The National Register. — London, England, 1809-07-02 00:00:00

illi . .._ . _ 450 ----...... IraMut, yet the Jury, if they .gave any damages, could have no ieCurity that they would be appropriated to her benefit. linked, the father, by his own conduct, had cut off all hopes of an honourable alliance far his daughter, for w hat respoctahle parent would wish his son to marry into a family where such an ex ample had been set before the daughter. Lt was her own father, and mit his client, who had cut off her hopes of a respectable marriage; Ile was sorry also to add, that the conduct of this unhappy girl was such as might hase been expected from such an example before her eyes. She confessed that she had nodded and beckoned to his client to hen an utter stranger to her ; she had gone under the appellation of Mrs. Gore among her com panions at Kingston, and by her forwardness she seemed quite ready to fall into the arms of Captain Cote; or of any one else. The fruit was so ripe that it was ready to fall without plucking; and though he would not extenuate the conduct of his client, yet he wished that the Jury would make some allowance for the cul pat& imprudence of a young man not more than 28 years of age, whom passion and opportunity had incited to conduct that was certainly criminal. Ms client, like many other branches of noble families, though amain of rank, was poor ia pocket ; and • though he allowed that the Jury must find a verdict for the plaintiff, yet lie trusted that the circumstances w h;ch had come • out would induce them to give very moderate damages. The Chief Baron, in his charge to the Jury, then proceeded to sum up and comment upon the evidence. They had been told by-the Learned Counsel for the defendant, that if a man seta sad' au evil domestic example as this plaintiff appears to have done, it could hardly be supposed that bis feelings could be very acute, or his loss great, on an occasion of this unhappy sort. But it was to be considered, on the other hand, that the plaintiff had brought this woman into his house at a period when his daughter was a mere child, incapable of remonstrating on her father', conduct ; and also that this y . oung woman was only lately re turned from school, where her mistress had given a very g 44444 areount of her conduct and behaviour. We had also heard of several levities on the part of Miss Strange, which were unbe coming a virtuous girl. But here the Jury would probably think it but fair to make some distinction. Were a woman of, the age of ter entv, or more, to nod to a Man she did not know, it might be perfectly significant, and easily understood; but it wonld he third to interpret too severely the levities of this girl, who in fact was a mere infant, of little mute than fourteen years cCage. They would carefully distinguish between the signifi cant >ies of a grown up woman and the levities of a child.-- Tilers was a great deal of the appearance of inirigue going on in the business. The defendant first applies to the servant mail, Jane ii:cAs, anJ gains her 0 v.er to his purposes. While he send, to Miss Strange some grapes, he aecompanies them w ith a one pauod note to this Jane Tile business was pretty nearly done when he got this young creature to . drink wine saith him at his lodgings, and the conduct of Leycester, in getting a way her companion, had very much the appearance of a settled plan for the seduction of this unfortunate girl. It was quite clear, that a verdict mustbe given for the plaintiff, and he left it entirely to the goad sense of the Jury to determine the amount of the damages. The Jury then withdrew for n few minutes, rini on their re turn gave a verdict for the plaintiff—Datnages 15CO1. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, THURSDAY. JUNI; 28. LIBEL. TUE EARL OP LEICESTER V. TUE PROPRIETORS, &C. Or TILE kIORNING lIERA I.D. This was an action for a libel again,t the printer, publisher, and proprietors of the Morning Herald, for a libel. '11;e damages were laid at 20,000!. Mr. Serjeant Best stated the case on the pnrt of the Plaintiff. it was an action against the publishers of a new simper, fora libel of such a nature and such malinity, pt-r:mps was never before complainei of in a Court of Justice. %Viten he stated that the damages were laid at 20,0001. he would add, that he did nut think justice would be done to his client, if any thing less than that sum were awarded. No dainavi could be a re paration for the injury which the character of his client must suffer from such a publication ; the libel was not only false, but must have been known to have been false by those who pub lished it. From the enormity of the offences imputed to his Lordship. the libellers must have known it was•tintrue ; or if they aonld be supp'osed capable of inserting such falsehoods, without making the slightest enquiry respecting thew, they ought not to be permitted to conduct a newspaper for another day. They had added to the libel itself, (Arr.,. thing which THE NATIONAL ItEGISTERi JULY 9. could sharpen its sting, and add io its venom. :It was to be re membered, that in the reign of Charles the First, there was a • monster of the name of Lord Andles, wno had been tried, cons if tril, and executed for unnatural offences, and for as offenee w Licit (ibaills (lad) there had been ao inststace of since that time—that of assistieg his servont iu cominitting a rape npon his nwn w ife. The libel in the Morning Herald was a para graph in the fid of December, ISDS, to the following effect : " Articles have been exhibited against a Noble Lord by his Lady, similar to the articles w bleb were exhibited by Lady radars against her Lord, upon which he was convicted arid deservedly executed ; but in the present instance, there were rircum‘takees of far greater atrocity." Now, as to this libel, he should first ask, is it true or false ? It was unquestionably false; for, if such articles had been exhibited, the Defendants could have proved them from the office, at Doctors' Commons, tv here such articles must have been filed. This ;barge, then, as false as it was wicked, the Defendants must have known to be or they could easily ascertain that it was false, by taking taking the pains to iequire at Doctors' Commons, before they iaserted it. On the sth of December, the fallowing ;.aragrapll was bisected ;—" The wretched son of an English Marquis lizs absconded, on charges which Lady C. (Chantey heiog his title, when the old Marquis of Townshend was - alive) has oxhibited against him. A special warrant has been issued for apprehend ing this Lord, whose infamies have long rsudered him a disgrace to human natter." This special warrant, for ap prehenditi the Pli;sntifT, was a pure invention of the writer of the paragraph. As a proof of the .malicious motive in which these publications origheced, he should state, that in the month of April preced ing, a paragraph had been put in the Morning Herald, announc ing the separation of Lord Chariley and his Lady, at a time en they were living affectionately together. For this libel, however, they apologized; and the being obliged to apologize for that libel, and having been forgiven on account of such apo hog v, should have made them c ircwas pert, and prevented them asain from libelling the same Noble Person, without inquiring into the truth of the matter which) they inserted. It appeared to hint, that every thing they had dune since the publication, a 9 well as before it, shea ed the malice by which they were actu ated. For that purpose, e xcept increasing the anguish of his mind, and the distress of his family, could 1 he de feadants have subpannied (as theyhave done): he Marquisov Ito was the father of theplainia, Iris d .4111(1 almost all iris relations, to be their witnesses ? They also knew that his elieot, who was only a Lord by coartesy, bad not the privilege of peerage ; and that his affairs were so mu c h cooharras•ed, that he mast he immured in prison for debt, if his residence w known, and therefore they had even applied for a Judge's summons, in order to discover hi. residence, nut their ap plication was refused. They doubtless wanted, by the threat of having bizn imprisoned for debt, to beltice him to abandon this act'on. In considering the malignity of this libel, and the injury it %ca.; likely to do, it must be recollected what a horror the British nation entertained against the vice so imputed (and God preserve that horror.) It was so great, that let a man, charged with this vice, prove his innocence of the charge ever so fatly, still a certain degree of suspicion was attac hed to hint, and he te•ver could ;4,aia move ill society with the same comfort to him self, or the same respect from others, which be was used to meet. Ile trusted, therefore, -that the Jury wosld consider both the rank of the I ,:rson injured, and the greatness of the injury which had Leen iodieted, and relied upon their finding a proper verdict. Air. Mills, Solicitor to the plaintiff, said, that he believed the parn:;raplis which Irtd been read,. to apply to the plaintiff, lle 11:n1 no ddooul►t at all of it. _ _ eross-e‘amined by Mr. Setjeant Cockle.—He had been acquainted about four Pare Is it is plaintiff, to whom he had been introduced professionally. Ile had dived with bim three or four times at his house in Gloucester-place, and in company with Lady Leicester, after the paraghtph about the separation. Ile had seen a Mr. Neri, whom he understood to be his Lordship's secretary. The first time he saw Mr. Neri, was after having sent in his account to the plaintiff; Mr. Neri called upon him about the settling of it. He had met at Lord Leicester's table, Mr. and Mrs„Gardiner (the father and mother of lady Leiceiter), the Marquis of Townsbend, and the two Lady Townshetars, in the winter of 1807, the marriage having been in the month of May of that year. The reasons why he believed the paragraphs to apply to his client were,, that he knew no lather son of as English Marquis who had proceedings depending in Doctors' Commons ; and also, because he found every body whom hp ~poke to on this subject al , O applied them to the plaintiff. Besides these reasons, he confessed, that there were tly I I 1 ~. ~ ,II lttl tlollol ai all OE it. Cross-e‘amined by Mr. Setjeant Cockle.—lle had been quainted about four }Par: IS II is plaintiff, to whom he had been !minced professionally. lie had dived with him three or four nes at his house in Gloucester-place, and in company with Lily Leicester, after the paraghtph about the separation. Ile AI seen a Mr. Neri, whom he understood to be his Lord.hip's - rctary. The first time he saw Mr. Neri, wai after having tt in his account to the plaintiff; Mr. Neri called upon him x. out the settling of it. He had met at Lord Leicester's table, r. and Mrs„Gardiner (the father and mother of Lady Leiceiter) l e Marquis of Townsbend, and the two Lady Townshetars, in e winter of 1807, the marriage having been in the month of ay of that year. The reasons why he believed the paragraphs apply to hi, client were,, that he knew no ether son of as tglish Marquis who had proceedings depending in Doctors' minions ; and also, because he found every body whom hp nice to on this subject al , O applied them to the plaintiff. 11 !tides these reasons ; he confessed, that there were lly in