WHAT is LIBEL ?—It will be recollected that Ferstandeg, a
German linguist, was prosecuted by Wilkes, a bookseller, for stealing or detaining a manuscript, valued at 6d., which Ferstandeg refused to give up, unless paid a guinea for labour he had bestowed upon it. The poor linguist lay in prison several weeks ; but he was at length acquitted of the theft imputed to him. Subsequently, the Morn- ing Journal published the following (rather silly) communication, signed "Repre- hensor," and headed " Case of Ferstandeg."
" For some time past, as you no doubt are aware, there has been some little interest excited in the magisterial world, and amongst readers of newspapers, in consequence of the committal of a German for the stealing of a manuscript under peculiar circum- stances, his subsequent acquittal, and demand for an apology from the committing magistrate. With your customary impartiality and disinterestedness I rejoice to see that you have not (like one of your contemporaries) taken up with furious zeal the case of the foreigner, and vituperated a magistrate of this country, without paying any re- gard to the circumstances of the affair, but have fully and equally detailed both the be- ginning and the end, and then left the public to judge for themselves. On the other band, however, one of your contemporaries has risen up, with the most laughable heat, and wisdom as agreeable, for the purpose of showing that there was undue power exer- cised by the police magistrate in committing the German. But on a little reflection it will be found that this gentleman did nothing but his duty ; that he had no business to be acquainted with the character of the prosecutor, if he really is so unprincipled as he is represented ; that two witnesses swore to the theft ; and, as the justice in question truly remarked, in condescending to explain his conduct to the person, he would have been liable to a mandamus from the Court of King's Bench if he had refused to enter- tain the charge. All these facts are not, however, discovered by your contemporary, which, to suit its own, and, perhaps, others' piques, inserts letters from the German to scandalize the magistrate, after a true till for larceny has again been thrown out against the fellow. This conduct, both of the German and his paper supporter, is very fine; but I hope, sir, that its true merit will be properly appreciated in your independent columns."
M. Ferstandeg construed this letter into a libel ; and claimed damages in the Court of Common Pleas. The trial came on, before Sir Nicholas Tyndal, on Wednesday. Mr. Sergeant Cross made the best of the plaintiff's case, and said much about his character, which he did not establish by evidence. Mr. Sergeant Wilde, for the defendant, thought it impossible that any one could twist the letter
into an imputation upon the plaintiff. The new Lord Chief Justice seemed to
think it harmless,—unless some hidden malice lurked in the contemptuous manner in which the plaintiff was alluded to as " the person" and " the fellow ;"
but he left the whole matter to the Jury,—with the observation, that in no sense could the letter be looked upon as a very aggravated libel. The Jury, after de- liberating an hour, found for the plaintiff—damages 101. By this verdict, Fer- standeg will pocket nothing ; but his attorney will put the Morning Journal to an expense of two or three hundred pounds.
Feaun.-31r. Dodd, musical instrument maker, Berner's Street, Oxford Street, in 1824 lent a harp for hire to a woman named Saunders, at so much per month. When he subsequently inquired after her, she could not be found ; but he after- wards heard that she had been prosecuted by other tradesmen at the Clerkenwell Sessions, convicted of fraud, and was now under sentence of transportation. After he discovered the fraud upon him, Dodd did every thing he could to recover his property. It happened that in January 1828, Mr. Earle, chemist and drug- gist in Winchester, employed his friend Mr. Mackrill to purchase a harp for one of his family ; and at a sale in Whitechapel he purchased the instrument in question, for forty guineas. It met with some accident on the road to Winchester, and was sent hack to London to be repaired. For that purpose it was given to Mr. Dodd, who recognizing the harp he had lent the woman Saunders, detained it as his property. Mr. Earle then brought an action in the Court of King's Bench to recover the harp. These circumstances were stated at the discussion of the case on Wednesday ; when it was contended for the defendant that no property could be had in goods which had been fraudulently obtained. On this ground, the plaintiff was nonsuited.
PATENTS.—In June 1827, Mr. Felton invented a machine for sharpening knives, by passing their edges backwards and forwards in the angle formed by two groved rollers ; and the ingenuity and utility of this invention, for which a patent was taken out, were acknowledged by two experienced cutlers. Mr. Greaves made a machine, varying a little in form, but exactly on the same prin- ciple, and for the same purpose. Mr. Felton brought an action in the Court of King's Bench, for the infringement of his patent. Mr. Williams, for the defen- dant, discovered that in the patent the plaintiff's invention was described as a " machine for sharpening knives, scissors, razors, and other cutting instruments ;" while in the specification, the words " scissors and razors " were omitted ; and he contended that this variation was fatal to the plaintiff's action. Lord Tenterden concurred : the patent and the specification must be worded exactly alike. The plaintiff was therefore nonsuited.
WARRANTY OF Hoitsgs.—Lord Plunkett, Chief Justice of the Irish Court of Common Pleas, bought, in July last, a pair of carriage-horses from the Right Reve- rend George de la Poer, Lord Bishop of Kilmore. The price was 2001.; which the instate defendant refused to pay, on the ground that the horses turned out to
be unsound, contrary to the warranty. The Bishop brought an action, which was tried on the 6th instant, in the Irish Court of Exchequer, to recover the 2001. A person named Dycer had been the Bishop's agent inn the affair, and was the prin- cipal witness. Having made his bargain, he wrote to the Bishop that he had sold his horses to Lord Plunkett ; adding, " if sound, leaving your Lordship's yard, give them to the coachman." This was the pre.urned warranty. The horses, soon after delivery, were packed off again to the Bishop of Kilinore ; who re -
fused to receive them, and from that time to this they have remained at livery. the wrong horse, and that what I have said will go no further. It turned
Theknowing in horse-flesh differed in opinion as to the state of theanimals. The Bishop's witnesses swore that they were even now perfectly sound ; while Lord Plunkett's witness swore that they were not sound—that they had " corns in each of their fore-feet. The case occupied the Court a whole day. Its interest lay in the rank of the parties; and the examination of the witnesses afforded room for bandying small wit by the opposing counseL Mr. O'Connell appeared for Lord Plunkett. The Jury found for the reverend plaintiff—damages 200/.