The National Register. — London, England, 1808-07-31 00:00:00

a 494 THE NATIONAL REGISTER. had had criminal intercourse. Two other servants spoke to the frequent visits of the Defendant. Mr. Dallas, for the Defendant, made a most animated and elegant speech, in which he vindicated his innocence. He com mented on the singularity of the present action, which could he for no other purpose but the design of getting money from the pocket of the Defendant, a 4 for all the purposes of a divorce, the former action was sufficient. Ile observed, that in most questions of this kind two consdierations occurred, the fact of the adultery, and the quantum of damages. Upon the latter he should not have a word to say. The woman had, with a most base and crapulent appetite, debased herself to prostitution with her own coachman. For losing such a wife who could demand damages ? But he stood there to assert what the Defendant had before asserted, that he was not guilty of the fact imputed to him, and of this he hoped to convince the Jury. The learned Counsel then went into a minute examination of the evidence, and contended 4t did not bring home the guilt charged upon the Defendant. Lord Ellenborough having summed up, the Jury withdrew, and after a deliberation of two honrs, found a verdict for the Flaiutiff—Damages One Shilling. MONDAY, JULY 25. SIR JOHN CARR V. HOOD AND SHARPH. This was an action brought by the Plaintiff, to recover from the Defendants, booksellers in the Poultry, a specifir damage for an injury he had sustained, in consequence of a book 'tab lished by them, entitled " Ilinlß fur a righte Inerrie and eon ceitede Tour, in quarto, to he called The Stranger in Ireland, which, it was alledged, was written with a view to ridicule the Plaintiff's work, called A Stranger in Ireland, and generally to depreciate his reputation as an author, and hold him up to public derision and contempt ; the consequence was, that the Plaintiff had lost the sale of a manuscript w ork,entitled .1 Tour through Scotland, and had been others ise damnified and injur ed.—The Defendants admitted themselves to be th.! publishers of the Hints in question, and that it was written for the purpose of ridiculing. the Stranger in Ireland, but contended that they 11::(1 done it in the fair exercise of free discussion, and their just right of fair and honest criticism. Mr. Darrow addressed the Jury, commenting on the nature of the book in question, which he contended was not legitimate and fair criticism, and for the motives with which it was writ ten, he bade the Jury look to the frontispiece, N% hick he said was grossly personal and scurrilous. In that Sir John Carr was represented as the Stranger in Ireland, and the de scription to the plate makes him exclaim—" a blazing comet shakes its fiery tail over my head, and marshals me the way.— Yon behold a cloud before this erratic stranger—'tis Shake speare's, and very like a whale. The moon, my favourite star, smiles benignly upon my labours, and three wild Irish are for this night only seen flying in compliment to me."—The learned_ Counsel quoted other offensive parts, to skew a tendency tam ridicule the Plaintiff, and called upon the Jury for ample damages. Sir Richard Phillips was called to prove that he bad refused to purchase the Plaintiff's Tour through Scotland, from the prejudice he supposed the book published by the Defendants had raised against the productions and writings of the Plaintiff. But for that publication, he should have given him the same sum he had received for his Stranger in Ireland, his Tour through Holland, A Northern Summer, &c. namely, 4100/. Sir Richard said that he had not read My Pocket-Book, and he was not in the habit of reading publications of scurrility, and anony mous libels. He admitted that his name was to The (Word Review; and he had done so, that there might be one honest re view. Lord Mountnorris said, he had read Sir John Carr's Stranger in Ireland, from having previously heard that he had spoken handsomely of Ireland. Ile had also read the criticism upon it, and he had been deterred from purchasing Sir John's book in consequence. Sir Vicary Gibbs addressed the Jury. The Defendants, he said, had done nothing more than they were justified in doing, exercised just right of fair criticism, and the result of that criti cism was, that Lord Mountnorris, who had compared the Plain tiff's works and the critique together, had made up his mind not to purchase it, thereby proving the truth and propriety of the remarks upon it. The learned Counsel said, it was the lot of authors to have their works criticised, ancient as well as modern. The philosophy of Socrates was exposed by A risto pha.nes, Descartes was refuted by Sir Isaac Newton, and Locke JULY 31. overturned theitoctrines of Sir Robert Filmer. In short, the Defendants had done nothing more than perform their duty t o the Public as critics, and the Plaintiff had uo right of action. Lord lillenhorough said, that every man who wrote commit ted himself to the judgment of the Pnblic, and every one might comment upon his work. If the commentator did not step aside from the work, or introduce fiction for the purpose of con demnation, he exercised only a fair legitimate right. In the present case, the Plaintiff had embodied himself in his work ; the principal part of his tour was concerning himself, and there. fore placing him in Dubliu, and the long coach waiting for him, was not irrelevant to the subject. Had the party writing the criticism followed the Plaintiff out of his book into domestic lift for the purpose of slander, that would have been libellous, hut not otherwise. To repressjustcriticisin, would be extremely injurious to society. If a work was sent into the world that was likely to disseminate a had taste, or was destructive of public morals, it wits of the first importance to correct and ex pose it. Society in that case was inlebted to the critic. 'hi Lordship then alluded to the advancement of philosophy and science, by the opposition one great man had offered to another, and repeated the observations of the Attorney General on that subject. If an individual, he said, presented the public with an outline sketch of himself, that the public had a right to finish time picture ; and if the criticism was a fair one, the author . must take the consequences of it. Ills Lordship added, that he did not know of any more threatening to the Liberty of the Pres, than the species of action before the Court ; and he would again repeat, that if the publication complained of was a fair criticism, and the author had not travelled out of the work ;ie criticised for the purpose of slander, the action would not lie; but if the Jury could see any thing personally slanderous ioins po • it the Plainti ff , unconnected with the work he hal given to the Public, in that case the Plaintiff had his right to action, and they would find accordingly. The Jury consulted together a few minutes, and found for the Defendants. WINCHESTER ASiIZES, Jui 2S, ISM BEFORE MR. RARQN CR.111.131 AND A SPECIAL JURY.. Clllll. CON . COLON EL T. R. PO IV LETT V. LORD S cK v 1 L LE. This was an action to recover damages fur criminal conver sation s ith the plaintiff's wife—the damages were laid at 5000 t. Mr. Serjeant Lens, proceeded to state, that Lord Sackville had introduced himself to Mrs. I'owlelt as the friend of her husband, and that Ile had, on several occasions, taken advan tage of the absence of Colonel Powlett from his town house in Baker-street, North, and also his country resi dence at Southampton, to debauch the wife of his friend. It ►would appear in evidence, that on the 10th of June, in the last year, the Defendant effected his criminal purpose at an Inn, at Winchester, w hile Colonel Pow lett was gone on a water party. The facts were too glaring to admit of a doubt. The Defendant rank aggravated the offence, and the Jury were bound to visit his conduct with the utmost severity. Mrs. Ile!! lived at the White Hart, Winchester, two years and a half; remembered that on Friday the 10th of June. Mrs. P. came to the house, witness knew Lady P. very well. In abrut a quarter of an 11)..nr a chaise came with a gentleman. She did not know who he was; but since knew it was Lord S. Shortly after lie arrived, saw Mrs. P. walking across the hall. on the ground floor. Mrs. P. looked at witness as she passed; to the best of w itness's belief they did not notice each other as they passed, when Lord S. was standing at the door. Witness knew Nits. P. went up stairs, and saw Lord S. walk several times across the hall. Witness was desired, by her husband, to go up stairs. Witness went to the attic story first, and returned to the door on 2d floor, (No. 4, bed-rooml. Witness knocked gently with her knuckles. The Lady answered witness could nor go in. On this witness went to No. 3, the adjoining bed room, and found it locked ; both chambers communicated by inner doors ; one of the window s looked against a wall, and not the High-street. Witness then retired to No. 2, oil same floor.—Witness left the door of No. 2, open, and she could have seen any person pass to and fro : remained half an hOur before any thing occurred.-11'itness then went down, and sent the chambermaid Charlotte.—After the servant came tip, witness waited half an dour. Her attention was then attracted by the door opening, and the Lady came out--Mr). I'. asked the chambermaid for a towel from No. 4 door -11 it ness continued in \o. 2; Mrs. I'. stood at the door, and weut iii 1 ...We ri