The Sun. — London, England, 1802-07-13 00:00:00

N4V I. NEWS. PORTSMOUH, JULY 12. [ict IC• Ilt at ch on of FALMOUTH, JULY 10. AItRIVED at the Motherbank, and put under quarantine, His Majestp's Ship Mermaid, Captain OLIVER, from Gibraltar, last from Lisbon t with the Countess of Eaßot, on board. Came into Harbour, His, Majesty's Ship Quebec, to b e paid off. Went out . of Harbour, His Majesty's Ship Isis. The Woolwich Man of War, that was on shore, is got off, and sailed for - the Downs. Arrived the Sunnisi.le, Reay, Ranger, Frankland, Coodall, Concord, Patterson, Flyrei, Laing, Science, Scott, tiom Sunderland. Sailed the Bee, Rossiter, for London; Sin,gleton, Harper, for Memel ; Diligence, Anderson, Henry, Smith, and Nau tilus, Davie, for Sunderla►►d. StNCE my last sailed the following vessels i viz. American Ship William Penn, Ross, for Corunna ; Swe dish Ship FOrtuna, Angel, for Havre-de-Grace ; English Ship s Helen, Atkinson, and Ariel, Beard, for' Havre—de_ Grace ; Commerce, Finley, and De la Sacra Familia, Cur-- dell, tbr Liverpool ; Noriolk, Culver, for Rotterdam, and Ives, Mallet ) tor London. Yesterday arrived the American shipiu/ia, Capt. CoLLINs, with rice, in-z 5 days from Charlestown, for orders. A Gentleman who Came passenger in this vessel, reports, that two days prior to . his eth barka tion, an American vessel had arrived in ten days from Cape Francois, that fell in on her pas sage with seven French Men of- War, which he supplied with as much provision as he could spare ; the Captain •of one of the Frigates informed him, that they had been thirty-six: days frOm 'ranee, and three days befOie had attempted to land their Troops at Basse-Terre, Guadaloupe, which t hey efFeEted without much opposition, but that the Mulatto General soon after attackell them- with a Powerful body.of men, and compelled the French to retreat with great precipitation, leaving upwards of 400 men dead ; that one of the French Frigates had 4t l ll ck to a Fort commanded by the Blacks, and the remainder of the Ships were compelled to withdraw., 'The French Ships were in great want of provisions, having left France very scantily supplied. SHEERNESS, JULY 12. I r zsTERDAI* evening, after Post, sailed His Ma jesty's Sloop Ahnzo, Captain FAULKNOR, for SPithead. DEAL,'JULY. iz. AARIVED and sailed for the giver, the Charle- CAMBRIDGP., and Lushi vgteit, GOOCH, from 11 " gal, with the Swift India Pilot, and several Ships &Jai the West Indies. WEYMOUTH, JULY I t. y, „THIS morning HIS MAJESTY and PRINCESS 111 ARY' bathed. I HEIRMA3tSTIES and the Piti tvc Essts attended ' vine Service, when a Sermon was preached from the N 6th eh ap..o f S t. P au l' s E p i st l e to the Galatians,, t o f the 7th voe, by the Rev. M4RA,to-r, Retor the parish of Bencornbc ard Broad war. • "- , z -I he KIN G wa lk e d on t h e Espl ana d e . btC J. NIA ENEY, McSsrS GARTHSHO RE , a nd A ms were .introduced to the KING by Major 130 R0t.?6t-r.. • DRA:C. arrived here yesterday. IE MA J ES T. 1 S and the PRINCESSES last honoured the Theatre with their presence. srR CIRCULAR. fhtse....Guards, .Yzely 6, 1802. be oll i h4v e the HOnour to inform you, that His Majesty has igim e rac ously , pleased to grant permission to the several Re to I,:nt,sOf his Army; which served during the late Campaign a to assume, and wear in/heir Colours, a Badge, as a i i d a ' 4l Kilished mat*. of His Majesty's Royal approbation, j e , a ' a lasting memorial of the glory acquired to His Ma- T '} :, ' „ sr tris, by the zeal, discipline, and intrepidity of his . 1. 1.. / Tv s j in that arduous and important Campaign. ihe s "qal Highncis the Com:minder in Chief has direeted _,trito make this communication to you, in order that the Re ent under your command may avail itself of the Honour ti;.`ebY conferred by His Majesty ; and I am commanded, at ab e s able time, to apprise you, that a Pattern of the Badge, enr„'" e d bY His Majesty, is lodged at the Office of the lers of Army Accounts, there to be had recourse to, circumstances may' require. !have the Honour to be, Sir, Your most obedient humble Servant, ,(Signed) HARRY CALVERT, Adj. Gen. fA true Copy. , s . . ve rS : r it. The B adge i s a Sphinx, wit ) h the word "EGYPT" GENERAL ORDERS Nis Horse-Guards, "'toy 1862. be RbYal Hi.ghneas the 'Commander in Chief (*areas it to g „ : , 111 , 4 de known to the Army, that His Majesty has been s —e ' ° usty pleased to signity His Royal Pleasure, that every ileasrjFaut (whether of the Cavalry, Foot G tqrds, or Line), who in service, shallhe late War, or may hereafter, become ili um' on, receive - an allowance of s. 6d. per die m ; every Corporal, in the like circumstances, is. id: per , ta and every. Drummer and Private Man, in like circum tjt..nces, TS. a day, for the remainder of their lives. is the Commander in Chief's plea Sure that MS Majes jlgracious in above expressed, shall be cOmmuni d to the Men, and inserted in the Orderly Book of every "`elirn ent 13 y • (I rder of His Royal Highness the Commander in Chief, HARRY CALVERT, Adj. Gen. of the Forces. Yesterday a f ternoon a G entleman belong i ng to ' the Batik of Engl an d h a d hi s pocket/picked in Fen mttrek.street, of a pock et .b oo k, conta i n in g B an k 'ltes to a large :mount. Seine time after; two q e il. who appear to be father and son, went to a ptl n thes sh o p, at S parrow Corner,'-t ower-hill, to ‘ t rc h; 4 se some clothes, when they gav e one o f t he • L'-'n Notes to ch a nge., The shop-keeper suspcEt "R em, sent i mme di ate l y t h e N ote to the. Bank, q e lo l'pro ve d to he one of those takcn from the 1 , 1 l 'llcip an . 'The men being secured, all the lost, I c 4 ty was found upon them. . LAIC REPORT. COURT OF .KnoiG's BENCH; jut,y'i2 lITTINGS BrrARE LOkDELLENBOROUGH- AND A SPECIAL. JURY IN WESTMINSTER HALL. DELANEY, ESQ. 4J. JONES. Tuts was an Aaion for a Libel, and is very im portant to The Pubic, on, vafious accounts, as ap. peared from several parts of it,. as they' apply to the condthf.t of individuals - towards each other; the right they, have to make inquiries, .&c. and parti cularly on account at the opinion delivered by ,my, Lord Chief Justice. Mr. ERSKINE opened the Case on the part of the Plaintiff. The Defendant was a stationer, living in • Duke -street, St. James's-square. Mr. Delaney was a Gentleman of Fortune, -a Man of Honour and of Station,. being the Son of a Gentleman of large Property in the West Indies, and also an 'Officer in the North Lincoln Militia, and as such, jealous of his charader; and bound to repel' any attack that was made upon it, or the Honourable Persons with whom he was conneaed, would decline his future acquaintance. He, therefore, - complained of a Li bel, which the Defendant Mr. Jones had published, refleffing upon that diameter. This Gentleman was married to his present - wife, on the loth of August, 1799, froth whom he had-been' some tithe separated, in consequence of a difference which sub sisted between them : they separated 'upon terns that - were perfeqly - honourable to Mr. Delaney, for he gave up to this Lady the whole of her For., tune, -reserving to himself no advantage whatever. He - went to the West -Indies to settle his affairs - there with his father, who was a Planter: He came 'home, and it was then the separation took place.- - Some time after this, application, by means of Mrs. Delaney, was made to the Defendant, Mr.' Jones, .who had a partner of the name of Yarrel, to publish ''an Advertisement, which was now complained of, -purporting robe an InqUiry,,on the part of the wife, concerning her husband. He did not -complain of .this as an 'lnquiry on the part of the wife, merely as suchshe had a right to make an Inquiry. She had even a right to counsel with others on affairs that were interesting to her and her husband—but 'neither her, nor her Agent, had any right to slander the Plaintiff, wider pretence of making an Inquiry. This Lady represented that her husband was married before, to a person who was living at the time of his second marriage with her-,-for which representation there was not the least colour or foundation. She, however, for what reason was best known to hetself, did make that regresenta- Lion, and expressed a desire to establish that fat, and to prosecute her husband for a Felony—which Bigamy is now declared by Law to be. In conse. quence of which, the Defendant took upon himself ) without any knowledge of the faEt, and with per_ felt knowledge of the tendency of the Advertise.' ment—although ignorance of it would' be no ex cuse, to publish this Libel in The Morning Post, with a.view of procuring Evidence of Mr. Dela ney's former marriage. The Advertisement was TEN GUINEAS REWARD. " Whereas, by d Letter lately received from the West Indies, an event is stated to be announced by a Newspaper, that can only be investigated by these means —This is to :request, that if any Printer, or any other Person, can assert, that: J. Delancy,-Esq. of St. Kitt's, since residing at Cork, and late Lieutenant of the North Lincoln Militia, was married previous to nine o'clock on the loth of August, 1799, they wi7l give notice r to Messrs. Yarreli and Jones, No. I+, Duke-street, St. James's square." Now, Mr. ERSKiNE said, - the Plaintiff was l an Officer; and a Man of Honour; he was justly jea-_ lous of it ;1 and finding, that this Libel was likely to have a great effeCton the opinion of those with whom he was accustomed to live in happiness, he published another, to do 'away the effect f of this publication, by 'offering himself a reward of 5001. to any one • that would prove it, &c. He might have brought his Action against the Printer and Publisher of . this Paper, but for thaF he had no de sire—for he/ discovered that the Author, or the person who brought the Advertisement to the Pa per, was the Defendant, Mr. Jones. The Plainti ff was Only desirous that the Defendant would put an end to the calumny, by stating how he came to be employed to publish it by the desire of Mrs. Delaney, and by retratling it, and wrote to the Defendant a letter to that effeet, upon which the Plaintiff declared he would be satisfied; to which the Defendant thought fit to return no answer, and so here the Parties came to settle this matter, the Defendant not so much as admitting the Plaintiff's 'marriage, but putting him to the trouble and ex. peace of bringing a Witness all the way from Liver_ 'pool to prove that fad. It would be wasting time before the Jury to enter farther into this business. This was,an imputation of a crime to this Gentle man, and the Defendant could have no excuse for it; he could not be justified by saying that this was a publication which came from' the anxiety of Mrs. Delaney, and he did it to oblige her—he might say, perhaps, " I really did not know any thing of the tendency of this Paragraph, although it appears to . be so singular as that of offering a reward for discovering whether a man had been married or not before nine o'clock on the loth of August 1799,this would be no answer to the law in this Case, for every man was hound to know what the tendency was of all his aaions; and if it were otherwise, we Should find that men might' be ruined by those who pleaded ignorance of what they did as an excuse for doing it.". Having illus trated this proposition by familiar instances, he observed that the Plaintiff in this Case, did not seek large damages, but he brought' it for the vin dication of his charaeter, to skew that there was no foundation whatever for this calumny. The marriage was then proved to have taken place in the Parish of St. Nicholas, at Liverpool, on the zoth of August 1799, between nine acid. ten in the morning. It was. between James Delaney . , Esq. and Eliz. Weston, widow. • , Mr. Charles Foreman produced the Paper , of the-Morning Post of the 221 of January 1802.- Fie said he , was Clerk at the Office of the Morning Posts—He stated, that the.. Advertisement in ques tion came from the house of Mr. Jonas: he had some, cl:fficulty about inserting it, apprehending that the , tendency of it night be he had a converiation with the D4endant, Mr. Jones upon the subjt, Who asked 'him why he did not insert the Advertisement ? The \Vitne;s told him, he ap pre:iended it might be deemed libellts. He said, that he did not see ally reason it should not be in-. Serted, pa . rticUlarly as the Morning Herald had in_ . serted it—upon which the 'Witness consented to .insert it. Mr. Jones Was what was called a News_ man,, and as such, frequently brought advertise ments from persons whorl) he 'served with News papers; to save them trOdble„ (ec. ' , Mr. William Fletcher said, he was a friend of the Plaintiff. He saw the AdVertisemenvin the Paper, and he conceived it to allude to the.Piaintiff from his knowledge of the Plaintiff and his concerns before=- , he thought, when he saw this-Advertise ment, that it imputed to the Plaintiff the crime of Bigamy, • Lord ELLLENBOROUGH said, "'There can be no doubt that thiS Paragraph shows an anxiety in the mind of Mrs. Delaney to k no w whether shewas a legal wife or a coneubine, - and that if this was a bona fide proceeding in her behaif, it can be no Libel." v , Mr. ERSKINE said, that if it was a false Para_ . graph, whatever, might be the intention of the wife, that would be no defence foi this Defendant against this Affirm; (4 that, whatever might be the purpose of the' wife, the injury was, the same to the Plaintiff. . • Lord ELLENBOROUGII; " I am quite of ,ano: chef opinion. —The wife had a right to learn whe ther she was . legally married, or whether she was-a mete sttumpet ;" and on such an occasion, he said, he shotild think that i . gi.eat deal of allowance ought to be made' in the prosecution of such an inquiry, before a- publicatibn - by way of Advertise ment should be deemed a Libel. The Witness► then proceeded to say, he did, not precisely, know the date of Mr: . Delaney'4 mar riage.—He never heard of his being formally mar ried : he knew that Mr. and Mrs. Delaney were then under articles of separation. These articles of separation were in the possession , of the Witness, therefore he had means bf particular information upon this subjeet. Mr: - Chesterman said, he saw the Advertisement in question in 'the Newspaper. He said, he knew Mr. Fletcher perfectly well. On reading the Ad vertisement in the company of Mr: Fletcher, the Witness said, « Here is a man advertised and de scribed who has married two wives ; why don't they hang the rascal ?'"fhis he understood to apply to the case of the Plaintiff: _ _ Mr. PARK addressed the Jury on behalf of the Defendant. -le said, that when he came into Court, he had really no idea that this 'Cause would have been tried ;. and he contended, that it was - one of the clearest cases in favour of the Defendant, that ever, carne before a Court of Justice.—,lndeed, he was not Sure, in point of sttitf.thess, whether he ciught not to a<k my Lord to nonsuit the Plaintiff, but 'which he should not, since his, Lordship .might tell him, it should go to the Jury to say " whether the intention in• this case; was such as it was stated in the Declaration." Now, Mr. PARK said, 'that he, on the part of the Defendant maintained this proposition, ".That this Advettiseinent, of itself, was not a Libel en any human being. That if it contained any Libel whatever, that tittality must be borrowed from the Inuendas that were attached to it by the. Declaration.H-He maintained alsO, that if ,a Publication was of itself no Libel, it could never be made a Libel by the inucndo puts upon it by a Plaintiff in his Declaration. That it was not enough that one or two individUals thought it imputed Bigamy. to the 'Plaintiff. These 'indivi, duals might be induced to apply it to die case of the Plaintiff, fromtheir previous knowledge of his circumstances, but that 'meaning must 'appear to attach to it by the jury, judging on the Case be fore them.' Now, lie contended, it was impossible . that the Jury could put this meaning on this Ad vertisement. It imputed nothing to .the Plaintiff that was not consistent with the most perfed inno cence.—lt inquired, whether any body knewrof his marriage before 9 o'clock on the lath of Au gust 1799. —How did this impute -Bigamy to the Plaintiff? ?'light it not happen that something should depend upon the birth of a child before or after that hour ? Might not a legacy be made to depend upon that fad., as it should be ase!rtained one way or the other I—ln a word, there were a thousand points to which this 'Advertisement might be made to apply, without necessarily imputing Bigamy or any other crime to the Plaintiff, the consequence of which must be that the Defendant should have aNerdiCi. Fld really thought it un necessary for him to .call any Witnesses, ;for that his Client was entitled to a Verdid.upon the evi dence given on behalf of the Plaintiff; bu't as he, was not :entitled, in this stage of the Case, ,to ask the Jury what they thought of it, he should call a Witness to shew that the Defendant carried this Advertisement to the Of f ice of this Newspaper by the desire of Mrs. Delaney, who informed him that she was advertising this matter to ascertain the fad which was s 9 interesting to her, and that she employed an agent 9f thename of Altnot for this purpose. Upon all these grounds he main tained that 'the Defendant would be entitled to a Verdia. It then appeared, by, the evidencoof Mr., Almot, that he was employed by Mrs. Delaney for the pur r . pose of getting this. Advertisement, inserted in the Newspapers, and that he employed Mr. Jones,, the Defendant - , to take it to the Office; and to pay for its publication, but that the Defendant was not at all informed by him of the objed of that adver tisement. Mr. ERSKINE contended in reply, that in this case the Defendant was answerable for this publi. cation as a libel, upon all the rules which h4d hitherto governed the administration of the law upon that subjet, and upon 'which Prisons had been filled from time to time, with offenders of that class; ,Ste. &c. Lord ELLENBOROUGH—" Gentlemen of the jury, this is an anion for ,a- Libel, in which the 'Plaintiff, Mr. Delaney, complains, and calls for damages against a, Stationer of the name or Jonas ; a Stationer, or a Vender of Newspapers, as he has been described on either side in the course of thi, cause ; for the publication of an advertisement ‘nich appeared in the Morning Po.r of the zzi nt January lase, which is as follows:—there his Lord.' ship read the advertisement - J.—Now it is contended ort the part of the Plaintiff, that this advertisement, necessarily applies to him, and you must be of that opinion before you 'can find a veillia for the Plain stiff, and that from the information which you have • from the Witnesses, as well as from what appears upon the.face of the Llveraisement Before you can say that the Plaintiff is entitled to your, verdict; you must be satisfied that this advertise-, ment imputes to him a crime in this case, theCritne of bigamy, that is, that he was married to another woman, , whO was living at the time this marriage took place, on the zoth of August, 5799. There are different meanings given to this paper, but tirt less you see it imputes to'rhc Plaintiff, necessarily,. the Crime of Bigamy, your verdiet will be, be; cause it ought to be, for the Defentiant ; buf if you - think it• wars ' meant, and does mean, to in,. .sinuate that fat to the prejudice of the Plaintiff, - then it would be necessary for you to .see, vacther 'any, and if any, what excuse can 11; - e received fer him in point of law, for his having been instru:nental in this publication. You have heard the way in which the Learned Counsel for.the Defendant draws - inferences from it. He says it doesnot.nec,,..ssari6r imply bigamy in the Platintiff, but that it is, an i may be tiken in rtiaa7 eases to he, consistent .with innocence - in the - Plaintq, and therefore nn libel upon him. That it mi,gbt,be an important inquiry with'a view to ascertain ,the legitimacy -- of a child, or thai a legacy might have depended upon (tam; fact; and that many other cases might have hap. ,pened in which the ascertainment of that Ed might ; become important. It will 1.),e For you to say, whether in the termsi of this advertisearnt, and under all the circumstances which attended it, the publication necessar4 imputes bigamy to the Plain; tiff, and was published for the put pose- of iasteinng upon him that imputation ; or whether, it was pub.;, Billed in pursuit of a lawful purpose, na!nely, that jf ascertaining whether this Lady was legally mar ried or not. Now, upon this , subject, 1 411 i lli lay down the law as it appears to me to have a bear- ' ing upon tt. " If, in the course of a necessary inquiry. into any subjetf, things appear, whiclt pu'.lished by-them selves detachedly and without cause, would be: a libel upon .any individual who is the objcft of that inquiry—if any thing shou'd appear to trench on the charader of the person princip a lly interested in that inquiry, yet it shall not be a libel, provided it arises out of such inquiry ; and if this comes out; in this pursuit of necessary information, it will make no difference whetheh it be by words spoken or' in writing, provided the inquiry be boNa. fide i and instituted for a. legitimate purpose—in all such"': pursuits Parties ':shall be proteded by the Law. If I go to ask the character of a n servant, and in - receiv ing that chara.Vr words occur which trench upon that, charader, I might ask either of you, whether • you think a person would be guilty of a libel who - should say what he knew of that servant, although, that Might communicate a fnct which might destroy,the charter of- that servant, Suppose he had robbed you, or that he was guilty of a fraud, and that yOu say so—or that you shouhi that which you believe to be consistent with truth, and upon further inquiry it .should, turn out that there was some .mistake In the - case, but that: you aded bai;:z 'fide, - is it for the convenience of neinkinel you •should be deemed a slanderer ? 'This ma v apply to the case of Merchants in their dealings abroad as :veil ,as at home.. 11, therefore, this was an ingniry set on foot - by a wife anxious to know whether ;he was a legal wife, or was to be considered as a concubine, I am of opinion that such wife, and all agents cm ploYed by sech wife for that purpose,, pursuing it bona Ale, are proteded in that pursuit, in noint of Law, but then it is incumbent on the party to shew that he aded fairly in ,the pursuit of that objed. It is therefore necessary that it appear to you, Jones acted in furtherance of that objed, and that is a subjea on which you will use your own judgment upon the Case, for all he knew you know by the, evidence which has been laid before you, acid the whole question " Whether , he meant to pursue a, fair inquiry, or insinuate a ;time against the Plain tiff?" It will be for you to say, Whether:the inquiry proposed by this Advertisement, was or wa s not i n _ tended to be a legitimate Inquiry ? If you find it was, you will not fix a man with a Libel for pursuing it, merely, because it may torn out that the snspicion was ill-founded. • But suppose you think this Ad vertisement strong, you will then have to say,whet her • you think the Defendant Jones, has the protettion of a per Son proceeding bona f ide in a necessary Inquiry. Nov, upon that, it is observable, that Jones did [Tot know Mr. Delaney. He did not know that this was an Inquiry set on foot to satisfy the anxiety of a Wife. He knew nothing of her, but. carried the Advertisement to theollice. And it appears, that Jones is cautioned by the Clerk., sit the Office of the Morning Post, for the Clerk told him, -the reason why it was not inserted, was, that he thought • it libellous; andl certainly . the Advertisement is capable of a double meaning at:least._ There is no thing of malice, in die thing itself, but if wrong, and Hbelleus, the Law will imply malice from the At, for whenever any< thing is done, which the Law forbids, the implies malice - in- the doing • of it—You' will therefore consider 'whether it was meant to impute the crime of Bigamy ; if so, you willsfind,your Verdiil for the Plaintiff, ;Ind in that cast you will consider what ciecumsrauces there are in tnitigation of Damages. If you think it was not intended to impute „Bigamy to the Plaint if, in that case, the Defendant will he entijled to a Verdid.— If, I say, yoti think it was _intended to impute Bigamy to the Plaintiff, and that the object was not a fair inquiry, you will, in that, case,' find a Verdid. for the Plaintiff, and will also proportion. the DaMages to the Injury--nut, unless you think it is to be fairly concluded, by any indifferent person reading -the Paper,. that the Piaintiff was ;here accu,ed of Bigamy, and the it was equal to an assertion that the Plaintiff, at .rzne o'clock on' the loth of August I 799,'had a 'Aviie iiving, when , he married this ,Lady ; and that this Ad vert i sement was not published, for the. purpose of inquiring whether the caw, was , so or riot, the Defendant will be entitled to your verdid..—Verdid for the De. fondant."