LIBEL IN THE AIIRROR OF PARLIAMENT.—An action for libel, brought
against Dr. Lashington, M.P., and the editor and publishers of the Mirror of Parliament, was tried on Wednesday. The Jury acquitted Dr. Lushington, but returned a verdict of 50/. damages against the other defendants. A Mr. Peddel, for whom the plaintiff, Walker, an attorney, was concerned in some proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court, had presented a petition to the House of Commons complaining of the conduct of Sir John Nichol. On this petition, which was prc. sewed by Mr. Hume, some discussion took place in Parliament, on the 27th of July 1828; and in the month of August, the speeches made on the occasion were published in the Mirror. The libels complained of were contained in the speech of Dr. Lushington. After defending Sir John Nichol, the Doctor proceeded thus- " I will only acid, that the petition is not that of the person whose name IS affixed to it, but that of a pettifogging attorney, who was guilty of perjury and an attempt at extortion."
And in a subsequent passage Dr. Lushington said— "In speaking of the solicitor (Walker), I made use of strong expressions, not one of which I am now disposed to retract ; for I should be ashamed to make use of my privilege of Parliament to say any thing that I could not fully substantiate." And when another member found fault with Dr. Lushington for saying that the plaintiff had been convicted of perjury, Dr. Lushington answered- " I did not say that he was convicted, but that he was guilty of perjury." The plaintiff's counsel, Sir James Searlett, pleaded, that though words used by a member in discussions within the House of Commons were not actionable, if a member chose to descend from his privilege, and publish, without the House, any thing improperly reflecting on the cha- racter of individuals, he was amenable. It was true, it had long been the practice to publish reports of the debates in Parliament, and the practice had been in some degree sanctioned by a sort of connivance. For these reports, members were not responsible, because they had no concern with the publication ; but if a member became a party to the publication of his speeches, containing any thing libellous, he was re- sponsible like any other person; and there were instances in which mem- bers had suffered imprisonment for such conduct. The learned counsel understood, that the Mirror of Parliament was subscribed for by mem- bers of Parliament ; and that it was no unusual practice to send their own speeches, or to revise and correct the reports for this publication. As against Dr. Lushington, lie admitted he had no case, unless he could prove that he authorized the publication of the libels ; but he was in- formed that he could prove that Dr. Lushington revised and corrected the proof-sheets of them. Evidence was adduced in proof of the publi- cation, but no evidence in support of the allegation of Dr. Lushington's connexion with it could be elicited from the witnesses who were called. Lord Tenterden said, " There is nothing made out against Dr. Lashing- ton." • The Attorney-General was certain that Dr. Lushington had had nothing to do with sending or correcting speeches, because he knew him to be the last man in the world that would do so, and he had communi- cations with him on the subject. It was a privilege of Parliament not to have the speeches publicly reported ; but that privilege was constantly violated, to the great advantage of the people. The only question was, whether the report was correct and impartial. It was impartial ; for all Mr. Hume had said against Sir John Nichol, was reported, certainly not less fully than what had been said in his defence. "As to privilege of Parliament, if the reports are incorrect, the persons publishing may be called before the House and punished ; but if they be correctly reported, then, whatever may be the consequences to me in another place,! say that those who let the public and their constituents know what their re- presentatives are doing, are among the very greatest of public benefac- tors. In every one instance, publicity is the most perfect corrective of abuses where they exist, and the most perfect preventive where they do not."
Lord Tenterden observed, it was true that a member of Parliament was not answerable for what lie said in the House ; but if he was con- cerned in publishing any thing injurious to the characters of private in- dividuals, he, as well as any other person so concerned, is responsible for what he publishes. As to Dr. Loshington, we have here DO proof
against him. The three other defendants engaged in this publication, called the Mirror of Parliament, are spoken of as persons of high cha- racter, and it does not appear that they bore any particular malice to the plaintiff. But as they have not made out their justification, and as the publication is proved, a verdict must go against them. (Court of Ktng's Bench, Feb. 8. Walker, v. Lushington and others.)
VALIDITY OF REAL SECCRITIES.—A bond and a mortgage had been concurrent securities. It was argued, that because the body of the de-
fendant had been taken in execution of the bond, the mortgage was, therefore, discharged. The Master of the Rolls was of a different opinion. It was true, that taking the body in a personal action extin-
guished all right of future personal actions, but it did not affect the collateral security on the land. The mortgage, therefore, was not ins. peachedby the execution. (Rolls Court, Feb. 7. Davison v. Batine.) IMPORTANT TO Wnee-ManetaiNTs.—An action to recover the price of a quantity of spirituous liquors. The defendant had admitted the greater part of the demand by paying a sum of money into Court. But at the trial of the cause, an objection was taken' on his part, that the plaintiff
had no right to recover at all. The act (6 Geo. IV. c. 80) imposes certain penalties and forfeitures, in cases where spirits are sold above and under certain degrees of strength, where no permit is delivered, and where the permit doss not specify the particular quality and strength of the articles sold. It was contended in this case, that the spirits were not of proper strength. On the other Land, it was urged, that, by paying the mtmey into Court, the defendant admitted the validity of the contract, end could not, therefore, now avoid it. Mr. Justice Patteson said the
rontract was void ab initio, and no subsequent act of the defendant could Aire. the plaintiff a right to sue upon it. He was, therefore, nonsuited. f King's Bench. Sittings at Nisi Pries, Feb. 7. Wetherell v. Jones and (.nother.) A NICE POINT.—An action brought by a hosier, in Bond Street, to recover 2.04 Is. 7d. for goods sold. The defendant, Algeo, a gentle- man of fortune, bad dealt with the plaintiff since 1828. The goods fur- trished in that year had been paid for. In 1829, goods were supplied npon a fresh order ; and the defendant paid 10/. on account, after which he made a further purchase at the defendant's shop. The amount now claimed was the balance of the account. It did not appear that any bill had been delivered, but it was proved that the defendant had promised to call and settle the demand. The defendant's counsel called for the plaintiff's books, and examined his clerk and shopmen, who had proved the reasonableness of the charges, as to certain alterations in the original entry of two articles. It was stated, that the action was defended on the sole ground that the price had been altered, and the charges in. creased, to enable the plaintiff to arrest the defendant. At the time of purchase, it was agreed that the price of a silk waistcoat should be I!. Is. In the book the price was altered to 1/. 10s. Another article was originally charged 14 4s. The present charge was 1/. 8s. No bill had been delivered to the defendant, but when he was arrested he called upon the plaintiff, and then discovered these alterations. The learned Carnsel added, that he hoped the Jury would not sanction such untrades- manlike conduct, but would, by confining their verdict to the amount of the account as it originally stood in the plaintiff's book, enable the de- fendant to avail himself of the provisions of the salutary act of Parlia- ment which, in cases of improper and malicious arrest, relieved a de- feudant from costs. It was contended, in reply, that the plaintiff had done no more than, under the circumstances, was justifiable. The /earned Judge observed, that as there was no evidence of the price seiginally agreed upon, the Jury must put such value upon the ar- ticles as they thought reasonable. The Jury found for the full amount. This is another instance of the necessity of examining and cross-examining both plaintiff and defendant upon oath. It is probable that no third party was present when the agreement was made ; so that neither party could substantiate it by proof. The clerk and shopman would know nothing but from their master, and could therefore only prove that the goods were supplied, and that the charges were of the ordinary kind. In all common dealings, the customer and the tradesman are the only parties who come in contact : whatever, therefore, may be the corroborative value of such testimony as that adduced in this instance, it is obvious that the principal circumstances are kept out of view by rejecting the explanation of the parties them- selves. Hence a dishonest plaintiff may recover, by means of evidence which only goes to prove secondary circumstances, and so may a defendant successfully resist a just demand. (King's Bench. Sittings at Nisi Ptiits, Feb. 7. Beale v. illgeo.) Canen.ter 'V. LORD Hannonoucu.—The Papers have for a while past" puffed" this notorious case. It was tried on Friday. The Jury returned a verdict of 100/. The defendant relied upon the want of con- jugal intercourze between the plaintiff and his wife. The marriage had been clandestine, and a few hours after the ceremony, Mr. Calcraft left town to join his regiment at Portsmouth, and did not return to his wife or a month. Subsequently their intercourse had been very casual ; they had not cohabited as man and wife. In the course of the evidence, it was shown that, on one occasion, Lord Harborough and Mr. Calcraft were in separate rooms of the house of Mrs. Calcraft. The Judge com- mented strongly upon this circumstance, and the Jury returned their verdict with little hesitation. (Court of Common Pleas. Feb. 11. Cal- enft v. Lord Harborough.) INFIDELITY IN Low LIFE.—In the Court of Common Pleas, on Wednesday, the well-known pugilist Spring, (whose real name is Winter,) now landlord of the Castle Tavern, Holbern, brought an ac- tion against a hatter named Wenn, for crim. con, with plaintiff's wife, and obtained a verdict, with 150/. damages. LUCKLESS INSOLVENT.—A young man John David Sivright, came to tT:is country, from India, with a letter of credit ; but the house he repre- seilted having failed, he was thrown into prison, friendless and unknown. During his confinement, he has supported himself by his pen, and as- sisted in the publication of "The King's Bench Observer," a paper published for the amusement of the "Collegians." On Monday he was brought up through the humanity of Mr. Chester, his attorney. It ap- peared from his examination, that he was an articled clerk to an attorney in India, and had acted as managing clerk. He had noproperty, though he had considerable expectations. He had written to his relations in India for a remittance without effect, and was therefore compelled to apply to this Court forahis discharge. The insolvent, who is about twenty years of age, of gentlemanly and prepossessing manners, is said to be master of seven languages. The Court directed him to 'be discharged forthwith. (Insolvent Debtors' Court. Feb. 8. Re Sivright.)
Previous page
