The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-01-28 00:00:00

TAYLOR 1.. lIINGT.Y..

Mr. Sergeant PELL moved for ■ rule to alley cause why the
verdict for the plaintiff in this ease should not be set aside, on the
ground that the verdict was against evidence. The case was tried
at the sittings after last term, before Mr. Justice Burrough. It
was an action of trespass brought by the plaintiff against the de-
fendant, who is a bricklayer (and only the nominal defendant in
in this action. Mr. Barber Beaumont being the real one), for da-
nlegcs done by him in making certain erections at the Weavers'
Arras public-house, at Mile-end.
The Collar ruled that this case had been fully before the Jury,
and mold see no reason for disturbing the verdict.
Rule refused.
EDWARDS, CLERK r. SELL AND OTHERS.
- •• • • •

Mr. Sergeant PELL moved that there be a verdict in this ease
entered tbr the plaintiff, on the genera/ plea, notwithstanding the
verdict for the defendant. It was an action brought by the plain-
tif, the Rev. George Hdwards, the Minister of a Dissenting
Chapel at Great Marlow, against the defendants, as printers and
proprietors of the Times newspaper, for a libel, in having pub-
lished a certain paragraph, charging him with having made the
pulpit the vehicle for female slander, in publicly attacking the
character of a virtuous young lad, a member of his congregation.
The ease was tried before Mr. Justice Burrough, at the Sittings
after hat Trinity Tenn. The words used, and copied from the hacks
Chronicle, were these:—" I have something to say, which I have
thought of mentioning for some time, viz., the improper conduct
of one of the female teachers ; her name is Miss Fair; and if any
of the children dare ask her to go home they shall be turned nut of
the school, and never enter it again. Miss Fair does more harm
than good." The ease went to the Jury upon these issues, and
they found a verdict for the defendants, on the plea of justification,
and fur the plaintiffon the general issue--Dameges
Mr. Justice PARK read the record of the pleadings. The first
plea denied the libel, and the '2:l plea declared that Margaret Pair
did assist in the management of the Sunday School, and was a
' person of great merit and spotless reputation.
Me. Sergeant PELT. submitted that the libel imported one
thing, and the justification or jostificatory matter another.
Mr. Sergeant VAI'ORAK showed cause against the rule, and
said that the question was, whether the plea was good, or the justi-
fication sufficient? It had appeared in the Tint:: newspaper, and
he was not certain whether it was a libel or not. If it was one, it
certainly was one of the most milk-and-water and diluted libels
h. had ever met with—for what did it state ?—that a Dissenting
Minister hail thrown nut an aspersion against a lady of spotless re-
putation and distinguished merit ; therefore it was a reflection on
him to throw out such an observation on any pay; and that was
the libel. Rut the law held that the truth was a sufficient justi6-
! cation ; the plaintiff had said that Miss Fair's conduct was a
disgrace to the school; and the question was, if that was not a
personal invective, the giving publicity to which had caused dis-
sension in his congregation ? Should it be permitted to any one to
make the pulpit a vehicle for these personal allusions and invec-
tives, against any individual ? It should be remembered that the
paragraph stated that a serious misunderstanding had taken place
in the congregation, and nix between the Minister and his congvega-
thin : a serious misunderstanding had taken place in the congrega-
tion in consequence of these expressions of the plaintiff. The justifi-
catton was co-extensive with the libel. The libel imported the
misunderstanding ; the justification did the same.
Mr. Sergeant TADDY, on the same side, observed, that to main-
tain such an action, it was necessary for the plaintiff to show a
wilful perversion of language. The question was, whether the de-
fendants had made a malicious and wilful misrepresentation? If
the weeds were even not exactly the same the action could not be
maintained. The Learned Sergeant cited the ease of Lewis and
Clements, 3d Barnewall and Alderson Reports, 702. It was a
case heard in the Insolvent Court, and headed "Shameful con-
duct of an Attorney." Although the accottot was hit. it was evi-
dent something had been added on the writer's own authority. He
considered the present action so far founded in truth as to cieelude
the purpose of malice. There was no addition, as in the case he
hod quoted ; and, under all the circumstances, he treated the
Court would rot ant the motion.
Mr. Sergeant PEgrLL, in support of the motion, contended that
the malice had been proved by the damages, and he thought a
mote malignant libel was never published. The discourse related
to Miss Fair, as a teacher in the school, and her condu 3 in that
capacity, and did not, he submitted, come under the denomination
of personal invective. But the most serious part of the libel was,
that a serious misunderstanding had taken place between the
plaintiff and his congregation. The Learned Sergeant contended,
that the words were not the same, and the libel not justified.
Mr. Sergeant Praia: followed on the sonic side.
The CMET Jurrice stated, that this was an action bmtlght by
the plaintiff, who stated himself to be the minister of a dissenting
congregation at Great Marlow, against the defendants, as proprie-
, tors and printers of the Timers newspaper, for a libel. The gist
and sting of the libel consisted in its stating that he used the place
set apart for religious •orship for the purpose of calumny against
• young lady of spotless reputation. The libel did not state that the
wards were used in a sermon, but that they were used in the pul-
pit ; and the serious misunderstanding between the pastor and the
congregation might only mean, that a misunderstanding had taken
place In the congregation, of which the minister was one. On
that par of the libel, in which it was stated that steps were about
to be taktuin c4usequence of the worth used, it might not Imply

a ,em„,l of the minister, but it mien MOO doter friends woui.l
take tna young lady from sehttuL Under all the circumstances
his horiNtip thaught that the Jutlgtnetst ought to wind.
Mr. Justice PARK and 31r. auntie y*Roten cor.cuered
in the opinion et' the CiTie Justice.