The Statesman. — London, England, 1809-06-30 00:00:00

I P t. - LAIV IN7'ELLIGENCE. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Thursday, .lane gB. SITTINGS BICTORE LORD ELLE:C1(11101MS iN *181A1PR• ST FR-111LE4•4 In the fit-at Special Jury cope that stood for the day, the list o& the names of 24 *trots, to. turned by the Sheriff, was called over, and sot one Juryman appeared, so that If the parties had wished to try their causelry a Common Jury, it could not be done ; fur as not one of the Jury returned by the Sheriff appeared, there was no. thing to which they could pray a Mks. to another cause, in which a Special Jury was summoned, the parties were nut ready, and it went off of course. Tilt KING V. THE DUKZ OF GORDON. The names of the Jury were called over, and such of them that appeared had the usual fee, and were told that the trial stands over until the next Term. STILES r. BUM. The ATTORNLY.GENERAL stated, that the Plaintiff was headborough of the parish of St. Botolph, Aldgute ; he had been brought to a pub. lic.house, called the Brown Bear, in Etat.Stnith held, to quiet or else to take into custody the de. fotdant, a foreigner, who had been noisy and troublesome for some lime there, upon which he was assaulted by the Defendant ; which CAAe was clearly proved by a cloud of witnesses. The defence was, that the Plaintiff had as. saulted the Defendant. Mr. Gannow complained That too tnany wit nesses had b.en brought on behilf of the Plaintiff to prove his case, which added to the expeuce in ' the way of costs. Ile called many witnesses for the Defendant, but some of them stated circum. stances which were highly improbable, and there fore the Jury, after a charge from his Lordship, (who said he was as ready as ally body to censure @Accra of Police when they exceeded their autho rity, yet they must be protected in the due execu. thin of their duty), found a verdict for the Plain. tiff—Damages 501. TIM ICING V. WIC. MORRIS. This is an indictment charging the Defendant with wilful and corrupt perjury. Mr. GARROW moved to postpone the trial on account of the absence of a material witness, Mr. Fournier, a Magistrate of Union Hall, Southwark, her father, who was stated, by affidavit, to be so ill, that it would endanger his life to bring bim into Court. On the other side there wax an affidavit, stating, that this indictment related to a case which had lately been in part tried before his Lordship, and afterwards referred to Mr. Lowten, who made his award. That award came before the Court, on which it was ordered, that Mr. Lowten should re view that award ; ho did so, and confirmed the award in every particular ; and on neither of these three occasions was Mr. Fournier examined as a witness. Due it appeared that he was present at one of the conversations between the parties to which the Prosecutors referred. Lord ELLSNIBOROUGII decided that the trial should be postponed ; and it was accordingly pat ad until next term., COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. SLANDF.P. LORD LEICISTER r.' WALTER AE) °TRIM. This wu an action brOught by Lord Leicester, against the Proprietors of tho newspaper called the Ilerrdd, to recover compensation in damages fur certain slanderous paragraphs upon his character. The damages were laid at Tts enty Thousand Pounds. Scrjeaut Besr, on the part of the Plaintiff, stated the nature of the Libels. He observed, that on the 26th and 28th of March, in the year 1808, some paragraphs had appeared in the paper in questiou, reilectin , upon the character of Lord Leicester, under the name of Lord Chartley, which is the third title io the family of the Mar quis Townsend. These related to the separation between the Plaintiff and his wife, and the reason insiussated was one not fit to he mentioned. Lord Leicester's Solicitor applied at the Herald office, and the result was, that on the 30th of the same month, a paragraph was insetted, apologiz ing for the former publications, which were stated to be unfounded—and e :rich also were said to have been inserted in other papers, and copied into the Herald, an assertion which, the Learned Ser. jcant observed, was completely false, because they had appeared first in the Morning Herald it. self. On the 3d of December, 1808, however, another paragraph had appeared in the same pa. per, purporting that articles had been exhibited in Doctors Commons against Lord C. by his wife, chargiug him with the offence for which Lady Audlcy had prosecuted to capital conviction her husband, Lord Amlley, in the reign of Charles the First. On the btli of the same month and year, another paragraph was published, stating that Lord C. had absconded, and that a warrant had been issued for his apprehension. It also stated, that the same charge which the Countess of Castlehaven (Lady Audle)) had preferred against Ler busbaud, was preferred by Lady C. against Lord C.—remarking at the same time, that the modern case was attended with more atrocious cir cumstances. The Learned Serjeant then proceed. ed to observe, that there never was a libel of a more infamous description. The plea upon the Tccord was, the general issue of not guilty, and therefore, he supposed, it was not intended to justify; but lie repeated the offer which he had mak before tow ithdraw the action, provided they vould give up the author. The publication of the paper was proved in the .nsual manner, by Mr. Harrison, who produced the affidavit of proprietorship, filed at rte Stamp o6ice, and by Mr. Booth, Register of the Papers, at the same office, who produced the papers con. bitting the libels. ' Mr. Barlow, Seet;nslary of the Crown-office, produced a copy of the conviction of Lord Aud- Icy, who, atuisapt ether offences, had been pro. eecuted fur aiding and abetting his own servant in ceousittiag a rape upon his wi% Lady Audlcy. THE STATESMAN. Some legal objections were here taken ► on account of variations between the copy - produced and the record ; but these only applied to one or two of the counts, and therefore did not prove fatal to the Pl4intill's case. Mr. Solicitor for the Plaintiff, proved that the separation hal not taken place between the Plaiwiff and his wife in March 1308, when the two first paragraphs were pnblished. He had himself dined at Lord Leicester's house in the April fallowing, when: he saw Lady Leicester, with some relations of the family. When he ob. served the paragraphs in question, he had no doubt of their allusion to Lord Leicester. On his cross. examination by Mr. Serjeant Cockle, he stated as his reason, among other things, that he had heard certain flying rumours as to the conduct of the Plaintiff. He admitted that a person of the name of Neri dined with him at Lord Leicester's table, and that this man had settled his Lordship's ac counts with him relative to some conveyancing matters. Here the Plaintiff's case closed. Mr. Serjeant Cocet.x, for the Defendant, stated, that hi: Clients cotild not give up the author, be.. cause they did nut know him, and they hail of. fend to make an affidavit of that fact. But he denied that the Plaintiff had sustained any mate rial injury from the publications in question, be. cause similar reports had been in circulation long before. From the form of the record, he could not justify, but he would prove the miserable si tuation in which the Plaintiff lived with his wife, and the deplorable condition in which she was placed from being obliged to sit at his table with such wretches as Neri, Hayliug, and Playfair. He would prove the reports that bad been circu lated respecting this Noble Lord, and the grounds of suspicion which existed against him, which would reduce very low indeed his claim to da mages. Mr. Serjeant BST objected to this course of proceeding, which came upon him completely by surprise, for they had given no notice of their in. tention to go into any evidence of this kind. He was therefore totally unprepared to meet it, or to contradict er explain whatever might be said on the other side. lie objected to it as illegal to go into circumstances out of the record. If this was to be permitted, no man would ever come into a Court of Justice to clear his chaiacter from any slander, where his complaint would be met by fresh accusations, for which his whole life would he ransacked. His character might thus, instead of being cleared, be completely destroyed by a sort of evidence which he would have no means of meeting, having no previous notice of it. Mr. Serjeant MANLY, Mr. Serjeant Cocat.r, and Mr. ANNOY relied upon a Nisi Prius case, in Peake's Book; upua a case of Sir John Earner v. Coxe, lately tried before Lord Ellenborottgh, and others, in which it had been decided that in ac. tions of this kind evidence might he given, which, although not amounting to justification, might prove such a general belief as extremely diminished the injury arising from any particular accusation, either in word or writing, and consequently ope— rated in mitigation of damages. Mr. Serjant BEST denied the authority of these cues, and contended, that as they were only Nisi Prins cases, his Lordship ought to reject the evi dence in the present instance, allowing the De fendants to move for a new trial, when the case would come to be argued before the whole Court. • Sir J. MANSFIELD, however, ow the authority of these cases, thought the evidence might be ad mitted so as to prove that reports generally pre vailed, previous to the publication of these para. graphs, that the Plaintiff was guilty of the of fences charged upon him; as this, if proved, would skew a less degree of malignity on the part of the Defendants, and diminish the injury sus. tained by the Plaintiff flora the publicatiou in question. - Mr. Serjeant BEST complained in strong terms of the manner in which the cause had been con. ducted, and the situation in which he himself stood from being thus taken by surprise. Ile even doubted whether be ought nut to suffer a onn-suit to go against fur the present, that he might af. terwards come forward better instructed. But after a few minutes consideration, he determined to allow the cause to proceed at all hazards. Mr. Serjeant COCKLE then requested the Jury to consider that it was impossible, if Daily Pa pers were to be published at all, that the Editors could carefully examine every thing that was in. serted. The liberty of the press was valuable— it was the foundation of the liberties and happi. ness of this country; mid though attended with some inconvenience, care ought to be taken that it should not be crushed. He admitted that his Clients were answerable iw•taw for-ushastater found. its way into their paper. Ile only suggested these considerations in mitigation of damages. He then called a variety of witnesses in behalf of the De fendants. A woman who waited upon Lady Leicester at the time of her marriage, proved that Lord Lei cester and his wife had ceased to live together ai man and wife in a short time after the marriage. They were married iu May 1807, and were sepa. rated, as she understood, in May, 1808. In the August after the marriage, her Lady left town, leaving his Lordship at his house, at Westbourn Green, Paddington. Before that time, her Lady generally dined at the same table with his Lord ship, oho, however, generally associated with Neri, Hayling, and Playfair, who were often at his house, but what these men were she did not know. His Lordship was visited by few persons of his own rank, but she had seen some female re latives of his at his house. Her Lady returned to town in November, 1807, but went to a house which his Lordship possessed in Gloucest, r-place. 1 Lord Leicester called there sometimes, but gene rally o hen he lived at the one house her Ladyship lived at the other. 1\ illiam Newton, the landlord of the Cocoa Nut Coffee House, was called to prove, bat Neri was a person unfit for the society of Lord or Lady Leicester. It appeared from his testimony, that Neri had been a waiter at his house, but he knew uothing against his character. One ilarraden, a print-seller at Cambridge, de. posed to the intimacy that subsisted between bis Lordship and Neri, at the University. They were on more familiar terms than master and ser vant, and his Lordship appeared to treat him ra ther as a companion. Mr. Ridgway, the bookseller, proved that Ncri lodged at his house for some time, and rented the first floor, for which he paid a guinea a week.— Lord Leicester sometimes visited him there. George Smith, an upholsterer, said, that he partly furnished Lord Leicester's heuits, at West. bourn.green and Gloucester.plice. He also fur. nis)cd some goods to Neri, who then lodged in 11.iker.strect, North—but ho was not yet paid fur them. James Danew, an auctioneer, sold the furni ture of the two houses, when Lord Leicester's embarrassments commenced ; and he also sold some effects belonging to Neri, at the same time —but he considered that as a distinct transaction. Newby, the Chapel Clerk at Cambridge, was then called. lie said, that Lord Chartley, as the Plaintiff was then called, bad come to Cam. bridge attended by his father's porter.—but lie un. derstood that the porter was only intended by his Lordship's father as a temporary servant. Ac. cordingly the porter went away, and Neri came. Lord Leicester. did not treat him as a common servant, but rather as a companion. Lord Lei. tester was in many things eccentric. He some times continued shut up in his room, at his books or music, for eight hours at a ticie. Neri some times accompanied him on the guitar, but often at these times was out playing at cricket. His Lord. ship was also in the habit of wearing ladieV shoes, and had his head dressed like a lady ; from which . the young men of the College sometimes called him Miss Chartley, and Lady Chartleys Ilia Lordship was of a retired dispositi,m, but he gave two or three concert!, at which some of the most respectable persons in the Woo and the college attended. He never heard that his Lordship had been desired to leave the University for any im. propriety of conduct; but be had heard souse ru. mours against his character, which, however, he never believed. Mrs. Busignag, who lives at Pimlico, said, that the Plaintiff called two or three times upon a young man of the name of Murray, who lived at her house, and when he was sick, desired him to get the best advice. The Rev. henry Poultor said, that he had been tutor to the Plaintiff at Cambridge, but knew no particular harm in him. He never midi rstood that he had left the Lini‘ersity for improper conduct. Colonel Rainsford, of the Guards, was next called, who said, that he had heard reports of very improper conduct in Lord Chartley. Lord John Tuwnshend was called next, who stated, that lie was the uncle of the Plaintiff; but that neither he nor the father of the Plaintiff were on good terms with him. Mr. liorjeant BEST ►n a very able speech con. tended, that there was nothing in this evidence that ought to reduce the damages. He himself was as sincere a friend to the liberty of the press as any man ; but he was an Loewy to its licentiousness. If the newspapers were to be allowed with imps. slily to publish such slanders as these, this would be the worst country in the world—a country in which no honourable inan could live. He again reprobated the manner in which the defence had been conducted. After the general inns pleaded on the record, they had attempted to du farther injury to the character of his client, without no tice, or giving him an opportunity to prepare him self to meet them. Not daring to meet the Plain tiffface to face, they had stabbed him in the back. The Learned Serjeant said, there was no pretence for the charge about the exhibition of articles in Doctors Commons. It was pure invention. Ile had the Officer (rota Doctors Commons with the books in Court, and defied the Defendants to prove their allegations. He had a right to say, under all the circurostances l . that a traffic had been made of this calumny. Such things had been heard of lately. Many had not nerves to come into a Court of Justice ; and perhaps it was ex pected that the mouth under the dour for receiving their anonymous communications would have pre sented them with bank paper to stop the contitiu. ance of such publications as this. They might, perhaps, have used their paper, in this instance, as the highwayman did his pistol—•t:► get money. lie coocladed by impressing upon the minds of tho Jury, the importance of giving such damages as would skew the world that they did not believe these reports, and such as would serve as a warn ing to the press in general. Lord Chief JuXtice MANSIIELD then addressed the Jury. Ile said, it was sittlicieut to entitle the Plaintiff to a verdict, that scandal had appeared in tha paper, and it was no excuse that they did not know the author.—A man was no more ex cusable for a libel, than one who sold poisonous drugs, who had nut prepared them. There had been many arguments used on both sides, aid the matter for their consideration, under all the cir cumstanccs, was the amount of the damages. One side had said the authors could be given up, and the other that they could not ; that was a point which should weigh with them in their deli. berations. Tha.Liberty of the eress bad nothing to do with the present case. The legal meaning of The Liberty of tkc Press had been well de fined by the came Slztrox, who was as stre. nuous, and certainly as able, an advocate for liberty as ever appeared in this ur any other countrp—that great Man had stated it to . con. sist in the liber4 to print " shut one pleased without the previous consent of a licenser." Formerly there was an officer called a licenser, whose duty it was to inspect works going to the press. In different reigns such an officer had oc casionally been appointed and discontinued. A f. ter the Reeolution, the :iflice of licenser was to tally abolished, and a famous work had since been written upon the subject of unlicensed printing.— But the true liberty of the press, although it con. 'Wed in printing and publishing whatever you please, without restraint, certainly meant the• party to be answerable for what he so printed or published. No one could conceive the liberty of the press to extend to en unrestrained power of abuse of public or private individuals, although it LONDM. : Primed and Pu!dialled by n. Levr;t,t., at the IIiTATISII•N Orrice. 87. Fled-atatet. bad been too much of late need for such purposes. Ilia Lordship then read the tiro libels, and said they were such as called for compensation. The libel. stating that articles had bun exhibited in the Ecclesiastical Court, similar to those mai bleed agsitist Lord Andley, where they could not proceed to a crimival prosecution, was ridiculo 15 ; and as to that part of the libel, charging Plaintiff with being accessary to a rape on his wife, they had heard nothinz. The declaration stated, that Co Plaintiff is perkctlyiree the crime imputc44, that his character is injured end that he i s degraded in society . 'Phat thclibels were pub. tisbed there ccrild he no doubt. The Diem, dents bad pleaded nut guilty t which could not be borne out, unless by a justification, and their attempt on that point, might, perhaps, go to in. crease the damages ; as in the defence s it had been stated, they could out injure Plaintiff's character, because it was before notorious ; and they would pay attention to consider,• whether the prejudice, ill this resoert, tA a. such as would verify the appli cation ? Hi 3 Lordship then went over the evidence, particularly cummcntin% upon the extent and dates of the reports to the Plaintiff's prejudice; which, if extended, or made more prevalent by the Defendants, would, in proportion, affect their verdict. Ile concluded by recommending to theta to take the whole ease into their serious considera. lion, and give such damages as would Meet the justice of the ease. The Jury retired for *hoot an hoar, and then found a verdict fur the Plaiatiff—ikatages one Thousand Pounds. OLD DAILEY. THURSDAY. JUNE W.—sycoxi) D. Margaret Bird was indicted for stealing a watch from the person of Morgan Sweeny. Thu prose cutor was passing through ilartatreet, Covent. garden, on thecrening of the t'.2d of May, when he was accosted by the prisoner, who contrived to pick his picket of his watch. —The Jury (gaud her Guilty,,. llrilliam Higgins was capitally indicted for breaking and enteriug the d welling.hnuse. of Juliis Warner in the night time, and stealing therein a great variety of articles. Jane Bailey, servant to Mr. Warner, residing at No. 7, Kingslaud Crescent, II ickney, secured the liont , e in the usual way, on the night of the 31st of May, previous tu- the faculty retiring to rest. John Harrison, the watchman in that neigh. bourhood, stated, that as he called the• hour, hair_ past four, on the morning of the lst June, he ob ; served the gate of the court before the house open, I and shut it ; upon passing again, a little before five, ho found the gate again open, and this excit. ing his suspicion, he went up to the vett, ts here he saw the kitchen window up, the shutters cut and broken, and chips lying ou the outside ; he then trial the street door, which eras open —upon going into the passage, lie saw a tea and coffee-urn lying on the ground, packed up ; lee called out, but received no answer ; he then went forward to the street parlour, where be saw the prisoner in the act of packing up a quantity of linen in a shirt—he asked him what he did there ? to which the! prisoner answered, he was doing no harm, as his brother lived in the house. He immediately secured him, and, ringing the bell, he alarmed the family. Upon searching the prisoner, four tea_ . spoons, a sugar-tongs, and twelve doyleys, were found in his pockets. I t appeared that a quantity- of platefand other articles, had been conveyed away by some confederates before the discovery took place. There being no evidence of the burglary—that is, of the breaking in, in the night time, the Jury acquitted the prisoner of that part of the clurgr, but found him guilty or stealing in the dwelling_ house above tho value of 40s.— Detak. Sarah Courting, otherwise Child, was indicted for feloniously marrying with John Watson, I former husband, Juba Courtney, being then , The registry of the parish of St. George, 111no ver-square, was produced, by - which it appeared that John Courtney. and Sarah Child were marriAl by banns, un the sth of November, 1785. The entry was signed by the parties, and witnessed. Thomas Watson, the grandsuu of the second husband, proved the hand writing of the prisoner to the entry ; he had often seen her write ; his grandfather was dead—he knew her first husband --about fourteen years ago they came to live at his grandfather's, where they continued three years, and then separated ; the prisoner after wards continued to live with • his grandfather, as his servant ; upon his death she claimed admisais tration as his widow ' • he was about e i g h ty years of age at his death ; Courtney, her first husband, was living, anal hid resided only three streets dis ta.it from her from the time of ber separation. Edward Coertney, the brother of the first hus band, was obliged to admit his brother was still living ; he saw him this day ; tie and the prisoner had lived together as man and wife. The second marriage was proved by the prase. tion of the registry of St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, by a hick it appeared that the prisooer and John Wa'son were married by banns, on the 23d of No vember' 1808. Her signature to the en t r y was proved by W. Boyce, a subscribing witness. The prisoner,"en being called upon for her de fence, said, till present prosecution was carried on from malice by the grandson, to whom she had, acted as a mother, and had reared and educated him with the greatest care. The Learned Judge (CuAmittE), in summing up the evidence to toe Jury, observed, they had nothing to do with the motives, whatever they might suppose, which induced the present pro ceedings ; they hail only to decide whether the charge against the prisoner was or was nut made oat in evidence ? The Jury, without hesitation, found a verdict of Galley. Thep isoner is an olq woman, seemingly about 60 years of age. F I