The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-06-22 00:00:00

THE BRITISH PRESS.

dictions of those who have no I.onour to bestow—whose censure is
applause.

" horum
Nunquam ego optarim pauperrimus esse malorum."
The sec,nd part of the libel was an answer to a letter. purporting,
to have been received from a person aigning himself " Atropos.',
It wax headed. " To those whom it may concern," and proceeded
as follows The letter of Atropos came to hand, full of friendly
offers and insidious counsel. . _

f imeo l)ansos et dons ferentes!'
We suspect that it comes from the enemy's camp. At all events
we want no assistance of the kind profferrel ; it is not with such
weapons as Atropos would furnish, that we have hitherto main-
tained our ground, and we do not mean to change our mode of de-
fence. We regard it, indeed, as a piece of peculiar good fortune
to escape the praise, and daily receive the vituperation of the out.
casts of medical society—of men who have been accused of arson.
convicted of libel, cast lit a court of equity as literary robbers, and
thriven from the practice of a ptofeasion they hare disgraced"—This
was not true, for the plaintiff was still practising as a surgeon—" of
men, who first attracted notice by obscenity, and can only maintain
it by slander—of men, whose instincts prompt them to prey on
garbage. anti, as literary scavengers. to fling their dirt at every pas-
senger—of men. whose courage consists in openly rifling the Intel-
lectual property of others, and abusing those whom they have robbed
—4 men, whose main talent consists in the art of lege, main
pilfering; and of pandering team meanest passions--of men.
whose liberality of sentiment is freedom from evert acsuple
of conscience, or principle of rectitude—of men, who have never
evinced, because they do not possess, one particle of professional
knowledge beyond what they picked up in the lecture room ;
finally, of men whose organized system ttf defamation will mark an
era, and fix a stain on the history of medicine, in the country which
had the misfortune to give them birth ! Such are the men whose
unremitting ire we have called forth, and whose ire, we trust in
Heaven, will never remit, till malignity work (and work it will)
the malignera fall." Having read to them the second, he would
proceed to read the third part of the libel. This was headed—
" Mr. Bell's Lectures at the College," anti proceeded—"
Bell's first lecture at the College (the only one delivered before this
sheet went to ores+) attracted great attention from a crowded audi-
enee. The princip .1 subject was counter-fissure or fracture, and
many ingen'ous arguments and illustrative arises were brought for-
ward, to thew the principle on which the counterfissure takes place;
the draw rigs were, of course, most beautiful, especially that of the
sabre-wounded soldi:r. 31r. Bell concluded with some observa-
tions on phrenology, but lie had not time for a clear development
of his ideas on that intricate subject. The Theatre was crowded
to excess, but all went off quietly during and subsequent to the
lecture. We on 'erstoad that previously to the admission of visitors
the appearance of a SALAIeANDEtt in the gallery, among the
students, excited c m•iderable ferment there ; and that at one time
there was every reason to believe the fallen angel's ambition
would be gratified by an aerial flight over the heads of members,
council, and all ! The threatened expulsion of Lucifer from the
presence of the gods, on high Olympus, spread terror and dismay
among the inhabitants of the lower regions; but happily they
were spared a visit from 'Hu ire-brand, or rather fire-factor, as he is
now generally denominated. who willingly, for once, made his exit
through the postern gate. There was a note to the term" Lucifer,"
which said, " The common derivation of this word is wrong. It is not
from lax and
,fero, but from /orris and fireitt, vide Secret Me-
moirs of the Bonze ofArgtoU.' also. A new !Mode of lighting the
streets without lamps, and extinguishing debts by means of fire-
engines.' " The Learned Gentleman then continued—These were
the scandalous insinuations which induced the plaintiff to come be-
fore them to obtain damages as compensation. As regarded the
charge of arson, the verdict of the jury was most satisfactory, en-
tirely exculpating him from the slightest suspicion that he had any
hand in it. It was not the fair way of carrying on literary warfare,
to rake up slander, as had been done in this instanee. But it
would be proved (said the Learned Gentleman). by the record of
the trial, which took place five years ago, that the plaintiff
obtained a verdict, and be was subsequently paid his demand by
the Insurance Company. Was there then to be no limitation to
such slander? After a man had been honourably acquitted, was
he to be still maligned and calumniated? He saw that his Learned
Friends, who were most formidable opponents, were arrayed
against him ; but what defence they could possibly set up he was
not able to imagine. The defendant could rot and d-red not justify
such slander, and he hoped the Jury would, by their verdict, put
a stop to it. They were that day to draw the line between private
slander and free discussion. The plaintiff sought protection at
their hands, in order that Ilia character and fair fame might not be
at the mercy and the capricious cruelty of those whose object seemed
to be an individual's desttuction. The subject of damages was pe-
culiarly the Jury's province; but, he would observe, they must
feel that a man so charged was deserving some measure of com-
pensation, and he did not doubt but they would teach libellers not
to exceed the bounds of fair discussion arid publish slander to gra-
tify the worst passions. He should now leave it in their hands,
hoping they would give such damages, by way of compensation,
as would meet the justice of the ease.
. .

Itlr. Samuel Millswas then called and examined by Mr. KELLY
—lle waa a printer, and printed the work called the Lancet fur the
plaint tr, who is the editur and proprietor. He received all coin-
munie.ttiona.

0042-Examined by Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN—IIe had been the
primer al out twelve months. Ile seldom read the works. Ile em-
ployel Hinters to see that chat was printed was the same as the
copy received.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN—Have you nut frequently read matter
in the Lancrt reflecting on the character of Dr. Johnson ?
Mr. COMMON SERGEANT objected to this question, as being
too general. If there were libels they ought to be put in. otherwise
the witness was placed in the situation of Judge and Jury.
After considerable argument, and several references to cases in
which it had been held that evidence ought to be given to shew
that persons brinuing actions for damages fur a libel had been in
the habit of libelling the other side, and that this would operate in
reduction of damages,
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE decided that the question was too
general, and could not be put.
Mr. Mills's examination was then resumed.

Mr. Sergeant VAUGIIAN—DO you not know, from what you
have seen, that the plaintiff' has represented the defendant as a
lunatic, a drunkard, a dotard, an imbecile, a sensual debauchee,
a liar of the first magnitude ?
Mr. COMMON SERGEANT objected to this question also, unless
the book containing these charges were put in.
Daniel Nitcher was then examined by Mr. KELLY. He was
servant to the plaintiff in 1820, when he lived in Argyll-street;
witness lived there when the house was on fire • there was a great
deal of furniture ; he did not know where the plaintiff kept his
papers. Everything in the house was burned, except himself and
his wife. (A laugh.) The plaintiff had no other house.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN—The plaintiff was
not burnt t witness went to bed about half-past eleven o'clock. and
left Mr.Waklcy in the back parlour applying leeches to his temple.
Witness did not see him again till the next morning, and then saw
him at a Mr. Parker's. He fastened the duors before he went to
bed ; the fire took place between twelve and one o'clock ; the
flames came through the partition from the font parlour. When
witness saw Mr. Wakley he had a bruise on his forehead, and
some cuts on his hands; he had also wounds in his side, as if
stabbed by some nne, and his waistcoat was cut through where it
was buttoned. IVitnes could not say whether the cuts in the
waistcoat were oppo‘ite the wounds. Mr. Wakley went out of town
to recover his health ; lie had not been long married ; the family
consisted of his wif and hinmeif and sister ; and sometimes his
father and mother were there.

Re-examined by Mr. Ker.mr—Witness thought the house was
set on tire by some villains his master let into the house after he
bad gone to bed.
Thomas Parry examined—ls clerk to the Hope Assurance Com-
pany; the plaimitrwas insured at the office for ',DM., and was
subsequently paid that sum.
003 s-examined by Mr. Sergeant WILDE—The ground of de-
fence, when the payment was resisted, was that Mr. Walley had
set tire to the house : he believed it was proved that there were red
marks on the linen which were not blood.

-.
Henry Gates produced the record in the trial against the Hope
Insurance Company.
Mr. Saunders Paid he was a bookbinder; he stitched the volume
of the Medico-Chirurgiral Review which was handed up to him ;
he received MO from the printer; Dr. Johnson was the editor ; he
called on witness to ask if No. 8 was ready ; he did not recollect
whether he had had any conversation with the Doctor about this
action. The defendant told him an action was to be brought by
the editor of the Lancet, and all he said was" Indeed, Sir !"
Witness could not say he was surprised. Messrs. Burgess and
Hill are the publishers.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant WILDE—Dr. Johnson said he
had been abused in the Laurel ; he did not say he had been called
a notorious liar, but lie alluded to general abuse.
Mr. Samuel If ighley, bookseller, proved that he had accounted
to Dr. Johnson for the sale of the work. The defendant told him,
after the action was brought, not to sell any more copies. He had
none left, and believed they were all delivered out to the trade.
A Gentleman examined by Mr. KELLY—Had attended Mr.
Bell's Lectures, and believed that Mr. Wakley was the person re.
ferred to in the libel.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN—He was present
at the Freemasons' Tavern meeting. The object of Mr. Wakley
was to get the Charter of the College of Surgeons abrogated. lie
thought the paragraph referred to the plaintiff', though he was not
named. Ile thought the reference to argon was an allusion to the
trial he had heard of. NVitness was present in the Court of Equity
when Mr. Abernethy moved for an injunction, and he though,
literary robber" referred to that. He believed the passage
" whose main talent consists in the art of legerdemain pilfering,',
meant that the notes were taken In short hand.
Mr. Lawrence (examined by Mr. Wakley) said, he presided at
the meeting at the Freemasons' Tavern. He had read the whole
article, and had no doubt the person to whom it was meant to apply
was Mr. Wakley.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Wome—He had never said
to the plaintiff that he was a great fool for bringing the present
action, and that he had much better have taken back Ina own
sauce; he never male use of such an expression to any one.
One of the numbers of the Lancet was then put in, to prove
that the plaintif was t',e editor at the time the alleged libel was
written.

This closed theplaintirs ease.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGIIAN addressed the Jury on the part of the
defendant. Ile said if he had only to contend with the evidence,
he should not feel much anxiety about the issue; but he felt that
he had to meet the eloquence of his Learned Friend, which was
calculated to exert its influence even up to this late period of the
cause. He understood his Learned Friend apperred in this Court
on this occasion, because he was the Counsel for the plaintiff in the

action brought against the Hope Insurance Company, and he (Mr. I
Sergeant Vaughan) had no doubt his Learned Friend then con- I
fined on the plaintiff a service, which must have contracted a debt
of gratitude on his part such uhe would long remember. He
did not mean to call any witnesses on the part of the defendant ;
neither did he intend reading any of the passages complained of,
with a view to their further elucidation. The record was
drawn up with consummate art, and the most perfect know-
ledge of the special pleading profusion. There were three counts,
the first of which trered the whole Vine an one continunu.
libel, which it would be imagined were all wriuen at the same
time, though they had no connexion with or reference to each other.
Let the Jury look to the relative situation of the parties for this
was materiel. The defendant had been for 28 yearn the Editor of
a highly useful publication, while the plaintiff was the Editor of a
periodical, of which only one number had been put in as evidence,
his Learned Friend appearing reluctant to put in a publication, all
the numbers of which probably contained some libellous matter or
other. But what W3Il the one they had put in ? It professed to
give an accurate report of an action brought against the present
plaintiff by Mr. Tyne'. and wan said to contain—what ? Why,
remarks" on the one-sided charge of the Lord Chef Justice, who
tried the cause." ((treat laughter, in which his Lordship heartily
joined.) Here, then, was a proof of the honesty, fair dealing, and
abstinence from attack of the plaintiff—re pedellercarni, he might
say. He did not want to see tire foot of llercules ; hut the plaintiff
appeared to be putting, on this occasion, his best toot forward. (A
laugh.) This old ragged Laard they had put in was a fair sped.
men of the remainder, e.r sun acre ornnrs. It was a proof of the
spirit which prevailed, and of the manner in which the publication
was conducted. _ _ . . . . .

The Loan Ciattf JUSTICE said the plaintiff had quite wiped
away the effect of his observation, by complimenting him by bring-
ing his action in this Court.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN said he knew what would be the effect
of suck observations on his Lordship's mind ; but was it not a
strange coincidence? Did it not show what must be the mind, tem-
per. and disposition of the man who was driven to bring such a
publication forward ? The title of the work bespoke its character.
It was called the " Lancet," to show that its object was dissec-
tion, or phlebototry. It propos"d drawing weekly copious streams
of blood from the characters of those it chose to attack. It an-
nounced that it would imply the knife, the lancet, or the cautery, to
destroy those who were obnoxious to its conductor. The plaintiff
said, this was a rival publication to the defendant's. The latter
was conducted by a society of physicians and surgeons, and super-
intended by Dr. Johnson : it was a quarterly review, a scientific
and literary vublieation. Was the plaintiff's work one of this de-
scription P 1 o make the libel intelligible the plaintiff' had been
obliged to call witnesses to glee it a certain construction ; this
brought them to the question whether the inducement had been
proved. If it was proved, how had they proved it? They had
called witnesses to prove the charges contatnec in the alleged libel,
and had thus saved the defendant the trouble of pleading or proving
a justification. Let it be remembered, the libel did not impute to
the plaintiff the crime of arson ; it merely said that sucn an accusa-
tion had been made. But the first count in the declaration said the
fire was casual ; and one of the witnesses swore that he believed
the house to have been set on fire by some villain or other. One of
the witnesses swore that the defendant had been abused in several
numbers of the Lance!, and that of use might have imitated the
defendant, but the Jury would make allowances for a man who
sustained the first attack. It was complained that the plaintiff was
called a salamander; but from the evidences it really appeared as
if lie had some claim to that title. Who, not being a salamander,
could have lived in smoke and fire from 12 o'clock till fi? Yet this
was the inference from the initendo, the language of which was
" thereby meaning the plaintiff as having been in the house during
the time of the burning." (A laugh ) Nobody knew when he
was taken out of the ruins, or how he escaped ; nobody saw him
till-six o'clock in the morning, and then he was wounded. Per-
haps there was another salamander in the fire and smoke, and they
fought, and thus the latter got his desperate wounds. (A laugh.)
Be this as it might, it appeared he went to his country house
in the morning as if nothing had happened, and that he really
wasla salamander, therefore, there could be no doubt. (Laughter.)
The Jury would recollect, that, according to the evidence, the de-
fendant had at least not been the first assailant, and surely a man
who received a slap in the face might find some excuse for return-
ing it. In oral slander he who called the first bad name could not
recover, and he (Mr. Sergeant Vaughan) had no doubt the Jury
would collie to a conclusion founded on the same principle. They
were " mote sinned against than sinning," and he trusted the
Jury would not give more than nominal damages.
The LORI) Cuter JUSTICE summed up. The question for
the Jury's consideration was—first, was this a het ? aeeondly,
were the inuendos proved? and thirdly, to what damages was the
piaintiff entitled? That the passages pointed out were libellous
there could be little doubt. As regarded the inuendoes they had
the evidence of Mr. Lawrence, who was a gentleman of great in-
telligence, great knowledge, and great ingenuity ; and he did not
hesitate saying, from his knowledge of the circumstance, that lie
conceived the plaintiff' was the person alluded to. The question of
damages he should leave entirely to the Jury.
The Jury, after a few minutes' consideration, found a verdict for
the plaintiff—Damages, Mt

WAKI.EY V. HAYDEN'.

Mr. COMMON SERGEANT said this was an action brought by
the same plaintiff against the defendant, as the minter of the
Medico-Chirurgical Review, it being feared that the author of the
libel would not come forward. As, however, Dr. Johnson had
himself appeared, his client would consent to take a verdict with
mere nominal damages, provided an indemnity were given him for
the costs.

31r. Sergeant VAUGHAN said he willingly acceded to this propo-
sition, with an understanding that his client would be at liberty to
mote the Court on any point of law.
The Jury then delivered a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages,
one shilling.

MARLEY V. MILLARD.

Mr. COMMON SERGEANT said this was an action brought by
the same plaintitras in the two former causes, against the defen-
dant, a poor woman, for the publication of a libel. The defendant
was the widow of a man who had been engaged in one of the hos-
pitals ; and since his death she had published an exposee, grounded
on information derived from her late husband, respecting the hospi-
tal proceedings. The plaintiff, commiserating her situation, had
rendered her some assistance, and the cause of the present
action was her discontent, resulting from this assistance being dis-
continued.

The LORD CII F.F Jr ST ICE—After what you have stated, Mr.
Common Sergeant, it appears to me that this might be differently
settled.

Mr. COMMON SERGEANT-3ly Lord, my client would accede
to a proposition, not even going as far as that made in the last
cause. We will be contented with an apology.
Mr. H t cy—l am for the defendant, my Lord, and I have already
expressed my opinion in very decided terms, but without success.
Mr. COMMON SERGEANT—We will be contented with a pro-
mise not to repeat the offence.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—WeII, Mr. Hill, surely you can
promise that. Where is the defendant ? Is she in Court ?
Mr. will undertake to promise that, my Lord, on my
own responsibility.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—You have acted with your usual
discretion, Mr.

Jiy the 'consent of both parties a Juror was then withdrawn.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21.
[Before the CHIEF BARON and a Common Jury.j
PRICE V. THWAITES.
- .

Mr. STARKEY opened the pleadings, and Mr. LUDLOW stated
the case.

This was an action to recover compensitioa In damages, for a
libel or. the plaintiff, published in the Morning ?fernld on the 11th
of March last, headed '6 Police Reports—Bow.strect," to the fol.
lowing effect :

Getirge Price, Esq., Banister of the Temple, was charged with
having, at 12 o'clock last night, indecently behaved himself towards
two ladies, in Maiden-lane. The watchman stated that the defen.
dant was at that hour in the area of a private house, doing some-
thing inconsistent with common decency, and that two ladies had
gone to the next door at the time ; but he exonerated the defendant
from all recollection of the circumstance, by declaring that he was
intoxicated at the time. Mr. Price submitted that they could not
be females of extreme delicacy, being out at so late an hour without
a male protector. Mr. Minshull said that it did not follow, as they
might be at the Theatre, or at a friend's house ; and even if they
were the commonest girls in the street, they should not be insulted
with impunity, by such disgusting conduct as was alleged against
the prisoner, who ought to remember that there were gas-lights now
in the streets, and that mere incautiousness might prove an offence
to ladies. Mr. Price admitted the truth of the charge, hut said
that he did not do it with an intention to insult them, and begged
to be excused, as he was intoxicated at the time ; whereupon the
Magistrate discharged him, advising hitn to be cautious how he
should conduct himself for the future, Fix.
The defendant pleaded the general issue.
LunLow said that the plaintiff' thought proper to bring an
action, rather than prefer an indictment, in order to give the de-
fendant an opportunity of proving the truth of this defamatory
libel, of which the only grounds were, that Mr. Price happened,
on the night in question, to be rather exhilarated by a glass of
wine; and on his way home hr met a watchman in Maiden-lane,
who thought proper to take him to a watclihouse,and prefer • charge
against him which he was unable to establish. This was the only
foundation for the false and malicious paragraph in question.
He doubted not but that much public good .would be derived from
a fair and judicious report of proceedings in a police office, but if
maliciously distorted, like the statement in question, it would
prove a curse instead of a blessing. He hoped the Jury would
give such damages in this instance, as would operate to render
newspaper editors more cautious for the future in publishing state-
ments involving the characters of individuals.
An officer from the Stamp-office proved Mr. Thwaites to be a
registered proprietor of the Morning Herald.
Mr. JARVIS addressed the Jury fur the defendant, and said that
the alleged libel was no more than a fair statement of proceedinp
before a Magistrate, and therefore perfectly justifiable. He admit.
ted that an ex-pane publication of a criminal charge would be
gal ; but this was no more than a misdemeanour, and the legality
of publishing* correct statement of proceedings of that nature was
never before questioned. The defendant regretted having pub-
lished the statement, and was very willing to make an apology,
which he submitted ought to satisfy the plaintiff: If he should
succeed in proving, as he was given to understand he could, that it
was a true statement of what occurred at a police office, the Jury
should give a verdict for the defendant.
James Ackland being sworn, was objected to by Mr. STARR IE
as an incompetent witness, on the ground that he was the reporter

At Chellowes Park, in the county of Surrey, Margaret, wife of James
Donovan, h:sq. aged 82 years.
On the 13th inst. at Mount Shannon, In Ireland, whilst on detachment
of his Regiment. Lieutenant John Forster Mills, of his Majesty's 21t1.
fifth son of the Rev. 11. F. Mills, Chancellor of York Minster.
Yesterday, at Windsor Castle, John Wright, many years porter to his
Majesty.

HIGH WATER THIS DAY AT LONDON BRIDGE.
Morning
Printed at THE BRITISH PRESS Office, by J. W. CARLTON, Ne. WT.
strand, and publirbed by R. CANNON, sante p/14•4.