election, each of the candidates, of whom there were four, deposited 401. with the Returning Officer to meet the necessary expenses of the election ; and it was agreed amongst the agents of the parties, that the same ex- penses should be paid as those which had been paid at the previous election. On the plaintiff sending in his account, the defendant's Committee, who were the real defendants on the present occasion, objected to several of the charges, and paid Sl. i2s. 8d. into Court as the amount of the balance for which Mr. Buncombe was liable. Amongst the items objected to, was the charge for twe poll-clerks for each booth, instead of one, 1t being contended that the act only allowed one; another was the charge for tile deputies for a third day, the act only requiring, as it was contended, that they should perform any duties on the two days of pulling; and lastly, the charges for printing and other incidental expenses were objected to, as being a burden cast by the law upon the Return- ing Officer, who was to derive his compensation from the dignity of the office which he ;lad the honour to fill.
Under the direction of Justice Park the Jury found for the plaintiff. Mr. Sergeant Wilde applied to the Court to certify that this was a fit case to be tried by a Special Jury.
Mr. Sergeant Talfourd hoped his Lordship would not so certify, as there war scarcely any question in it for a Jury to decide.
Mr. Justice Park—" Indeed I will. What business had you to defend such a foolish action? "
[Mr. Duncombe wished to pay this money; but his Committee thought fit to try the question.1
Previous page
