The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1822-12-19 00:00:00

MAY V. ITNwly.

This was an action brought by the Plaintiff, late rester clerk
of the parish of St. Matthew, tiethmil Green, to leenrer a
connitmsation io damages for a libel, alleged to be published
by the Defendant, au inhabitant of that parish, and late one
of the olerseers.

The alleged libel grew out of the proceedings which had
been instituted against Mr. Merceron, for corrupt pra•lices
as a Justice of the Peace, and li.r a misapplication of the
Poor's Rates, of a Web be was the treasurer. Mr. Merceron
was found guilty on both the charges, -and received the sen-
tence of the Court of King's Bench. Suberviently, it wus re•
solved by the vestry that the legal expenses of those prosecu-
tions should be defrayed bydhe parish, from e.ertain fundst hen
named, and Mr. May, in consequence of that resolution of tbe
vestry, paid the amount of Knight and licreeman't(the attor-
neys) Wis. The libel now complained of was published in
too pamphlets; one entitled a "Statement of Facts," and the
other a " Report of a Vestry Meeting, appointed to investi •
gate the bills of Knight and Freeman's." The ilia of both the
publications was to charge Mr. May with a similar misappli-
cation of the parish funds to that which Mr. Mercerun bad
been guilty of.

Mr. Scutum, Mr. TAUNTON. and Mr. Ilorr, were for
the Plaintiff; and the Sotscrroa•Dzsi Lau, 31r.ttuasirv, and
Mr. WILDE, for the Defendant.
Several witnesses were called to prove the part which the
Defendant had take. to circulate the alleged libels.
Mr. Scsawrr was about to put both the pamphlets in
evidence, when ,

The tiox-crreaGawsnat. objected that the Defendant bed
not been ouinected with the identical papers proposed to be
read. }resubmitted that in this, at in alt other cues (except
the case of printers and publishers of newspapers) it was
necessary to *hew that the paper offered in evidence was
the eery paper published by the Defendant. From the fre-
quent failure in the proof of eases of libel by newspapers, an
.4ictof PerlLunent had 'passed, wllstels autboeued the reception
of a cie#y or the same title and date as legal evidence against
irifler east publisher of the newspaper in which the libel was
nserted; bet that species of proof was confined to news-
papers owl, aed clearly skewed the general law was as he
had stated it, and, therefore', the proof here must be consider-
ed,as having totally failed.

The Cater Jusmca thought there was sufficient evidence
to have the pamphlet, entitled " Report," ko. read in evi-
dence.

Mr. flemassrr said, he would call a witness, and endeavour
to carry the proof further respecting the " Statenitat of
facts."

Another witness was called, but be added nothing to the
proofs already before the Court.
Mr. Scaits.wirr then consented to be nonsoi led, and the
Plaintiff was called accordingly.
The Soticitoa • said there were two other causes
in the paper by the Plaintiff, on the sane subject, against
other parties. He now proposed, as is measure of concilia-
, lion, to put a stop, if possible, to the dissentious which pre-
vailed in this parish, to consent to a Juror being withdrawn
in those two cases, and in the one just'decided.
Mr. Scantger declined agreeing to that proposal, and with-
drew the record in the oases not yet called on.
The Caller Jurrice said he should undoubtedly be glad if
the dissentious in this parish wrre closed, but, from what be
had seen of thew, be despaired of any suggestion of his holism
that effect.