The Statesman. — London, England, 1810-07-18 00:00:00

MIN LAMB or rus QUEEN CUARLOTTE. Thor who have attended to the state of the British Navy during the last 15 years, will recol. foci the old Q,►een Charlotte, which every Officer considered the fines; ship in the service. Lord ll,►we defeated the French on the Ist of June, on board the Queen Charlotte, fighting tinder the union jack at the main, an honour which no All. miral had ever before acquired. After the must brilliant services, she was unfortunately destroyed by fire in the Mediterranean. To preserve the name and memory of a ship sogloriolis in our na. ♦al annals, the keel of a three decker was laid down at the King's Yard, Deptford, to be built on the model of the Queen Charlotte, and t►► be as like her as possible. The master builder, in the opinion of the best judges, has elrAely followed his instructions. The ship is spoken of in the highest terms. If she is not the largest three.decker in the navy, she is perhaps the must compact, and constructed to answer all the purposes of war. The length of her keel does not exceed that of the smallest 98; and some difference of opinion prevails among professional respecting the effect this may have on her sailing. If she is laid down as long as the old 'Queen Charlotte, it is not unlikely that she will sail well, for no first-rate ever answered her sails better. It is six )ears ago since the keel was laid. The timbers during that tune have been seasoned. THE LAUNC At an early hour yesterday the road leading to Deptford displayed a line of carriages of every description,_ from the landau of fashion to the tax cart from Kent.street. The petlestriairs also form. ed a mass not unlike a flock of swallows ready fro emigration. Orderslad been given at the Dock. yard not to admit the Public till half-past Line o'clock. ; many, however, procured admission :viler. The appearance of the launch, decorat. c i with flags, and the British, Spanish, American, an ti o ther vessels with their colours hoisted, pro duced charming effect from the heights in the vi. cinity of Deptford ; but the scene when the specta. tors approached the banks of the River, was beau ti. fel beyond description. The silver bosom of Old Thames was burdened by boats full of elegant corn. pany. Gay streamers were seen in every direction, and the rigging of every vessel on that part of the River ws, covered by seamen, dressed in their best jackets and trowsers. Several yachts and pleasure boats were covered with awnings fur the acme modation of Ladies, attired in all the beautiful comae of summer. Over some of these was dia. tended the Standard of England, iu honour of se. reral iltestrimis spectators. The Duke and Duchess of Yam( appeared in a barge; the Dukes of KCNT, Caossatries, G1.0n. 1 CESTrit, and Sussex, were also on the river. Sc. veral Lords a the Admiralty came down in their; barge—the Lunt MA rots in his barge, and, in; short, the River displayed a spectacle of grandeur and beauty seldom seen. The display in the dock-yard was not less interesting. By one o'clock an immense body of persona - had.iFrived. Every position ebich commanded a Avila' the launch was soon occupied. The Galatea, a new frigate, and other ships bedding in the yard, were covered by the multitude. Many of the superior Artists belonging to the Dock-yard bad been per. matted to erect platforms and galleries for•the con. venienceof their friends, sit indulgence not before granted. In addition to these stages, occupied by the friends of the workmen, two elegant stands were made close to rho ship for the reception of the fasbionables. The Inside was lined with t6e standard of England, the top and the back were, d canvas, and the pillars covered by signal flags various colours. Part of the stand next the water, on the right side of the ship, was appro. priated to the Admiralty, Naval and Military Officers, and the friends of the Commissioner oc. cupied the remainder of it. The stand on the other side was divided the same manner be. twern the friends of the principal Officers of the Yard and the Naval Ofliceri.—The Queen Charlotte presented a fine appearance as she rested on the slip. Tho British ensigns, and other flags, were distended over her decks.— A beautiful best of the QUEEN, placed at her head, was the admiration of every spectator.— Every observer was struck with the magnitude of the ship, when they cast their eyes upwards from ender the bows. The French ships have been mulled fur the neatness of their sterns; but the stern of this ship has a peculiar neat ness, which cannot fail to please, becsesse it is without useless and unmeaning ornament.-- About ten minutes before two o'clock, this im nrense fabric began to more with a progressive ve. Joeity, which prolucetl a grand effect. The ex. perienec and ability of our duck.yard men almost preclude the possibility :if any miscarriage, and we are happy to say there never was a finer launch. She glided into the arms of the River God amidst reiterated plaudits from a body of spectators which we cannot enumerate. tam -*mid 'Rut have been less than 50,000. The Ladles stood up, waved their handkerchiefs, Gentlemen their hats, and every voice was exalted, while three bands of music struck up Rule Britannit. The emersion produced a swell and attraction which nearly proved fatal to several wherries. Two boats were unfor. tunately upset, but the passengers were taken up unhurt. The Rigid II on. CHARLUYORXE christen. k'd the Queen Charlotte by the usual ceremony of Omitting a batik of wine against her bows.— Lo rd 11 000 was present. Mr. SusetnAlt, and a Party of friends, arrived just in time to see the lan nth• -Mr. W. Sartre, M. P. and two Ladies, insi,ccted the ship before she went off the stip.— AII the fashionable and genteel Mks in London and its environs were present. The carriages ex tended near a mite front the dock-gates. Butt. Line contained one complete line from the dock. yard to the G reenw i c h Road, find most of the streets in Deptford were filled by vehicles of every d , e 'rriPtletn . The road exhibited a n u mb er o f "Pkney and other coaches which had broken d„'"wit• The R OYAL D uxes an d t h e D o k e of nenFOR n din e d at G reenw i c h a f ter t h e l aunc h.-- I" ,rd Eurtsrarruutrun, Lord Ca v.enniste., Lord Baonn so ow, and many . o ther persons of disthic. lien were present. THZ 'STATPSIVIAN. LAW INTELLIGENCE. .... COURT OF KING'S BENCH, AIL! 17. LOVELL V. VALLEE. The ATTORNEY.GENEUAL stated, that this was, a complaint made by the proprietor of a news paper against the Defendant, one of the newsmen whom lie employed, for having, under pretence of eircelatirig The Statesman, circulated a paper called The Alfred, and thereby deprived the pre. prides. of The Statesman of the benefit of dice. lating his paper. The matter in dispute between the parties was extremely insignificant, but the ge neral consequence to the Plaintiff, and all other persons standing in his situation as proprietors of newspapers,. was very great indeed, because the profits of their papers depended, as every one knew, upon the wideness of their circulation. Persons, who were proprietors of papers, were of necessity obliged to trust to others to satisfy the orders of their customers; and if those they trusted betrayed the confidence reposed in them, and, instead of circulating the paper of their em. ployer, put off another in its stead, they, by that means, did them e double injury ; they nut only depri►ed the proprietor of the benefit of his paper, but by setting up a rival paper, prevented those fair advantages he had a right to look to, both for the present and the future. Such was the conduct which he understood the Defendant Waller had pursued. The paper, called The Statesman, at one time belonged to a number of persons, of whom the Plaintiff, Mr. Lovell, was one; but they afterwards separated, and Mr. Lovell became the sole proprietor, and shortly af. terwards•. gentleman, of the name of Horsley, who resides at Cauterbury, sent to his office de. siring The Statesman might be,forwarded to him at Canterbury. This order being left at the office of The Statesman, Mr. Lovell did that which was always done in a similar case. He sent to a newsman to execute the order, and the newsman he selected was the Refendant, Mr. Waller ; he de. sired him to send a Statesman regularly to Mr. Horsley. The Defendant not knowing Mr. Hors ley, but willing to execute the order, wrote to him, and desired he would give him, as was usual, a reference to somebody who would pay for the papers which he was to send to him. Mr. Hors ley aceurdit(4ly gave hen such reference. The Attorney. General observed, that before he stated huw arr. Walter timid conducted himself, it would be proper to state the source from whence his pro. fit was derived. The owner or proprietor of a newspaper received the order from the country, he t gave that order to the newsman, who sent the pa. per to the customer, and recei►ed the price for it. The newsman had a general account with the owner or proprietor of the newspaper, and paid him for all the papers he had of him, and be un derstood that the charge to the newsman was somewhere about three halfpence a paper less than the price charged to the general customer. Out of the profits of the newspaper the newsmen uni. formly received this allowance. Thus having slated how Mr. Lovell was the proprietor, the Defendant, Waller, the newsman, and Mr. Hor. sky the customer, and how the order had been given to Mr. Lovell, and by, him transferred to the Defendant, it only remained to state bow the Defendant had conducted himself. From the month of June, isoN to May, isto, the De. fondant regularly seht The 4tatesitian to Mr. Horsley, but afterwards, whether he was acted upon by the influence of others; or prejudiced or moved by the suggestions of others, it io fell out that Mr. Horsley, instead of recei►ing The States man, received 77e Alfred—he was, as might be supposed, extremely surprised at this ; he thought fur a day or two it might be owing to a mis take, as such mistakes frequently did happen without any design. It was perfectly well known that in the country persons frequently received a wrong paper. In the present instance, however, there was no mistake; it went on regularly for several days, when Mr. Horsley finding The Statesman was never sent to him, but that he re. ceived The Alfred instead of The Statesman— he went to' town, called at the (Mice of Mr. Lovell, and complained that he no longer received his paper which he had ordered, but this other Pa. per, The Alfred. Mr. Lovell was very much surprised at the circumstance, and he sent to the Defendant, Waller, on the subject. Waller made some frivolous excuses which satisfied Mr. Lovell that he had endeavoured to substitute The:Alfred for The Statesman, and he consequenay took the 1 ' order out of his 'hand, and employed another news. man. It was for the injury which the' Plaintiff ; had sustained (luring the time The Statesman ought to have been sent to Mr. Horsley, but was not sent, that he had brought the present action. 'The Jury would nut fail to observe, that tise,De. fondant was expressly employed by the Plaintiff to send The Statesman to Mr. Horsley. By his sending that paper, M►. Lovell would have had the 'profit which belonged to him as the Proprietor; the Defendant, W.dide, would also have derived his profit, namely the difference of the price at which it was sold to him, and the price at which it was sold to the customer. It was the dtity which the Defendant owed to Mr. Lovell, wise was hit employer, and who had engaged him to send tin paper to Mr. Hanley which he had direct ed him to send. Mr. Lowell supposed he was go ing on with the otder and sanding The Statesman, instead of which he had substituted another Paper, and this was doing his employer a most material injury. He was aware he could go for nothing but nominal damages. Thu damages actually sustain.. ed were very trifling . ; but if these instances were multiplied, the loss would be very considerable.— Above all things it was necessary to put a stop to such practices, and lie trusted the Jury would, by their verdict, convince Mr. Waller that such prac tices were not to be endured. Mr. Burke, front the Stamp-Office, proved, by the production of the usual bond and affidavit, that Mr. Loitell was the sole Proprietor of The State:- non. Mr. GAnnow objected that the production of the documents filed at the Stamp-Office under the late Act of Parliament, thong') they were evidence against a Proprietor of a Newspaper, could not be evidence for him. , r Lord ELLMOROUOM entertaining doubts upon this point, desired to see the Act of Parliament, observing that such evidence wu not evidence by the common law, medics admissibility to pr o ve the Proprietorship f the Plaintiff must depend on the words of the statute. The ATTOZWIT•GSNIMAL I however, to put the question beyond all doubt, called Mr. Ryder, who proved that the Plaintiff, was the sole Pro. prietor of the Paper. The Witness said, that he himself was nomi. nally the Publisher, and the Printer's name was M'Ardell, but the result of a very strict cross. examination of him by Mr. Garrow was, ihat the types and presses did not belong to the Printer, and that, in point of fact, be was ouly the clerk or servant of the Plaintiff. Lord ELt.raiaottouaa interrupted the course of the cross.examination of this witness, by ob. serving, that whether the witness was Printer or not, was a collateral fact, which had osthing to do with tile particular question, and his Lordship thought, that to persist in such a course of cross. examination would seem as if the object was to he looking after purposes which he would nut wish to have accomplished through the snedituu . of an ac. tion of this sort. Mr. O*aaow then endeavoured, by cross.exa. mining the witness, to infer, that The Statesmen had been published. at too late an hour of the evening for the Defendant to avail himself of the post, without paying what was termed the Pence at the Post-office; but in this object be failed, for the witness proved, that when the Paper was p.ib. fished at so late an hour, that the Defendant, Waiter, was obliged to pay the Pence at the Post Office, the Pence were always allowed to him iv the Proprietor. The witness further stated, that, to the best of his knowledge, the Paper was never too late for the post (the Pence being paid), with the exception of once or twice, and that happened at the late 0. P. row, and on the liberation of Sir Francis Burdett from the Tower. Mr. Horsley proved the facts stated by the At. torney.Geoeral, relative' to his having ordered The Statesman, and The Alfred hiving been sup. plied to him in its stead. He produced the letter containing the order to Mr. Lowell, which was read, and he also produced another, which was not read, Mr. GARROW submitted that there was no evi. dem that the Defendant bad ever sent The Alfred . either to the witness last examiaed, or to any one else. Lord ELLZNIOROOOII observed, that be bad it epee his notes that Mr. Horsley having ordered The Statesmen, had received it for a time, and I that-then The Alfred was sent to him. Mr. Hanley was again called up, and examined by Lord Ellenborough. He proved that after the Defendant bad written to him for a reference to some person to pay fur the paper, nothing ever passed to indicate to him that he received The .Alfred through a different channel : the envelopes and the'hand.writing.of the addresses containing 7'he Alfred were the same as those by which he had. received The. Statesman, and consequently I the fair inference was, that the person who had sent him the one paper, bad transmitted him the other. . Me..aisanow observed, that his Learned Friend had read one letter from Mr. Henley to Mr. Lo lel, ordering The Statesman to be sent to him, and he had been shown another letter from Mr. Waller, which might have been explanatory of the first; but his Learned Friend, exercising as good a judgment as any Counsel could form for his client, had not thought proper to read thatletter ; the inference was, that it contained something to the prejudice of his client's case. Whatever other advantages might accrue to the Proprietor of The Statesman by bringing the present action, he was clear he could not recover of the Defendant, Waller, and under his Lordship's direction he would state his reason for entertaining that opi nion : first, he submitted, that, if there was any cause of complaint against the Defendant, Mr. Lovell upon this evidence was nut the person who ' was entitled to make it ; the person who alone had the right of making the ouniptaint was Mr. Horsley. It stood upon the evidence before the Court, that the Plaintiff, Mr. Luvell, was not the person wbu employed the Defendant, Waller, but that Mr. Horsley by his own letter, addressed to the Defendant, a vendor of newspapers, in answer to his requisition of a reference, had di rected him to send The Statesman. Ho bad di rected him to send him a newspaper, just as say one would direct a stationer to send him a quire of . paper weekly. A person ordering snob A co u tmo. dity of a stationer, who must purchase it of some. body, else, because he did nut make it himaelf, 'would send that article which he could must con. veuiently procure—there was no.privity stated as between the Plaintiff, Lovell, and Mr. Horsley, upon which the former could found an action against this Defendant—there was no contract with him to supply The Statesman till it was counter. °sanded—therefore if any one was entitled to make. complaint, it was Mr. Horsley; but putting this difficulty out of the 'way, be would proceed to ex. amine the subject.. The, question was, whether there was an undertaking on , the part of the De. fondant to supply Mr. Horsley with these, papers as they should come from Mr. Lovell'a. press? Supposing there was an undertaking on the part of the Defendant to send The Statesman to .Mr. Horsley, what was there to show that haled done. any thing in breach of that undertaking ? He submitted it had nut been proved that the Defend ant bad sent any one publication of The Alfred- to Mr. Horsley; there was nothing so common as for the proprietor of a new and early published news. paper to send his publication to different persons without its being ordered,' 0 hopes of having it patronized ;—ho recollected . very well that the first publication of The ,Alfred had been sent to him, he was particular in his recollection of it, because it contained a long and able paper on the subject of raising the posse comitatus, by a Gen tleman who was in the habit of endeatouring to in.. form the public by the labours of his pen 7 --he meant Major Cartwright ; or if it was cot open that subject, it Was with reference to the Privi. kites of Parliament, which that great Reformer 4 "7 . 9 1 7 1 " .1 7- - ~.y~ • Tad taken upon him to di,cusl. Sach s ape( had been sent to him without his haviii4 ordered it s and it might have been sent in the same ammo. In Mr. Horsley. Lord EY.LYNROROuGH.- t► If that bad been the case, Mr. Horsley would have received two pa. pers." Mr. GARROW remarked, there was another reason why Mr. Horsley might have had The W. Fred sent to him, and that was the lateness of the hour at which The Statesman was published. He had cullected from the Gentleman who had called himself a nominal Printer, that it might have hap. pened that ?'he Statesman had more than once been published at • late hoar. The Statesman was a paper with a great title and character. It was the paper of the Friends of Liberty, Reform, and of these who lined what they Outsell, a bet. ter order of things. If there was an 0. P. riot, or a grand procession in honour of a great Patriot's liberation from the Tower, all the world would be naturally running to The Statesman, w hrre such events were placarded, in order to obtain a full account ; the consequence would be . , that the wholesale purchasers would be disappointed, and therefore they would go away, and supply their customers with some other paper. The Learned Counsel said, he did nut think it necessary to call any evidence on the part of the Defendant. Lord ELLensoaouciu—" Tee puint that it is a matter of contract between Mr. 11..r51 y amid the DefentLiot Waller, is a question which is on the re. cord. I think this action might be maintained by Mr. Horsley also ; bot the present question .s for a collateral tort, by the non-delivery of that which this elan, the Defendant, has undertaken to de. liver." Mr. GARROW observed, that his CUR Wbs not upon the record without the viriJerice, though it would ; if the case of the a rettdant had been proved as it had been opened.. He admitted t h at there might have been a contract between Air. Lo. veil, the Plaintiff, and Horsley,. that Waller should send The Statesman to Mr. Horsley ; but •his ob. jection was, that there was no privity bete evil Mr. Lovell and the Defendant, Waller, but that Wal. ler was executing the order of Horsley. Lord Eu.ssiaonounn " The declaration says, that the Defendant, in considelation of the Plaintiff's permitting him to supply Mr. Horsley, he undertook to do so." Mr. GARROW submitted , there was noevidencis of that. Lord ELLensoltouati observed, that there was sufficient evidence; and he read the letter of Mr. Horsley, in proof of his assertion. His Lordship observed, that when the D•fendant . received the order from Mr.*Lovell t., send the Now to Mr. - Horsley, ho agreed to rind the papers which he should receive from Mr. Lovell, and he was bound to do so. His Lordship said, that when he used the word tort, he was mist Ikea, as this was an action of aosampsit —there was an agreement on the part of the Defendant with the Proprivtor of this newspaper, to send The Sl'stesman to Mr. Horsley; and there ass also a similar G.:reinvent on the part of the Defendant *WI Mr. H qsley, from which it followed that Mr. Horsley might also maintain an action, as well as the Plaintiff.' • Mr. GARiOW contended, that this was nothing more than the recommendation of a customer to the alendaut.on the part of Mr. Loves ; anti that. flomley having become the perehaser k the !Pendant had undertaken to supply him with The .Statesman. Lord ELLanaoaotrou—" The papers are not ear.marked, so as to be identified ; but the fondant has formed this contract, by whirl; the Defendant had engaged to send the papers he shook, receive from The Statesman Office, and he was • therefore bound to send The Statesman, and no other." Mr.,GAnitow said, the way he put it was this . : If he was a distiller, and should sly to a person, that If he would buy his spirits of him, ho would recommend him to a ciluotry 'concern ; •the party accordingly dealt with him as long as 1w seed him a sound commodity ; but when •he ceased to do so, be went to anothCr distillcr. Lord E'LLENBuitotiGit—" You ire bound by • the original order ; it is only by the original order your contract is to be considered." Mr. GAR if your forth* thinks so I have nothing further to observe." Lord Et. tAntio novas. -•• 4 • Gentlemen, the only question iof fact ID be submitted to you is, whether -this man, the Defendant, has tent The Alfred to Mr. Horsley instead of The Slateses,sn ; that The Statesman was n o t sent to hini during . * par ticular period i, clear; and it is equally clear that during the same period, The. Alfred was sent. to him, and it was received bp bow under the seine envelope, and with the same regularity be uad biz fore received The Statesman ; - sod having given orders to the Defendant fur The Statesman, and to no one else, I can refer to no : other pers , rii than the Defendant as the person by whom The Al fred was so subsktuted, in lieu of The Slate•mrin• If you think that the Defendant,. Walter, sulisti. Htuted the one paper fur the other, beyUnd all . question the ground of the present action will be proved, for the ground of the metro is the sub. stitution of the one paper for the other. The let. ter of Mr. Waller has been read to you. It be. gins to this effect : " Sir, your order fur 77ia Statesman to beietit to you was, by the propri etor of that paper, given over to me to execute." This letter skews that the order of Mr. Horsley was first communicated to the proprietor of The Statesman, and that the proprietor of The States. asan had selected the Defendant, Waller, to exc. cute it ; therefore the Defendant, as has beets truly stated, contracted a double duty—he contracted with the Plaintiff, Lovell; to pur. chase The Statesman of him, and he also contracted with Mr. Horsley to supply him with that Paper and no other—it is fur the breach of his duty in not regularly seating' this identical Paper, The Statesman, that the present action is brought. That part of the case Is mule out distinctly, and the only question on which there Is nut the most distinct proof is, whether The Alfred which , was received by Mr. Horsley came from the hands of the Defendant, Waller; but as Mr. Horsley gave no orders to any ens also but the Defendant, as • • - -~-; 1