The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-04-01 00:00:00

WOOLNOCOR r. DENT AND OTHEDIL

The plaintiff in this action lira at Woodbridge, and the de.
fondants keep the Coach and norms public-house in the adjoining
village of Melton. The action was brought to recover compensa-
tion for an assault committed by the defendant, Mrs. Rent, upon
the plaintiff, in July last, by throwing a gins of beer in his face,
and striking him three or four titre about his head. It also ap-
peared that Mrs. Rent threw a small tub of water upon the plain-
tiff, and struck him repeatedly with the tub about the head. After
this Mary Rent, who was the daughter of the other defendants,
tame up and seized the plaintiff.
Several witnesses were called to prove these facts, who also de-
posed that the defendant had been with them, to request that they
would not go against him, and that if they did go to Bury he
hoped they would say it was so long ego that they could not recol-
lect any thing about it.
. .

The detendant pleaded that the assault was first committed by
the plaintiff:
Mr. 11. J. Comma, for the defendants, contended that the story
wan altogether improbable. and that the witnesnes all swore in con.
ccrt, like soldier* who bad been well drilled, and were therefore
unworthy of credit.
On behalf of the defendants witnesses were called, attempting
to prove that the assault was made by this plaintiff; who threw a
glom of beer in the face of the defendant, Mrs. Rent; but
3lr. STORKS successfully ridiculed their evidence; and after a
mounting up fonit the Learned Judge, the Jury found a verdict for
the plaintiff—Damages 40e.

LANCIIESTER v. FREWTR.

The plaintiff in ti;ias.ct---iirl,;thO; wish 51r. W. Tricker, was
Churchwarden of the parish of St. James, in Bury, in the year
1811, sought to recover of the defendant die own of 251. being one
twentieth part of the expenses paid by him in the reparation of St.
James's Tower in that year. fhe action was brought against the
defendant as otte of twenty persons who, on the Bth of July, 1811,
authorised the Churchwardens, by their signatures to the vestry
book, to do KWh repairs. The defendant pleaded first that he was
not liable, and next that he had nut protnised within six sears. It
was admitted that the plaintiff had raid the sum of 5051. but had
received a moiety thereof of Mr. 1 ricker. Witnesses were then
called to take the case out of the statute, by proving that the de-
fendant had intimated a wish that the business could be settled;
and also by his answer to a 11111 in Chancery, but which was taken
in the year 181 G. It appeared, however, that 251. was paid to Mr.
Armstrong within two years. The Learned Judge advised a verdict
for the plaintiff, subject to a case to be stated in the Court above,
upon several points of law as to the original liability of the de.
fondant, and upon the statute of limitations.

We rejoice to learn that on the assembling of the Grand Juries,
at our Assizes, a proposition was submitted to them, and unani-
mously adopted, for the extension to this county of the benevolent
plan which originated in Norfolk, and was imitated in the metro-
polis, for the preservation of the Lives of Shipwrecked Seamen.
Committees of live of vac% of the Grand Juries were appointed, to
consider of the best means of carrying the design into execution...—
nary Post.

YORK ASSIZES, iiONDAY, Ma ca 29.

LIBEL.
WATTS V. ■AIXEI.

This cause excited some interest in Court, the parties being the
conductors of the two leading political papers In this part of the
country.
Mr. BROUGHAM opened the pleadings. The declaration stated,
that the defendant hadininted and published a certain label, of and
concerning the plaintiff. Ples--General issue.
Mr. SCARLETT said, that the plaintiff in this case, Mr.
Aisne Watts, was the editor and conductor of the Leeds Islet-
! Lipner?, and the defendant was the editor of the Leeds Aferesory.
In most cases the disputes of rival editor were confined to remarks
upon the respective limits of their own publications, and they in
general contrived to settle the difference with their own weapons,
without resorting to a duel to decide it. If Mr. Baines had, in
this case, only done that which he had just stated to be the usual
mode of newspaper attack—if he had only resorted to what was the
ordinary anal every day practice—then, in all probability, he
would have been allowed to continue his course without interru
tion ; and the plaintiff and defendant, after having exhausted the
battle with their pens, might have dined together, and amicably
shaken hands. But when that ordinary course was departed from ;
when the attack was not directed against any defect in literary corn- '
position, or error in political argument ; when the topics which were
peculiar to newspapers were laid aside, and the attack was directed
against moral character, and of ectml private life, then it became
necessary to appeal to a jury to give to one party redress for the in-
jury already alone, and to teach the other such a lesson as might
prevent a repetition of the offence. lie would shortly state to Glen
the circumstance out of which the libel in question had arisen ; and
they would see, in the first place, that the defendant had, in direct
terms, adopted and circulated the libel : and, in the second place,
that the course taken by the plaintiff had given to the defendant
the completest upportt.nity of vindicating himself. Mr. Watts,
the plaintiff, was not only known in !seeds as the editor of a news.
paper, but he was also will known in the republic of letters, and
enjoyed the esteem and good opiiion of many eminent and respec-
table persons. He had never, before he had the mistirtune of writ.
ing fora newspaper, been subject to attacks upon his moral charac-
ter. Some time ago a person connected with a Mr. Swirea, a road-
maker, in Yorkshire, had sent an advertisement to the Leeds led-
4cm:re, with a request that it should be inserted in five successive
numbers. The advertisement had acconlingly been headed—" No-
tice to road-naakers," and had been inserted in three numbers ; but,
between the first and finarth publication, a letter had been inserted
at the Imtelligencer office, purporting to be sent by a Mr. Merry-
weed's r, an agent to the Leeds licrenry, at Skipton, and contain-
ing an advertisement, which the writer said it was the wish of Mr.
Swircs to have inserted in the newspaper five times. This adver-
tisement also related to roads; Ma 4L\ it was in language totally dif.
fertnt firm the advertisement which lad been betnre sent, the
editor hal net conceived the last Advertisement to countermand the
first, cod had therefore given insertioa to both. Mr. Merryweather
huh thought lit to make an attack upon :Slr. Watts for doing so,
and of that a:tack, be (Mr. Sesrlett) dial nut complain; but Ft,
would road to them the observations which he, the plaintiff, had
made upon that attack, in the next publication of the I.crds
lige:tees ; and they would dins be able to judge whether there
was anything in those observations nu intemperate as to justify the
att.ick which subsequently followed. The remarks were these—
( :dlr. Scarlett here read an extract from the Leeds Inielligencer,
staling, that they had received al angry letter front an agent of the
/weds dfeeeeey, fur a mistake which had occurred, not from any
default of their own, but from the inadvertence of the individual
in question.' This was the only provocation given by the plain-
' till; and in the next number of the heeds ilfeecney. the editor bad
avaiird himself of another earns to make the following attack upon
Mr. Watts. The letter, in chide the attack was contained, GAS
, addressed to the proprietors of the Leeds latelliincer, and signed
er
.• John Merrywenth." It was as follows: 3lr. Scailett litre
nail the libel. It stated, that the editor of the .rails tuictligerwer
could not help lying, even if he tried ; that he had reduced the
paper through his own imprudence, impudence, and folly, to the
, las: stage of a galloping consumption, and expressed the wonder
, of the writer, that the proprietors should entrust their property to
, such a person.( litre then was a charge, first, that the. plaintiff
was see given to lying that he could not tell the truth ; lies, it aamnetl,
i would tenable out even when truth was intended; then the p;ain..,
, tiff was called a " wretch, whose imprudence, impudence, and
foil. lisd redeeed the paper to a galloping consumption;" and,
to complete the whale, it was dimmed to the plaintiffs employers,
is order to rceoneile them to his services, a.,d to put them in a
good humour with the man. to whom they wire pav rtg wages.—
. Mr. Watts had not, in the first instance, suppo.ed that such an
I attack could have proceeded from Mr. Baines; he had expected
that it would, at least, be considerably softened down; and be bad,

therefore, in company with a friend, welted upon Mr. Baines, and
demanded the name of the author. Mr. 11.01 had replied, that
the letter had been written by the individual whose signature was
attached to it. Mr. Watts load then requested the manuscript, as
it was clear, that without possession of it nu legal proceedings could
be had against Mr. Merryweather. Mr. Baines had refused him
before lie gave any answer to this second request. Perhaps he had
waited to consult his Dictionary~ of the wiuile duty of an editor,
before he decided the point. Upon a second visit which Mr.
%Volts had made, in company with the battle friend, the request
had been repeated, and Mr. Baines had then refused to give
up the manuscript. This action hod therefore been brought
against Mr. Haines, and it had been brought in such a way
as to give hint a fair chance of justification, for be had
now an opportunity of bringing forward his friend, Alr.
Altrryweather, to prove the truth of these imputations which had
been cast on die moral character of Mr. Watts. If Air. Merry.
weather had been the defendant in this action, it would have been
very easy to say that the defendant might know a thousand things
against the plaintiff, but that lie could not prove them, because he
could not be a wfuess in his own came. That excuse was taken
out of the mouth of Mr. Baines, for he was now placed in the first
situation in which a defendant could be placed, having had an op-
portunity of justifying, and calling Mr. Merry weather to prove
the justilicatiun. isio justification. however, had been attempted.
The only point which he had now to speak upon was the point of
damages. The object of this action was not to pat money into ,
the packet of Mr. Watts. The office of editor of a newspaper was
au office of great importance ; it was therefore highly necessary
that an editor should be a man of honour and education. llc'e, ;
then, could a man of education submit to a charge like that which
had b.en made in the present tan, and the tendency of which was,
entirely to shut him out of society ?
Thomas Kay, examined by Mr. Posnocit—Proved that the de.
Pendant is the editor of the Leeds Mercury ; that he accompanied i
the plaintiff to defendant's house, and bean plaintiff ask for the
manuscript ; that defendant pn'titteed a letter containing the al-
leged libel, signed by Alerryweather ; witness believed that the
band-writing was Alerryweather's ; defendant refused to part with
the letter, because be said that it was not necessary fur legal par.
poses to give it up. Mr. (Vans did not ask for a copy.
Cross-examined by Alr. WlLLtams—Witnen had been five
yearsattached to the Iraclligracer ; the Irrielligeucrr is the leading
paper on the right side, and the Mercury the leading paper on the
wrung one (a laugh). Mr. Watts was on the best terms wi.h the
proprtetots of the Irsidligexcer.
My WILLIAMS—There has been warm work between then
since Air. Watts became the editor of the Intrllioncer I—There
las been a variance.

Ut course .Ur. Baines began the battle, but did not the other hit
too ? very naturally.
•lr. Watts is an author 7—Yes.
lo the poetic line ?—Yes.
The alleged 116.1 waa then put in and read by 31r. Capes, the
usuciate.

Mr. Wt LLEs us—Gentlemen of the Jury,—ln this ease I have
the honour to appear fur the detendant, who is, undoubtedly, oil his
own admission, the proprietor and editor of the deal: Mercury, a
newspaper of very considerable and respectable standing; and, as
the CollOf of that paper, although on the wrong side of those politi-
cal questions which are agitated in public papers, he has uniftemly
COOdUCted himself in such a manner, that, for a period of 23 years,
he has been exempted front a single prosecution against hini, and
loss never had occasion to resort to any fur himself ; he therefore
finds himself now standing in a flotation perfectly novel. In
truth, Gentlemen, 3lr. Balms, in undertaking the duty of an editor
of a newspaper felt and saw that it was a situation of considerable
importance. lie knew that it did not behoves mot who aunitipted
to regulate public opinion, to expect to be as tree from the oleserva-
buns of rival editors as if he had always abstained front public ob-
servation himself. He did imagine that, inasmuch as tne opinion
of newspapers respecting public men and public measures must ne- •
cessarily dither, this collision of those opinions would now and then
give rise to espressiona of angry resentment. (In that round,
therefont, he has always allowst such expressions to pass unheeded;
and he has never placed the present plaintiff in the situation of a
defe..dant, because he knew that any difference between them might
be much better settled in • quarter to which reference has been al-
ready made,-1 mean in the numbers of the Imielligencer and the
Mercury. (lentlemen, singular things do happen now and then :
it must be true that the profession to which I belong gives rise to
very singular connexions; for it, in any day or any night the
image of my Learatd Friend opposite t3lr. Brougham) had ap.
peared tunic identified in any one interest with the Leeds
grater, I should have required to have dreamt the dream ten times
over every morning before I attached to it the slightest credit. (A
laugh.) It is a compliment to the profession (and lam glad to be
able w compliment it, since l have, of late, been supposed to be
wanting on that head), that private wrong can be forgotten—every
sort of censure and animadversion forgotten—all be lost or suf.
pended in the exercise of a public duty. Now, (lentlemen, as to
the letter in question, die first observation that I will make upon it
is, that it appeared in an advertisement ; my next observation will
be, upon the subject of the letter. Mr. Baines had no more to do
with that than you or I. A connexion, it seems, existed between a
Mr. swirea, a superintendent of the roads, and, for aught that ap-
ars, a must respectable MIN and Mr. Merryweather. But Mr.
Baines had no more to do with that connexion, or with the roads,
than you have with the editorship of his newspaper. The letter
found its way into his paper as an advertisement, with the contents
•of a hich he bath nothing to do. But is that all ? It has been half
insinuated that another name was assumed by the defendant, in or-
der to cover his insidious attack upon the editor of the batelliaen-
err. But it appears in evidence, that Mr. Merryweather, the auc-
tioneer, has been five or six years well known at the office of the
hueffigeNees • his hand-writing was well known ; and the menu-
script of the letter, the very day it was published, was shewn to
Mr. Ray and Mr. Watts ; and, although Mr. Baines did not
think it necessary, for legal purposes, to give that letter up, he ne-
ver did refuse to be forthcoming to promote the ends of justice ;
and if he had been asked for a copy, what evidence is there to thew
that he would have refused it? Mr. Baines might very naturally
suppose, that the possession of the manuscript was necessary to pro- !
tect hinmlf. Mr. Merryweather was to be found and was forthcom-
ing, but that would not do foe Mr. Watts. No! The newspaper
rivalry was to be gratified ; a blow was to be aimed at those cus. '
tomtits who had been converted from the luminous tatelfigeueer by
die mysterious, trifling, absurd, inconsistent reasoning of Mr.
Baines. Can you doubt that the rancour of the poet was at work ?
The plaintiff has told you that the libel tended to injure hint in the
estimation of the !proprietors of the paper. But what is the evi-
dence ? Why that lie is on the best possible terns with theta.'
Mr. Baines, Gentlemen, has maintained an increasing reputation,
by abiding by his own opinion ; by shewing no change, but by •
honestly and manfully expressing what he thought. Such • line
of conduct will rends any person respectable : right or wrung, per-
severance will gain respect ; those opinions alone excite our con-
tempt which are adopted for the sake of some interested rise, or
which shift with erery gale. But Mr. Watts, it stems, is a great
literary character. lou will be pleased to bear in mind that he is a
poet, and as fiction is at all times the soul of poetry, he ought not
to complain of the exercise of that talent for which the poets of all
ages have had a licence. (A high.) It is not, Gentlemen, for the
sake of justice this action is brought, but it is to gratify, by your
verdict, a petty triumph; it is to gratify that spleen and resent-
ment of which the bosom of this Editor is so great a repository.
Why did he not resort to the columns of his own newspaper ? Why
did he not avail himself of that abuse in which he had before dealt
so largely ? Why did he not retort upon Mr. Haines with all that
exalted literature which he has to-day avowed ? Why did he not
content himself with standing on the right side, by remaining afar
off and exclaiming, 0 I ant thankful that I am not a Relnniier,
not a Radical, not even as this Editor." (A laugh.) The object
of the action is evident ; it is to enable hint, when beaten in argu-
ment, to turn round and say, " Oh, but look at the verdict at
York." I trust, Gentlemen, that you will disappoint hint in that
object, and that vou will join with me in opinion, that if he wanted
damages he should have gone to the real author, whose !MOW was
readily given up to him.
lilt. Justice BATLEY summed up, and told the Jury that the
plaintiff must haves verdict, but that the question of damages sou
entirely for their consideration.
The Jury consulted a few moments, and returned a verdict fur
the plaintiff—Damages Is.