The jury after a short deliberation found for plaintiff, damages 42s. I am not aware of any subsequent steps having been taken to set aside this verdict. Ex-Judge Willis was at the time away in England, prosecuting his appeal before the Privy Council; and a Melbourne newspaper, some months after, stated that a writ of execution had issued, and £1200 worth of the defendant's property had been sold for considerably under that amount, by Sheriff's sale, to satisfy the verdict and costs.
Prosecution for Libel.—28th November, 1843.
During the Municipal Election agitation of 1843, a violently scurrilous article appeared in the Herald, denouncing the candidature of Mr. Anthony H n for a seat in the Toyvn Council, and alleging that " H n's father yvas a convict assigned to his wife in Sydney, and that he had been convicted of an offence of frightful atrocity." T h e newspaper soon found out that it had made a great mistake, and had committed an act of the grossest injustice. A most unqualified apology was promptly published, and fifty copies of the paper containing the libel were destroyed. But this did not satisfy the H ns, yvho took out a warrant against Mr. Clarke, the registered printer and publisher of the Herald. H e yvas committed by the Police Court for trial, but upon Mr. George Cavenagh, the proprietor, offering to change places, Clarke was released and Cavenagh bound over to ansyver the charge at the Criminal Sessions. H e yvas accordingly arraignedforthe libel on a billfiledby the Crown Prosecutor, but conducted at the expense of the plaintiff, who was represented by Mr. Stayvell; whilst Cavenagh was defended by Mr. Williams. Defendant pleaded "Guilty," and was admitted to bail, himself in £ 2 0 0 , and tyvo sureties in bonds of £ 1 0 0 each, to appear for judgment yvhen called on. Cavenagh, it appears, had been misled by one of the swarm of groundless rumours circulated during the high pressure heat so characteristic of the early Municipal Elections, and there could be no question of the manner in yvhich H n had been calumniated. Cavenagh very soon found this out, and made all the amends in his power. During the period that intervened between the publication of the libel, up to, and after the trial, various certificates, declarations, and letters appeared in the other Melbourne journals, establishing the good name and fame of the H ns, and the falsehood of the libel, every iota of which Cavenagh had reprinted in the Herald. O n the 16th December, he appeared to receive sentence; and Mr. Stayvell, for plaintiff, prayed the judgment of the Court. Mr. Williams for defendant put in affidavits in mitigation, in which a dozen of the most respectable residents of Melbourne testified that for years they had heard and believed, up to trial, the report that Mr. H n, senior, was as set forth in the libel. Contra affidavits were alsofiled,including one by a Mr. Thomas Jennings, expressive of his belief that the story about H n had originated yvith H . N. Carrington, a well-known Attorney and a great mischief maker. Mr. Williams addressed the Court at much length. H e made a very forcible appeal to His Honor for leniency under the circumstances. Mr. Stayvell in reply submitted that the affidavits of the defendant simply aggravated the original offence. Judge Jeffcott took until the 18th to consider the affidavits, and on that day sentenced the defendant to afineof £ 5 0 , and three months' imprisonment, yvith further incarceration on non-payment of the fine. Mr. Williams applied for the remission of the imprisonment, which, if enforced, would ruin the defendant, who had a large family dependent on him, and the Judge intimated that he would have no objection if the prosecution consented. After a brief consultation, the consent was given, and the imprisonment cancelled. Thefinewas paid at once, and Cavenagh walked forth a free man. The Patriot, of which Cavenagh's enemy (Mr. Kerr) was editor, behaved throughout this matter with shameful indecency, and declared in its next issue that the prosecutor had never given any consent as to waiving the incarceration ; but as the assertion was not confirmed by reliable testimony, few, if any, gave it credence.
Conviction of a "Gentelman Rowdy."—16th March, 1844.
On the night of the 3rd February, 1844, six or seven inebriated " swells," freighted with more grog than brains, sallied out of the Melbourne Club for a "bit of a spree," determined to do something sensational. What particular form their heroism yvas to assume was undetermined, and depended very much
