The National Register. — London, England, 1820-12-10 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE. S COURT OF RUNG'S BENCH, TUESDAY, DECESHIER 5. LISEL...—CLEARY V. COESETT. This was an action brought by . the plaintif f against IVilliam Cobbett, for the publication of several _papers ! alleged to be libels and slanders " Cobbett's Weekly . Registers" of the 28th of November, the sth of De cember, the .12th of December, and the 26th of Dec.. 1819. Mr. Chitty opened the pleadings, and Mr. Brougham then addressed the Jury at great length. Mr. John Wright being called, produced a bundle of letters—he said he knew the defendant's hand-writing. lie received a letter from him, dated April 11, 1808. — Examined by Mr. Cobbett. He said he never was the defendant's clerk—he was his agent. He received the :ever which Mr. Cleary read in 1808. lit 1818, the witness took it to NIT. Place of Charing Cross, one of Sir Franciss Burdett's Committee, in consequence of some praise which Mr. Cobbett had bestowed on Mr. Hunt in his Register. He considered it necessary to phew that committee what sort of a person the defendant was. There were twenty or thirty persons in the room when he gave the letter. He was present upon a stand opposite the hustings when the letter was read by Mr. Cleary, but he only heard part of it. Mr. William Adams was one of the Westminster committee in the election of 1819. He remembered a letter was read on the hustings by Mr. Cleary. lie had no doubt it was the letter produced. He did not know Mr. Cobbett's hand-writing. Cross-examined by Mr. Cobbett.—He was one of the rump committee. He was one who advised the letter to be read. The witness said he did out consider the letter read by Mr. Cleary a private letter. The com mittee, in his opinion, were not testrained from making -any use of it. che letter was then lead. It was in substance:— " Dear send by the Gosport mail a parcel of copy—go to the committee. Let us suffer no little slights to interfere with our public duty. 1 will be in town on Saturday night, and if I find a ll good men and true, we shall make such a stand as has not for some time been made. All the gentlemen I meet speak in Sir Francis Burdett's praise. So determined am I for calling a pur gatiOn of that petition myself. There is one Hunt, a Bristol man, beware of him. He rides about the country with a w Have nothing to do with him, &c. Mr. William Jackson published the farewell address, and continued publishing. The first he published was N 0.15, of volume 32, on the 12th of July, I/417. He continued publishing till January, 1819, and accounted for the profits to Mr. Cobbett and his son for his use.— The first was the New York letter bearing date, the 5111 of December, 1818 ; it declared the letter read by Cleary to be a forgery. Secondly, the attack on Cleary. which accused hint of forging the letter, to obtain re ward from Sir F. Burdett. Thirdly, the libel stating remarks on Cleary, mounted on a white charger. The libel in verse, &c. Mr. Cobbett then lined Air Jackson.—He had sat down with him in a room in London. lie. did nut know whether Lord Cochrane was present. lie did not know where he first saw him, but believed it was in the King's Bench. Mr. Molyneux, the defendant's printer, stated, that the manuscript of the libels remained in his possession a considerable time. It was then given wp to Mr. ‘V. Cohhett. Cross-examined by Nlr. Cobbett —lle said he knew Mr. Cobbett's writing; had seen him write an order to Tipper and Fry, stationers, for paper. lie believed the . manuscript was in the writing of Mr. Cobbett. The defendant then addressed the Jury, and con tended that the plaintiff was the aggressor, and not emitted to one farthing damages, he concluded without calling any witness. After a most impartial and able charge from the Chief' Justice, the Jury retired from the box one hour and a half. On their return they pronounced a verdict for the plaintiff. —Damages 40s. 'WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER G. PHILBY S. BALL. This action was brought for slanderous words spoken by the defendant. Mr. Gurney stated, that the plaintiff was a respectable fanner in Essex. The defendant had been employed as bailiff. In a conversation he had with a Mr. Heath, he said, "There is as much difference between Hogg arid Philby as between a Christian and a Savage. Miny a poor man has been sent out of the country for less than Philby has dine, for he caught. a sheep in the lane and asked me to kill it, but I refused. lie is a thief, and I can prove it. Mr. Sahlirass sent three rams and three ewes, and he took one of the ranis and placed it with his own sheep. I saw one r..tit in l'inlby's premises, and I am ready now to swear it tit.f . orc a Magistrate." Noah Heath pro►ed the words the deiendaut used in his presence. Mr. Adolphus addressed the Jury for the defendant in mitigation of damages, doer bin the expressions to be made by an angry man. He had not the least intention to justify the words. The Jury found a verdict for the plaintill—Damages 40s. LIAIIILITY UP AN A'TORNL's.—REES V. RICH!. 'fins action was brought by Dr. Rees, assignee of Burgess, a bankrupt, apinst the defendant, all attorney, to recover a loss sustained by alleged misconduct on his part, in omitting to withdraw the record of a trial, and permitting the cause to be called on at Nisi Prius, in the absence of a material witness. The question the Jury haul to try was, whether the defendant had exercised a catnion in permitting the cause to come on. It appeared from the evidence that a person, named Burney, residing at Colchester, was necessary to prove an act of bankruptcy. It turned out not to be the duty of the defendant to procure the attendance of Burney. IN. Reel ilati nudattakett to bring tout ti!). t )❑ the - 7 :. -- - Monday preceding the trial the defendant called on Dr. Rees, and it appeared that Burney had not come to town. Ile then consulted with his client as to what was best to be done. Dr. Rees asked if ;he trial could not he put off? and said he would run no hazard. They finally agreed to bring op Burney from Colchester, thinking it possible to haee hint in town to be present at the trial. Under the expectation that the witness would be in town, the defendant brought down his witnesses to Westminster Hall; he then found the cause stood first on the list; he asked as 'wilier Burney was come, and was told that they supposed he was at one of the coffee houses getting his breakfast. The defendant relied on that statement, and allowed the cause to come on. Bur ney did not appear, and the plaintiff was non-suited. 11 was contended that the defendant had not exercised rea sonable care, in neglecting to send to the coffee-house, in order to ascertain whether the witness had arrived or not. If he hail withdrawn the record, part of the cx pence sustained by the plaintiff might have been avoided. Mr. Scar lett, on the part of the attorney, attributed the inconvenience sustained, not to any want of caution on the part of his client, but the fault of the plaintiff in not having the witness ready. The Chief Just ice said, if an attorney undertook to use all tcasonable skill in bringing a cause to trial, and afterwards omitted to use due caution.the plaintiff had a right to recover any loss occasioned by negligence or misconduct. The question for the Jury to consider was, whether its this case there was a want of reasonable caution The Jiffy found for the plaintiff—Damages 301. The Chief Justice said, after the verdict had been given, " This is a verdict likely to do a great deal of good. I ant clearly of opinion it is the duty of an attor ney to see with his own eyes the witnesses he meant to call. L that duty is not unposed on him, the greatest inconvenience may constantly arise." THURSDAY, DEC. 7. DONALDSON, V. PATTERSON AND ANOTHER. This action was brought by George Daniel Donaldson, formerly Collecting Clerk to a Distiller, against two of the Proprietors of the Mortatig Advertiser, in consequence of an alledged libel on the plaintiff's character, which appeared in that Paper on the loth of April, 1819. The damages were laid at 5001. Mr. Scarlett addressed the Jury. The first witness called was a Gentleman from the Slarop-office, who pro duced an affidavit, proving that the defendants were pro prietors of the Morning Advertiser. Mr. James Mallison from the Stamp Office, produced the Morning Advertiser of the 10th of April, 1819, which contained the alleged libel. It was read,—" Ott Thursday, Donaldson, late collecting clerk to Mr. John Woodhead, a distiller of Drury-lane, was committed front Bow-street for embezzling various sums of money to a considerable amount." Mr. Gurney then addressed the Jury for the defence. The paragraph was copied from another Newspaper, which the defendant well knew before he brought we action. The plaintiff had already hail his remedy against another paper CI he Aew Times) for the same article. He obtained ample damages in that instance, and lie ought not to have brought this action. The iflaintill waited on the editor of the paper, to make his complaint. The editor chewed hint the paragraph in another paper, and expressed his regret that he had taken a false report. The plaintiff asked to have it con tradicted, and the gentleman who conducted the ddva liscr mort willingly undertook to tcoirect any error, mid repair any injury he might have sustained. On the of April he Ciljed at the office, and on the 12th the Edi tor published this contradiction :—" The statement published in some of the papers, of Mr. Donaldson having been committed on a charge of embezzlement, is totally erroneous." The paper of the bath of April, containing the con tradiction, was then put in and read. The Chief Justice, after reading the libel to the Jany, observed, that it was au erroneous statement. The plaintiff was examined before a magistrate, and dis charged immediately. It was said the defendants ought to pay only reduced damages; and Mr. Mills was called to prove the paragraph was taken from another paper. Whether it was copied or not, e‘cry conductor of a newspaper was liable for his own misconduct.— The plaintiff said, it the contradiction was inserted he should be satisfied. The contradiction was made, and it was for the Jury to say, whether it was a fair and honest contradiction. They had also to consider what damages the plaimiffought to receive at their hands. The Jury consulted a few minutes, and returned a verdict for the pinintiff, damages 501. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. SATURDAY, DEC. 2. THE HACILSIEItt OACii ES V. 171 E STAGE COACHES. Just before the Count rose this day Sergeant Pell .rose and said there was a case in which lie was concerned which would only occupy a moment of tmle, and perhaps the Court would now hear it. Ile meant the paper on of Cloud against Fi ippery and Abbott. Mr. Shepherd said that lie was in the case at the other side with the Solicitor General, who was now engaged in the Court of King's Bench, and whose presence he thought most especial. The case was not trivial, but of great pub lic importance. Mr. Sergeant Pell was sure his Learned Friend would see the cause lay in a nutshell. (The hackney coaches and stage coaches!! ) He would state the facts, on which uo dispute could arise, in one minute. Mr. Cloud, the plaintiff, was the proprietor of a Hammersmith stage coach, which hourly plied to St, Paul's. In the course of last month a gentleman castle on two successive days, to Si. Paul's Church-yard, and had his place to Kensington booked in the plaintiff 's coach. He went in it 'accord ingly, but had himself on each day set down at Hyde Park Corner, shill paying the full fare as if' lie had one on to Kennington. This was considered a breach of the Hackney Coach Act by the commissioners, under whi.se warrant Mr. Cloud's stage and horses wcse seized by Frippery, and lodged in Abbott's yard, out of which they were not iteliveted back to the plaintiff mail he had paid ..-., THE IsTATIONAL REGISTER 111.1 s. that is SI. for each of two penalties, and Mts. costs. The Court knew there was an old Act of George the First, which provided that no coach should travel fur hire in the streets or liberties of the metropolis, unless previously licen sed as the law required berme the commissioners of hackney coaches; bnt there was also the Stage Conch Act of the late King, which provided that the penalties of the Act of George the East should not attach to stage coaches putting down passengers within the hills of mortality, such singe coaches nut travelling out of the regular line of their ply to de so. Mr. Cloud was therefore in setting down the St. Paul's passenger strictly conforming to the last law, and not liable to the penalty which he now sought to recover buck. If it were otherwise, the Court would at once see the un. warrantable extent and severity of the hardship. Suppose he (the Learned Sergeant) were to take his place and pay for it, in the Bath coach, and stop at the stage from Hyde. Pal k•corner, or ut the top of Piccadilly, why of comae they would call him a foul for his pains; but could the coachman say to him, or to any other Englishinaii„—" No, Sit., upon no account, and for no occasion, shall I let you down, lest the hackney-coach commissioners should fine me, you must go on to Bath, haying paid your fare, I will not stop in Pie. cxdilly." SS mild ally Englishman endure tins, and yet he must endure it, if the plaintiff did not obtain buck his penalty in this case. He was therefore ready to skew tile Court that Mi. Cloud was a regular licensed stage-coach proprietor, that the gentleman paid his full fare in St. Paul's Church yard, and was regularly booked to Kensington, hut set down by his desire at Hyde Park Corner, without the coach going one inch out of its line of road. Mr. Shephrrd said, that the importance of the case was this, The fare to Hyde Park Corner was only eighteen. pence in this manner by the stage, and the effect of permit ting such an arrangement must defeat the protection of the Hucktrzy Coach Act in Town. But the Court could nut enter upon this subject—it was already decided before the Commissioners, from wnuse judgment there was no appeal. He requested the Court would suspend the cause until the arrival of the Solicitor General. Mr. Sergeant Pell said, thut nobody could call upon the Court to disturb any judgment properly and competently pronounced ; but the Court could and must, when applied to interfere, if Magistrates or Commissioners exceeded their vested duty. That was the case here : the Hackney-Coach Commissioners had exercised a duty improperly, having levied a penalty which they had no right to impose, the Hammersmith stage acting precisely as the law warranted.— whole of the vet.) useful and convenient vehicles which tra versed the short rta••es about the metropolis were vitally interested in the decision of this question. Mr. Shepherd replied, and so were the hackney coaches, who paid a large duty, under the protection of the Com missioners. The Ch ief Justice said, he saw the importance of the in terests concerned in the issue, and he would certainly wait to hear the Solicitor-General. As it was now near four o'clock, the hearing must stand over until a future day. ttOND•V, MiIIiENIZER 4. The Solicitor General was engaged on the part of the Comissioners for Hackney Coaches to contend that the adjudication already lied In the cause was final. Mr. Sergeant Pell said, that he was on the other side and prepared to argue that the conviction mast be main tained. Indeed he thought the Acts of Parliament placed the emitter beyond all dutibt, nod leave but a ',lain simple case before the court. The Solicitor General asked if his Learned Friend was aware of the lath of the late Ling, and that it virtually repealed the preceding acts, that is the relative position that stage coaches had to hackney coaches, in their con trailistinguished mode of plying, a' laid down in the former acts. By the latter act any stage coach driver knowingly taking up a passenger, to let him down within the bills of mortality, was liable to the tine, and that was the present case. Mr. Serjealit Pell, after some further legal contro versy a ith the Solicitor General, was at length sitar:red to state his case, which was, the infliction of penalties amounting to 111. Is. by the Commissioners under the Hackney Coach Act, upon Mr. Cloud, the proprietor of a Hammersmith stage, fur taking up a gentleman in St. Paul's Chnich-yard, who paid his fare to Hammersmith, and letting him down at Hyde Palk Corner, that being within the line of the paved streets. He cited the various acts, and contended that the penalties being wrongly inflicted must he refunded. As to tlic case of the decision being final with the Commissioners, lie denied that that position could be supported, unless it was clear that they comb! be proved to have acted within the terms of the Act of Parliament. It was monstrous to suppose that if lie could 'hew they had not acted conformaldy to the law, their decision should not be revised. The Learned Ser geant concluded by reading the words of the clause in the act of Gerge the 111. upon which he relied, and which allowed stage coaches to take up passengers paying to go their full journey, in any part `, out of the paved streets" of the metropolis. The Solicitor General contended, that " cut of the paved streets;' meant to let the stage coaches to take lip when off the stones. It was meant exclusively, and nut After some further consultation between Counsel, it was agreed to make a case for the opinion of the court, and at present merely to give evidence of the facts. The Solicitor General admitted that Mr. Cloud was a duly licensed stage coach proprietor, and lie called upon Ir. Sergeant Pell to admit that the coach took up the passenger in St. Paul's Church Yard (certainly taking from him the money, and booking him the tell fare to lianintersmitb), knowing that he aas to be set down on the stones. Mr. Sergeant Pell refused to make this adusirion„ and evidence was adduced to take the opinion of the Juicy upon the simple tact, whether the driver of the stage took up (Mr. Lindsay, the name of the passenger) a person paying for Hammersmith, but knowing he was to let him down within Hyde Park Corner. Hobert Wells, the driver of the stage, proved hit hair hug taken up Mr. Lindsay on the allst and t2d of April s Mr. L. having previously booked his place at the Goose and Gridiron, St. Paill's Church Yard, fur HamoutstnitJy and paid Is. od. the full fare. He on each day let down Mr. Lindsay at the end of 114 If MM)11 Street, Plecadity, when ordered: but when lie took up the fare he was trot aw•rte the gentleman was to stop short of the full tare. The Solicitor Gencral then produced Daniel Wells, the informer, who said he hail seen fur several mouths Mr. Lindsay going three or four times during each week from St. Paul's Church Yard, after lie came from the L•'x change, ou his return home from May Fair. Sostietinsta lie used to he let down at the White Horse Cellar and at others the coachman wouid give tho slink to aoatl.