Star. — London, England, 1818-01-19 00:00:00

feelings of the plaintiff, and as they did not know his address, and as the contradiction to the libel stated him to be at the timent the elbow of Mr. Scott, the Proprietor of the Military Register, they wrote a letter to the lattet Gentleman upon the subject. Mr. Stott would prove that he did receive such a commu nication, in which the defendants expressed their deep regret, and requested that Mr. Gilchrist himself would dictate such an explanation and an apology as would be most consentaneous to his own feelings and disposition. They waited for some days for an an swer, but not receiving one, they repeated their ap plication, requesting an immediate reply. In the mean time, subsequent to the discovery of the error, another Number of the Hampshire Telegraph was published, but without an apology, as they waited for that which Mr. Gilchrist should return. From Mr. Gilchrist they received no communication, but they subsequently inserted such a contradiction as they thought most unexceptionable. It seemed not a lit tle extraordinary, that the plaintiff had taken no no tice to the defendants, either of the libel or of their letters. It was natural to suppose that a man so in jured would be the first to make application. Was his silence to be attributed to his own conviction, that moving about the metropolis, obvious to the eyes of , all his friends and acquaintances, a paragraph, stat ing him to have been sent to Port Jackson, could have but little effect ? Or was it that the plaintiff at that time contemplated an action to put damages into his pocket, and was therefore unwilling to have an early apology, lest his claim should be diminished? TUC Learned Serjeant did not impute any such rno tive to the plaintiff, and the less so, because in the, article in the. -Military Register, which seemed writ . - ten by his dictation,' aft action was deprecated. Had an apology been sent, however framed, it would have been instantly inserted. It appeared, therefore, that after having committed an error, the defendants had done all in their power to set it right. As to the amount of damages, in questions of character, it was difficult to say by what rale they were to be estima ted; the relative situation of the parties, the charac ter of the person injured, the motives of the pub lisher, judged by his previous and subsequent con duct, were the usual guides. By those, in this instance, the defendants were willing to abide ; and if the Jury could discover any thing like malice in their proceed ings, they would be content to be visited by exem plary and ruinous damages. If the Jury found rea son to believe that they had even been culpably ne gligent and careless, they were ready to endure the consequences. If it appeared that they had been re luctant to make amends, that they lend been tardy in doing ri t ht, after having done carol, 'let the com pensation be proportioned to their Misconduct. But if, on the other -hand, no malice could be discovered against as individual, of whom they knew nothing, but that the defe iaants had • been the victims of a s.:aie laid tvr them, and had been anxious to repair the injury they had inflicted, and that that atonement had been delayed by the conduct of the plaintiff him self, it then came to a• mere dry question of how much damages he was entitled to receive in a case stripped of all its aggravating circumstances.—The 'mom of the slander itself lessened its poignancy, far the appearance of the plaintiff in the streets gave a practical contradiction to the whole, and sufficiently displayed its untruth. Such being the case, would not inconsiderable damages to indemnify the plaintiff against costs satisfy the justice of the case? The pru dence and judgment of his Learned Friend•were well known, and it waseasy to imagine Mr. Brougham at a consultation with his client, representing that a vin dication would be completely effected by the result of the inquiry with inconsiderable damages, since that result within 48 hours would be diffused through every part of the United Kingdom. He (Mr. Brougham) would tell the plaintiff, that the defen dants could have indulged no malignant feelings, and they had done every thing in their power to apologize. " Your object (heavould say) cannot be to put money in your pocket. You are a British Officer complain ing of an injury done to your character. Can that in- , jury he repaired by money? You cannot, fora moment, I wish to make this a pecuniary case—it would be un worthy of your reputation, your station, and your pro fession. I advise you, therefore, after the proceeding has gone to a certain point, when the facts are completely before the public, and the refutation of the calumny indisputable, to declare yourself satisfied wi th a hale indanni y against the expenses you have incurred?' bush would be the recommendation of a prudent and even of a zealous advocate, and his Learned "Mend would no doubt accompany it with the ut most poignancy of reasoning. The Learned Serjeant hoped that this advice would be taken, not so much for the sake of his own clients, as for the character of Mr. Gilchrist himself. He belonged to a profession which the Learned Serjeant loved and revered, not more for their gallantry and bravery, than for their fenerosity and magnanimity. If the advice was not ollowed, the case would then come to a mere ques tion of pounds, shillings, and pence, to be estimated by the Jury in the absence of all malice, and in the presence of every exertion to atone and amend. Mt. William Hatton, Mate of the Convict Depot at Portsmouth, was the first witness.--He remem bered the arrival of the Larkins at Portsmouth in the summer of 1817. There were two young men of the name of Stewart first received on board the Capti vity convict ship; and they were removed to the Larkins; and after they were gOne, there was a re port among the prisoners in the Captivity, that one of the Stewarts was really named Gilchrist, and the other•Stepley, and that Gilchrist had said that be had belonged to the 101st Regiment, and that he was present at-the Isle of Wight when M.Guire shot his antagonist in a duel. The witness had had no conversation with them; but he met Mr. Mottley, one • of the defendants, its the Dock-yard at Ports mouth, between the 12* and the *-Wth of July, and told him this report. He bad only mcotioned it as a report current in the Captivity. The Stewarts were transported for forgery. On his crass-examination by Mr. Beoucirem, he said that the prisoners from the Captivity were em barked on board the Larkins on 10th of July. He believed that the Larkins did not sail till the lat ter end of that month. Mr.-Mottley asked no ques tions as to the crime for which the Stewarts were rattsported or any other circumstance. Mr. Robert Scott was next called, • but bef o r e h e we his evidence, he begged to set himself right w i t h ard to she frocccdings via fonder day. A n afg„ davit had then been produced, stating, that he kept out of the way to avoid being served with a subpoena. I The fact was 6therwise, and the person who made the affidavit had been guilty of nothing less than perjury. lie then deposed that he was proprietor, printer, and publisher of the Military Register. He had seen the libel in the Hampshire Telegraph, but it had been previously shewn to him by the plaintiff extracted in a London Paper. The plaintiff was in great distress of mind, bordering upon madness. In the Military Register of the Sth of August, a contra diction was published at the request of the plaintiff, the witness having previously received a letter from the defendants, which he had not been able to find. He subsequently received another letter, which he produced, and which he answered by return of post. In this letter the defendants requested the witness to procure Mr. Gilchrist to dictate such a contradiction to the libel as was satisfactory to himself. It was dated the 4th of September. The witness, when he saw the plaintiff; requested him to refrain from an action, but he complained of the tardiness of the apology. He never dictated one. The plaintiff had returned no answer, because no letter was addressed to him. The witness, in his answer, stated such an apology as he thought ought to appear, and it did appear in the deen - dant's next publication. The letter of the 4th September, and the Hampshire Telegraph containing the apology, were both read. Mr. BROUGHAM, in relyallterViel that the de- 1 fence anticipated by his Learned Friead had signally broken down, when he brought faith his evidence to support it. If even, however, it had been proved, it would have been quite insufficient to justify the con duct-of the defendants, for no Editor should be per mitted to let fly his arrows at random, and rankle in the breasts of whoever they may happen to hit in this wanton manner. The mate (Hatton) had merely heard, at second hand, a rumour among the convicts of one ship relative to some person or persons on board another; but the defendants thought proper to embody the rumour into a formal libel against the plaintiff, and to rake up all the scandalous im putations the/ could invent against his character.— He explained the reason that this case was not tried in hampshire to be, that the libel was published af ter the last Assizes, and could not be tried until the next, in March, a period too rempte for the effectual vindication of the plaintiff's character, which could only be done by a formal legal inquiry, and a full verdict of a Jury. This, it was said, did not become an officer. To such an assertion he would reply, that the most distinguished military characters had not hesitated, on more ten ler grotmds than could arise in this case, to seek that mode of reparation, not so mach indeed as its conveying any adequate balm to wounded feelings, but from its being the only effec tual way of punishing the author or their calamity. The Learned Counsel paid Mr. Scott a high compli ment for his conduct on this occasion, and referred the Jury, in.estimating the damages, to his expres sive declaration of the state of the Plaintiff's feel ings when he called upon him, and which were well described as being that of a state of madness. His Learned Friend, it seemed, knew not only what passed at his own consultations, but what occurred within his (Mr. Brougham's) brick walls--but he could assure him that his ,surmise was erroneous; for be had advised the plaintiff to pursue the course he had done, from a full persuasion that the only effectual way of setting himself right was by a legal inquiry and the verdict of an intelligent Jury. As to the motive of the defendants, be it malice, or be it not, he cared not one merely looked to the tendency of their con duct on this particular oc casion, and the gross and unfounded calumny which they had disEemina.ed against his client, winged on the most respectable news tpers throughout the country. It was no reparau in of so aggravated an act to sa7-, they were ready to insert an apology, or retractation. Any man might escape if such a pro-, ceedingwere tolerated. The Learned Counsel con cluded by enforcing the claim of the plaintiff for ex emplary damages, under the strong circumstances of his case. The DEPUTY SUER!?? summed up the evidence to the Jury, who,'after a short consultation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, Five Hundred Pounds. This case excited considerable interest. The Court was crowded at el very early hour. Mr. Gilchrist and several of his brother Officers and friends, who came to speak to his character, were present. In the Court of Chancery, on Saturday, in the case Hawes v., the Commissioners for inclosing Twicken ham Common, Charles Simmonds, Esq. and others, Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY applied for an injunction to restrain the defendants from converting an ancient pond upon Twickenham Common, from which the neighbouring inhabitants had from time immemorial enjoyed very great and important advantages, into pri vate property, under the powers of the Inclosure Act. Mr. WRAY supported the motion, and the Injunction was granted. At the Court of King's Bench on Saturday, in ilia, case of the Assignees of Mayor gr. Patton and another, Mr. ScAtmerr, for the plaintiffs, stated, that this was an issue directed from the LORD CHANCELLOR, to try the validity of a certain conveyanre, executed by the bankrupt, bearing date the 31st of December, 1813, by which he conveyed to Mrs. Mayor, by her marria . r settlement, his right and titre to a c erta i n house,)ituate in the Circus, near the Reger.es Park ; and also the validity of a second conveyance, givink to Mrs. Mayor certain furniture and effects, whicF. were in several houses, the property of the bankrupt. The allegations were, that the conveyance of the house was intended to defraud the creditors, and that the furniture was never out of the bankrupt's posses sion. Several witnesses were called to prove that, previous to the execution of these deeds by Mr. Mayor, he was in a state of insolvency. The Jury found a verdict for the Plaintiff on both issues. Bow Britur.—John Antonio, a r.ative of Porto Rico, one of those sturdy beggars who infest the west end of the town, particularly the r.eighbourhood of Bend -street, was brought bef ore M r . HICKS on Satur day, by Humphreys and Bond, in consequence of a complaint from the inhabitants. The prisoner parti cularly attacks those in carriages, who stop at shops, &c. when, if the doors and windows are closed, he opens them, and is very abusive to the servants. Ile was committed to Bridrwell for a month. • 1 i ' . i . 1 I t ‘1 i f 1 : I • 1 i. 1 ' . I , I ' r r ..: I yy ~,t , , . „ ~ i I ; 1 1 t i ' i . 1 1 $ kr .. 4 i ;', 'l ~ i i 1 ', 1 i . 'li , 1.. . ( . , i 4 li I. ' p, {0 OLD BAILEY, JANUARY 17. Fri Man Kdly, aged 15, and Thomas Spicer, aged' 17, were arraigned under a charge of forgery, and; uttering a Si. note, knowing it to be forged, with in tent to defraud the Government and Company of the Bank of England. William Kelly was brought up to plead on Friday, and in consequence of his per sisting to plead guilty, the Court very humanely sent him back, in order that he might reflect a little upon the act. The question was put to Kelly again in the ' usual form, on his being brought up this day, and he obstinately persisted in declaring his guilt, asking, " How can I plead not guilty when I am conscious of my guilt ?" The prisoner was warned several times by the Judge upon the Bench that his pleading guilty would be no excuse to him, and earnestly ad vised him to take his trial, but it was all of no avail ; Kelly was still, however, obstinate in pleading guilty, and declared that Spicer was innocent. The other prisoner, Spicer, pleaded not guilty to the charge,mnd was_put upon his trial accordingly. mr. Justice Assort summed up, and the Jury found both the Prisoners guilty—Death. Jamas Seckerson, a weaver, residing near Pollards , row, Bethnal-green, was put to the bar, upon an in- dicunent whidi charged him with having feloniously forged and uttered as true, knowing -to be forged, a , note, purporting to be of the value of M. with intent' , to defraud John Sense; or the Governor and Com pany of the Bank of England. Mr. Serjeant BOSANQUET stated the circumstances of the case to the Jury ; after which witnesses were called to prove the facts, as set forth in the indictment- John Scrase stated, that he was a shoemaker, re siding at No 68, Middlesex-place, Hackney-road. On 4th December last, at half past six in the evening, the prisoner came to his shop and bought a pair of pumps, which came to 10s. 6d. in payment of which he gave witness a 5/. note. Witness asked him where he lived, and he pointed through the turnpike, and said, " just through." Witness asked him, " Newmarket Ter race ?" he said " Yes," and that his name was Mason. Witness wrote upon it " Mason, Newmarket Terrace," and gave the prisoner change in four 11. notes, and the rest in sill er. He then lighted a segar, and went away. About three weeks afterwards the note was returned as forged, but no such person as the prisoner described hiw silfcould be found in NewmarketTerrace. ' This was the primary charge, and several witnesses were called to prove other similar utterings with a guilty knowledge.. The Prisoner being called on for his defence, put in a very long written one, w hich stated, that the whole prosecution arose in conse quence of his unfortunate likeness to a person who must bare committed the offences charged to him. His habits of life were honest and industrious ; when he had work to do, he generally worked J 2 hours a day, and as to the day spoken of by Mr. Scrase, hei should be able to prove, most incontesiibly, that he was otherwise employed. Witnesses were then called who proved an alibi ; and several respectable persons gave the prisoner a most excellent character for honesty, industry, &c. Mr. Justice PARK, in summing up the evidence, observed, that it would be for the Jury, upon their solemn consciences, to say whether the prisoner was guilty or not. If they should not be of opinion that he tittered the particular note in question, then they could not find him guilty, for the ether counts were , only to slim the felonious uttering, and unless the witnesses were perjured, it was impossible that the pri soner could have passed the note on the 18th of No vember. He trusted that Con would guide them to a right conclusion. The Jury retired for ten minutes, and found a ver dict of Not Guilty, It was received with loud ap ; probation by a very crowded Court. PRICE OF PORTER. In these distressing times, when that portion of the Public who form the strength and support of the na tion, find unexampled difficulties in procuring the means of bare subsistence, every man who exerts-him self to improve their c ondition, and protect them against monopolists and extortioners, is a real friend of hurnan. nature. We are therefore delighted to find that a public-spirited individual purposes to call a Meeting to consider the means of counteracting them combination of the Brewers of Porter. This has long been a most crying eyit; and after the exposures that were made to the Committee of Parliament in the Session before the 14st, respecting the abuses in licens-' ing public-houses, we are astonished that the subject has been suffered to lie thus long dormant. With respect to the late advance on Porter, we shall be able clearly to prove, that it is a most unjus tifiable imposition on the Public, for which the only motive that we can imagine, is sheer avarice. The' Porter Brewers appear determined that their annual profits shall not diminish ; and as there is reason to' believe that there has been a mates ial falling-off in 1, the consumption during the last six months, their , object seems to be, to make up for the deficiency by an increase of price for the next ! But before we enter into some plain calculations on the subject, we shall just desire the Public to observe, that the Ale Brewers of the Metropolis, who Isave the same reasons for an' advance, if any exist, have suffered their prices to con tinue as they were before the last rise on Porter—a wise precaution, if working people could bepersuaded' that Ale is more salutary than Strong Beer. But a e have no hesitation in asserting, that as it is brewed in London it is not; while the price operates against its general introduction, it being 9d. and 10d. per quart. But there is still a more material fact, to shew the ur.justifiable conduct of the Beer-brewers, in not hav ing long since reduced, instead of having advanced the price or their comppund, and that is, that the Minister has kindlythrownnearlythe whole of the WarMahDety into their pockets ! Surely, when any tax is taken off, it is the Public who hare a right to reap the benefit. But as they have not derived any on this occasion, nor are likely, as far as we can judge at present, the sa gacity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer must shew him the propriety of substituting another Tax on Malt, in preference to the obnoxious attempt to in crease the Window Tax, which has excited general indignation. It cart hardly be imagined, without the trouble of a little arithmetical calculation, what an enormous sum the additional halfpenny per quart puts into the pockets of the United Cowpony of Brewers, t:lt all over th e Kingdom I B ut t h ey h ave been s uffered to play the game of a halfpenny on and off for some years, with what justice shall be seen. In the years +1 ISI2-1814, Porter was so, period the price of Malt w Hops 161. 16s. per cwt. A beginning of 1815. from s, (probably the want of rpecu and Hops to only 71. 7s. Vet proper to lay on an addition' (in February, 1815), in the t and patriotism, made som place, on this extortion, and Mr. Whitbread, that the Br cessary to make this adranc it off, bvt to make the arti, say that this strong promise I for the badness of Porter wit been a topic of universal co The present price of Ma quarter, and of Hops, in ba) if, when the prices were 98s could afford to sell Porter these Gentlemen, wAo know for Hops, would inform us 1 this time be more than 4kd. that the Peace has confer which may be mentioned, i and the carrying coastwise But on the point of the last ,take a half-yearly statemen rels of Porter brewed in Lc haar ending at Christmas ve seen) and calculate fia urpence per pot, or 86s 'it should be. Then, when 1 ooght to be sold at sd. as a ,tortsu the instant, of what an enor actually robbed in half a y nary combination. The a London and its environs is, millions of barrels oyear year, 1 by an additional Id. per pa mption of the whole k &nu of barrels i and, as the regulate their prices by tho profit to this all-commanc amounts to four millions Foetid: per year ! CLERICAL IN: CAMBRIDGE, Professor Coristian has resign of England in the ELst-Irdia C Hon. Court of Directors hare gra OXFORD, IA Wednesday, the first day of Le men were admitted to degrees : The Rev. Harry Bristow Wil. of St. Mary Alderrnary, and St. don ; Grand Compounder. ;:yt, c r. Arthur Matthews, l'elies Me Rev. John Watkins, &MI The Rev. James CharnOck, of Mr. him EMoct, of L. Ed ruin MR. lii U= Itabiosoa, of :MN ECCLESIASTICAL Tfie Rev. W. Er-salty, H.A. is Frinton, with Shape annexed, Rev. C. Crook, M.A. Reetor o Chapbina of the Pripet Regent. Rev. W. Snowden, to the va:ut Rev. H. A. Pye, Pye, M.A. to thedral Church of w,rcusv:r. Mr. JOHN G REENWOOD, a 24 years, and seccad son of t WOOD, Esq. of Leed 3. banke ley, on Saturday se'nnight, fractured his skull He linj noon, when he died. We feel pleasure in publi as transmitted to us, in cons which appeared in our Pape that general and dangerous TO THE EDITOR Snt—Observing a paragraph in of an Hernia, performed (of a lag at Charlotte House, Great Chsrlo justice, Sir, to Messrs. COOPEI personal testimony. I las ins beer and deemed incurable by eminent affilction, expecting every hour ts plied to the Medical Board, and eueelket Establishment, for sick° Ifeetly Lured in a few weeks, and bealth.—l think, Mr. Edkor, all I can have no other motive for thi benellt.--I am, your obedient Dog and Stile, near London-no Fields, October, Is MARii On Saturday the 17th instant„ --- 1 Very Rev. the Dean of Canterbt Hussars, A. D. C. to Major-Gem and third son of Sir John Keane, ter; and alto John Grove, d.D Thomas Grove, Esq. of Fern, in Helen, fourth daughter of Si Ni At Enda (after publishing his Under, to Miss Peggy ButteralL inbtance took plate in the same pa the 3filliStti married the Cleres At Fawley, Hants, the Rev. L Yorkshire, to Mary Bata, only loath, of Hadley C.ottago, tear Lately, at Rowney, Haste, Ph New College, to Jane, youngest da ford, Y.sq. of Orhorne, in the Isle On the 7th instam. at Beverley Sibthorpe, Fellow of Eaeter Colle Colonel Sibthorpe, of Canwick Esther, eldest daughter of Henry DIE: In South Audley-street, on the Fcq. late of Arnimll, in the Coui ther of James Brodie, of Brodie, On Christmas-Day, at his Chain' been a resident upwards of 40 yeas At South Care, in his Stith yeas Rector of Wytham, Lincolnshire. At East Dcxiaao, the Rev. E. Aged 50, tbr Rev. T. Bedford, wall, and late ce Pettbroke Hall, At Blandford, the Bev. Robert • PRICE OP STOCK. Bank Stock Red. 801 81 81Vit Coes. SOllif ex. dm. 4 per Ct. 981 99; 991 Navy 105}in ex. div. Long Anas. 20 j 15-16 HIGH WATER AT LOND Morning Memo= LONDOIst ; l'rinted :nd pvtAls I'Lce, Yew