The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-03-16 00:00:00

WRIGHT AND AWOTITER v. BRYAN.

Mr. TALFOURD opened the pleadings.
Mr. CUJIWOOD stated, that this was an action brought to re-
cover back front a stakeholder the plaintiff's share of a wager laid
on a foot-race. It could hardly be said that a foot-race was illegal,
tnr he believed that foot-racing was one of the exercises taught in
our military academies; and it would be difficult to suppose that
the pm.ila in those academies were taught illegal practices. Thia
action, however, was not brought to recover the whole stake as it '
the wager was sun ; but only the plaintiff's share of it back again,
as no person won the race, it being a dead Mat.
Illr.CA stank IA wished to know whether his Lordship would
try such a question as this.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALT thought this was a case fit to be
tried, because this wager was not either of eriatiaal or immoral
tendency.
31r. Cast ',HELL in addressing the Jury for tie defendant said,
that the defendant had really paid the money over; he had paid it
to the person whom he believed to be the winner. A foot race was
certainly not a wrong Cling, and he could see but little harm in
a bull baiting, or even in bear baiting; he would contend that this
was not a point bet by Warilow and Wright, on one side, but
that Warilow alone made the bet. Wright not joining in it. But
besides that, he was in a condition to prove that Shaw actually
won the race decidedly, and that nobody could have a doubt of it.
However, though the race was so won, there was a dispute about
it, and the next day Warilow said, Shaw should not have the
money, but it was agreed that on the next day, before nine o'clock,
a witness should make oath that it was a dead heat, but that it C 5
witness came forward to do that, Shaw was to have the money ;
no person, however, coming to make that oath, the money was
paid to Shim. . .. .

A witness proved the agreement between the parties, that unless
the plaintiff brought a person to swear that it was a dead heat, the
money was to be paid to Shaw, and that no such person came for-
ward to swear that it was a dad heat.

3lr. Justice Ltr7t sntr e, being of opinion that this subse-
quent agreeincat put an cod to the ease, ordered the plaintiff to be
nonsuittd.

LIBEL.
THE ZING v. ♦HPBLETT.

Mr. John Eeaus opened the indictment, and stated that by it
the defendant was charged with blishiog a libel in a newspaper
called the Pottery Casette; refit ing on the character of Messrs.
John and William Ridgway.
Mr. Casienest, stated that the prosecutors were eminent china-
manufacturer+, residing in the Potteeies of Stafiardthire ; they
were dissenters by religion, and interested themselves in matters
of politics, as it became the subjects of a free country to do. The
defendant was editor of the Pottery Gazette, wrists was an
ultra Tory—an ultra High Church paper. The defendant had
at different times published different papers : he had edited the
!Nieman, the Dissenter, and Birmingham A rgns, papers of
very different principles. It would appear that in the coun:y
of Stafford there was a Society, called the " Venerable Druids,"
and that Society had Lodges in a stile something masonic,
and that the apprentices of Mtwara Ridgway mute a procession in
ridicule of the Venerable Druids, which were of themselves suffi-
ciently ridiculous diind these lads instead of wearing long beards as
the Druids did, tied cows' tails to their chins to make game of the
Druids; this, however, he believed was not the real cause of the li-
bel, but a paper was started called the Pottery Mercury, which was
edited by a blr. Thos. Allbut ; that gentleman had made the usual
affidavit at the Stamp Office that he was the mole editor, printer, and
Proprietor of that paper, and the prosecutors had nothing to do with
it; however, the defendant asserted that Messrs. Ridgway were the
proprietors of this newspaper, and that they had set forward 31r.A11-
but as a man of straw to make a false affidavit and screen them ; and
in the l'ottiry Gazette of Saturday, the lOth of July, 134, a
paragraph was inserted, headed " The Newspaper Miseries of
die Twelve Apostles." By this term (the Twelve Apostles) ass
meant the prosecutors and several more ; and it charged them,
under the name of the Radical Saints, with cheating the revenue,
by publishing a Supplement to their paper (the Pottery Atertory),
at the price of 3d. without i:s hung stamped; and it stated.
that that paper bad accused the defendant of being per-
sonal in his paper, but that the supposed personality was really
only a fair exposure of the duplicity of the Ridgways. [The
Learned Counsel here read and commented on the terms of the
l bit. width was of immense length.l His clients, however, had
nothing to do with the Pottery Mercury, either as proprietors or
otherwise. The libel, in conclusion, said, that they bore false
witness against their neighbours, and committed adultery in their
very Chapels. Could this be any but a moat scandalous libel ? It
imputed every crime to the prosecutors that could possibly disgrace
human nature. The defence he understood was, that by all this
the Messrs. Ridgway were not meant, and that it only meant
all hypocrites in general. But he would allude to the first dotice
the defendant took of this prosecution, which was in the defend-
ant's paper of August 14. In that the defendant appeared to have
gloried in what lie had dote, but did not at all preterit to deny
that the Messrs. Ridgway were meant. The libel was headed
" The Newspaper Miseries of the Twelve Apoatles," and he
was in a condition to show, that by that name was meant the
prosecutors, and some others. To the Messrs. Ridgway the libel
did not in any respect apply, for it was false ; hut would be
enough, if he convinced them that the defendant meant by this libel
to injure the characters of the prosecutors. In anothe- part of the
libel it was asked who were the saintly informers whe tied brought
up a poor man for amusing himself with a game at bagatelle,
which all the while they played in their own houses? And he was
in a condition to prove, by the testimony of the very respectable
Clergyman of that parish, that the defendant had said, that the
Messrs. Ridgway were the instigators of an information against a
poblic.an for allowing unlawful gambling in his house. They
conk' not for a moment doubt who was meant, even from the read-
ing the libel itself, without his calling a single witness; but he
would call persons of all religious denominations, and he would call
persons of t: s highest rank, and of more moderate rank, to prove,
that though the imputations of the libel were unfounded as they
regarded Messrs. Rrttgwny yet they had net the slightest particle
of doubt but that they were the persons meant. The only remain-
ing topic for the defence would be, that the proper mode of pro.
"muting was not by indictment : but Messrs. Ridgway did not want
to put damages into their pockets ; all they wanted was to bring a
public delinquent to a public punishment.
The libel was read. It filled considerably more than a column
of the Pottery Gazette.
Mr. Phillips was then cross-examined by Mr. ..Travis—The
Pottery ttfercury is a Wednesday paper; the defendant's is pub-
hatted on Saturdays.
Ralph Stephenson, Esq. said, I am acquainted with Messrs.
Ridgway ; I am a china manufacturer, and so are they • they carry
on business at Caldon-place. near Sher.ton ; I have known them
upwaids of twenty years; they arc in extensive business, and em.
ploy about 4.7.0 or MN men; they are Protestant Dissenters or
Methodists ; I am a member of the Church of England ; I have
spoken with the defendant three years ago respecting Messrs.
Ridgway ; I said to him that he had attacked the Ridgways and
the Dissenters in general; he said 3lessra. Ridgway had given it
out that he was the printer of a scurrilous hand-bill circulated in
the neihbourhood, and he declared that it was not so, and that be
would easily convince them or me of that fact, as he knew who the
printer was; I urged upon hint that it was desirable for him,
setting up a paper, to conciliate all parties, and particularly the
Disaentets, as they were greater readers than any other description
of persons • and I proposed going with him to Messrs. Ridgway to
explain the circumstances; this he declined dating, saying that it
was contrary to the whole habit of his life to publish scurrilous
dander; and at another time the defendant chargetl the Ridgways
with getting up a mock procession, and :hat knowing tht he was a