The National Register. — London, England, 1811-01-20 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL REGISTER associating as he does with such convicted traitors as Despard' Lemaitre, and O'Connor?"—understood the defendant to mean the plaintiff, Lesnaitre—had no doubt that he meant him. Cross-examissed by the AT TO N ley NER A L.-••• That Meet ing was not called by Mr. Quin—it was called in consequence of a requisition—Mr. Quin's name was among the signatures to that requisition—the business was parliamentary reform—not the only business of the meeting—the late alarming assumption on the part of the House of Commons was one of the promi nent features of the discussion, as also the character and con duct of Sir Francis Burdett—heard the conduct of the House of Commons iu that instance reprobated—not severely repro bated—in his judgment not severely—could not ' , lye three lines from Mr. Quin's speech, though he heard it all—remembered Mr. Jacks' words, because they contained so severe an attack upon his friend. Attorney-General, " Did Mr. Quin or any other - orator praise Sir Francis Burdett ?" Witness,—" I heard several of those who spoke approve of his conduct." Attorney- General—Extol him as a patriot of thelir.vt water ! In the same • way as I might praise Sydney or Lord Russell ? Mr. Jacks, however, entertained a different opinion ? Witness—He did. Attorney-General—He controverted that point ? Witness—He tried to c.. ntroverLit. Attorney-General—Oh, but he did con trovert it? Witness—That is matter of opinion. Attorney- General—lt is matter of factsand you have proved that fact ; in short, you don't understand the meaning of the word contro verted (A laugh.) Mr. Quin was the next witness called. He was present at the meeting of the Common Council in June last—witness spoke --defendant also spoke—he was as near the defendant as lie then vas to his Lordship—Mr. Jacks spoke after the witnes:;— be could not pledge himself to the exact woi els, or to more than the subl,tance—Mr. Jacks said, that he diCei - ed more widely than witness did from the political doctrines of Sir Francis Burdett—he (the witness) having previoasly stated in his speech, that he did not agree in ail the doctrines entertained by Sir Francis Burdett—the defendant then took occasion to re mark, in speaking of Sir Francis, " who bad associated with such traitors as Despard, Lemaitre, and O'Connor."—witness could not speak distinctly as to the arrangement of the names— slid slot know whether the name of Lemaitre cr that of O'Con nor followed next after that of Despard, but was sure Despard was the fi rst name mentioned—Mr. Jacks' words excited a ge neral burst of indignation, and a ory of shame ! shame !--- thcre was no apology offered by the defendant. Cross-examined 4 i!e Attorney-General. You gave notice of this meeting; you summoned it ? Witness—l did not; I had no such power. - Well, Sir, I am unacquainted with the forms of the Common Council; but were you not one of the persons who signed that Requisition?—Unquestionably. You spoke that day ; did you not ?—I did. You talked of the alarming assurnp. tion of the House of Commons?—l did. Mr. Jacks was of a different opinion ?—He was. There were some fire speeches on that day ?—Mr. Jacks made a fine speech. Was there much speaking ?—Some of the speeches were of half an hour's conti nuance. Rather long, Mr. Quin ?—I am not to judge of that. I was not asking ycn, Mr. Quin, your opinion of your omen speeches (a laug); but was there not a good deal of earnest ness, of vehemence among the orators ?—There was earnest ness, perhaps, not vehemence. You are the Editor of the Traveller ?-1 am not ; I am the Proprietor of that concern. Did you edit that paper containing the report of the proceedings in the Common Council on that day ? To be the best of my re collection I did not.—To the best of your recollection ! Why,, can't:you recollect the fact whether you did or did not edit it on ' that day ? I cannot. lam anxious to answer every question in the fullest manner I can. I cannot say particularly that I did or did not edit the pazaer on that day ; but this I can Lay, of the re port that appeared in the Traveller, that not a line of it was writ ten by me.—Are you notthe Editor of some other paper? lam connected with another.—Did you edit that paper upon this occasion ? I can answer this question only as I did the other re lating to the Traveller, and upon the same principle.—What principle-? That I cannot recollect whether I did or not ; though 1 take it for granted that I did not.—Will you swear that you had not seen the account of that debate before it appeared in those papers ? 1 might possibly have seen it ; but I did not read it. ‘, Will you take upon yourself to swear that you did not edit those papers on the day following that debate ?" Witness — I cannot. .114 i. James, a partner of Mr. Jacks, examined by Mr. GA R.. VI.--•(` Is not Mr. Jacks a Government Contractor for great coats for the Army ?" Witness, No; he only renders water proof coats. Mr. GA aitow-011! he renders those coats—does he ?—well! • renders is a new name fur contracting—( laugh ! ) Witness, I mean he renders the coats water-proof. Mr. GA RR OW understand you, Sir,—look at that paper— is that the hand-writing of Mr. Jacks ? Witness—.No ; 'tis tune. Witness tints stated, that the pap (Mr. Jacks's answer 47 to Mr. Lemaitre), had been written down by him according to the dictation of Mr. Jacks; it was dated the 14th of June, 1610, and was as follows : " I have spoken to several of my friends who were present at the Court of Common Council on Wednesday last, none of whom remember to have heard the words imputed to me by Mr. Lemaitre • several have no recollection of his name having been mentioned, and I have not oty , erved that any of the news pancrs have noticed that circumstance ; apprehending, however, that as a Member of the Corporation of London, I have an ma.- cioubtcd privilege to deliver my opinions freely in that Assembly on public ineasiin.s, and also on men, whose conduct has came before the public view, I feel no disposition whatever to apolo gize to any one, for any sentiment or language uttered by me, in the execution of my public duty on that occasion.—June 14, 1810." AVlreVs aithman was the next witness called- , he was present at the Conn of Common Council; Mr. Jacks sat opposite to hint. The defendant, speaking of Sir Francis, said, as nearly as wit ness could recollect, " who had associated with such traitors as Despard, Lemaitre, and O'Connor." Lvrd EL LENROROUSII- 44 Pray Mr. Waithntan, was there any conte uporary, circumstance which occurring then, served to fix the memory of those expressions on your mind more forci bly ?"—Witness, " certainly, my Lord, my mind was the mores sirongly directed to those expressions by the burst of indignatiou which they had excited around me." ATTORNEY-GEN ER A Then it seems it was the burst or imdiguatton which first directed your attention to those express sions?"—Wicrite,s, " It served to fix the memory of them more strongly on my raind." Attorney-General, " Did you take any part in that burst of indignation ?"—Witness, " It is probable f did." Attorney-General, " You, then, were one of those who cried shame?"--Witness, " I dare say dit' cry sham-." Attor ney-General, " And your own cry of shame directed your at tention to the expressions that excited that cry ? You will not say that, I am sure, Mr. Waithinan !"—Witness, " I have not said it ; I say only that the general expression of disapprobatieu" --Attorney-General, "Excited your aitcntion to those words - Witness, " Fixed it, rather; fixed my attention more strongly." Mr. GAMOW —Here I rest my case. The Al Tote N EV-0 EN Ea ;., before he entereo on the Defen dant's case, begged leave to submit to his Lordshi? that the cafe of the had not been made cut. The first count must be given up at once—the words stated in the remaining five had not beeil proved. This is an action for words uttered, we can therefore have nothing to do with reference drawl; from werds not laid in the action. The indictments runs " For that he spoke these words"—Let them prove these words, otherwise they cannot maintain their action-s-an action of slander can have uo other foundation th4tt the specific words complained of. Lord ELLENROROUCti" The five first counts trust he given up ; then as to the sixth, where am I to look in the evidence for the certain words?' the word traitor is proved, but nothing more. Mr. GARROW—Then your Lordship may reserve the point. Lord ELLE:NROROUGH-1, must take on myself the responi!- bility—the allegations have not been made out—there must be a nonsuit. Tht‘AT TOnNET•GENEE An then said " My Lord, I am au thori2ed by Mr. Jacks to state that he has no doubt upon his mind he never used the words imputed to him as ascribed to Lemaitre." Mi. We understood then, that in consequence of the apology offered by Mr. Jacks, of his never having intended to use the expressions imputed to him, Mr. L. was induced to withdrew a Juror, its preference to the nonsuit ofkred by the Court. THURSDAY, JAN. 18. RUDDER AND CO. V. SMIDTZ. The plaintiffs are respectable Jewellers and Silver-smitbs,, carrying on business in Eondon and at Birmingham, and the defendant is a Dutch merchant.—lt was an actiotibreught to re cover 2701. for jewellery goods, sold and delivered to a man named Buller, a bankrupt, of whom it was alleged the defen dant had given the plaintiffs a false character to obtain credit. It appeared in evidence, that the defendant called at the plaintiff s in June 1809, and said he had a customer to recum mend him, and in a day or two afterwards brought Mr. Buller in his hand, and they looked out together, goods to the value of 1271. and in.the month of August following, they called,together again, and selected more goods to the value of 1401. odd. The Court asked the witness whether the plaintiff's were to give the defendant any pecuniary curl6idvration for recommend ing them this customer ; to which he replied, that his employ ers were to give 10 per cent. on the goods sold, and he bad been in that proportion paid for goods purchased by Mr. Buller. Lord ELLY.NR , )RoUim hire irterpos! 1, and said " that this was a CvVClti,il:: Yillitib the law woui J. not endure. It Ws , ase " • A.'" 1 , .4, 0........ e., 4 11 P 4.