The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-01-15 00:00:00

in this ',mended report, and it may he said that there is no evi-
dence to show that it did relate to the plaintiff; but the defendanti,'
unfortunately for themselves, had tarnished ample testliSony that
it did relate to him, for to pin the question •beyond all doubt the.
was a subsequent publication by the defendants relating to the
sauna transaminn, in which the name of the plaintiff was mendoned,
and referring to the former statement made on t'e 19th of
The further portion of the libel is contained in the 11,, a:ng:kaldve r-
Peet of the 16th, and the introduction of which rues id theme
words—'• Andrew Donean, who was charged a week ego with at•
tempting to violate the person of a girl of thirteen, named Ann
Chandler," lien was sufficient to remove all doubt as to the pet.
son to whom the former part of the libel referred. So that taking
this publication iii connexion with the other, it constitutes a gnus
libel. The plaintiff complains of it as a malignant attack on his
character, and he comes here to vindicate himself from its false apd
malicious asaenions—lllSCltilffin which. if defendants had ventured
to have so pleaded as to hare admitted their being inquired into,
would hare been proved to be false do every particulae. Now he
would ask what was the plaintiff entitled to from the hands of a
Jury for a libel of this description, circulated not oily all over
London, but in many other parts of the kingdom, where possibly
he was well known, and where these mildications would conse-
quently effect him a material Injury ? Whit, he wonld again ask,
ought the plaintiff to recover against theite funprietors the publi-
cation of such an Infamous libel, who not only du not pretend that
it is true, but who by their plea have admitted that it is false., Ile
was sure that the :Airy would presently have to Wien to his Learned
Friend, 3lr. Broughain, who, no doubt, in a most able *A 40.
quest speech in favour of the defrndants, WOUti tell them that the
libel was no libel, and that the defendants were not influenced by
malice towards the plaintiff; hut whatever that speech: might b.,
sure he was, that it would nut influence then, front giving their ver-
dict for the plaintiff, nor pri!vent them from comperrating hit'
with such damages as the nature of his me demanded. Ile should
now call witnesses to prove the libel, and that the 'defendants were
the persons liable to answer fur its pnblicatim.
Philip Parry, Esq.—ls in the recciid-ofßce of the Rolls ; re-
duced the rolls of solicitors for the year 182 i. The mime of Andrew
Duncan was entered in it, as having been admitted Solizitor of t'is
Court of Chineery before Sir Thomas Plower, Mania of th-
Rolls.
Crows-examined by Mr. Boiv.—The roll
.prixtstred is not ti
original roll ; when a solicitor attends to be admitted he brings b..
parchment admission, and then signs the roll of which this a trans
cript. Witness reads newspapers in keneral, but did Lot read the
Morstsg Adeet tiger.
Teautsle Cockell, rexistuir of attornees' eerlideat:s a:
thedtamp-office. Ile has the tickets of the plaintiff having take.
out his certificates as an atterney for the years 18:!? and 1824, The
father, Andrew Duncan, seri., also took'odt his certificate to prat•
tise in the (:runt of King's Bench in 1824.
James Reid, clerk to I,lr. Duncan, sen. proved thalthe plaintif.
practises as an attorney, and that the whificate now ihoWn him is
signed in the hand-writing of the plaintiff.
Cross-examined by Mr. BnourfnA —The father and son de
not carry do nosiness together, nor are they much connected with
each other. I believe 111 r. Duncan hat brought other actions as
well as this.
Do you not know, whether in on't of those actions, not yet tried
the defendant had pleaded a iustitication ? Did you eve hear the
plaintiff say so ?
The Loan enter JusTict —Really, Mr. Brougham, that is
a question that cannot he put.
MS. BISOUGHASI.-..-Wltil Melt submission, my Lord, I think I
may ask what the witness had heard the plsintift say.
The Loan emits' J varier —Then the next question will he,
whether that action is for the same commas the one that is now try-
ing, and surely Me cannot enter into ill that is in the declatatlon tn
another action.

The AT rOWNTY-GENERAI. said he sheuld certainly object to
the question.
Mr. llaot!Owswi said, he thought he had a right to uk—
Hare you ever heard the plaintiff say, that in another anti-on, not
yet brought to trial, and arising out of the sane proceedings at
Bow-street, as this, that the defendant had pleaded a justification
The witness said he had heard Mut say something about it.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—What! hive you heard ail
that

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—Now that Mr. Attorney-General
has adopted the question, you are certainly entitled to an answer,
Mr. Brougham.
The question was then repeated. and witness said he had hesid
the plaintiff ray something about a jitStifieation hating been pleaded
in some other action.

Was that an action in which Duncan was plaintiff, and DCllrlllOll
and another defendants P

The A vronsEr•tiENERSL—I tea!ly do object to that
question.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE--/ cannot stop it now, as you
hare admitted it all by asking the question which you did. Have
you not heard that Dennison and another were the defendants in
that action ?—1 have not.

..
Have you not heard from the plaintiff what was the newspaper
against which this action *as broup,lit ?—Yes, it was the lit
Trarcller.

Do you not recollect ha•ing heard Mr. Duncan say that Mr.
Helder watt tte attorney in that action might, but I do not
recollect it.

Du you not know from Mr. Duncan. that that action and this
were brought about the smile time ?—I do not.
I lave you not heard the plaintiff say that that action against the
British Traveller stands for this Sittings. after the present. Do
you not know from the plaintiff th.t that was a special jury as well
as this P—No.

Do you not know that 31r. Duncan was at Bow-street aboui the
time in question ?—1 have no particular knowledge of it. Ido DO:
live wilt hint, and therefore cannot know his movements.

!lave you not heard the plaintiffsay that he had brought an ac-
tion against 51r. Thwaites?-1 might have heard bins any some-
thing about It, but I do not recollect.

- „..
Have you not heard him say that he had brought an action
against the Mortilor..: Retail, without mentioning .11r. Thwstte's
name ?—I have heard him say something about an action against
the Morning Herald.
have you not heard him say that that action was brought for the
report of the procettlinga at liow-streeti when lie irtis brought up ?
—I have not.

fl'ineTha;Vleming from the Stamp-Office, proved trot the de-
: feadanta were the printer, publisher, and pmprietors of the Moraine
A il;•er riser and that it consisted of 2,400 shares, and that the two
I proprietors were publicans.
The Morning Ad;:ertilter, of the 10th and 16th July, 1823, were
put in, and from them the two paragraphs complained of were
rend, they were as follows:
" Hote-erneeT.—A Scene of Depravity.—A person residing
in one of the Inn; was brought up un a warrant by Sharpe, u
patrol, charged with an assault with intent to commit a rape upon
Ann Chandler, a child of 13 years of age. The young complain-
ant, a remarkably handcome.looking little girl, is the daughter of
a poor widow residing in 3liddlesex-street,Soniers-town. she hail
lately left a situation, and was playing with other children in the
fields at Somers-town, when another girl of her own age, named
i Duncan, told her she knew of a place for her. Her cousin, she
said (meaning the defendant), wanted a little girl to look atter his
two children. They went to Anne Chandler's mother. and having
got her leave, they proceeded together to the defendant's chambers.
He was then engaged with a gentleman on business : his errand-
, boy was also there, and he told the girls to wait. NVhen the gen-
tleman had departed, the defendant told the bey he might go home,
anti then fastening the door, he proceeded, in the presence of the
girl, to indict violence upon Anne Chandler, who screamed, and
offered all the resistance in her power, while her young companion
looked on with apparent indifference, until at length she became
alarmed, and ran to the door, but could not open it. The defend-
ant followed and brought her back, and treated her partly in the
'stainer he hail done the girl Chandler. She wade no resistance.
Anne Chandler cried bitterly, and complained of him treatment,
and he gave her a halfpenny. and said, " go along home, I have
not hurt you." Ile then euttived them to depart, and at a few
yards front the door they me: a sister of the girl Duncan, who is
about 16 yeareof age, and related to her what had happened. epee
said she would go and give it him, and went into his chamber*,
leaving them outside. They heard the dour lock Su a few moments
after she entered, and she remained there with hint for nearly 21)
minutes. 'They all went home together, and the eircuanstatices
being made known to the father et the Duncans, he sent for 31:s.
Chandler, and a warrant was obtained. This was nut till some
days after. The investigation of the scandalous transaction lasted
several hours, during which the utmost pains were taken by
.314.
halls to sift the matter to the very bottom. The defendant denied
the greater part of the charge, but admitted that he might hare
been - a little imprudent :" and added, that he was ••elevated
with wine at the tinie." Ile was ordeved to give bail, himself in
100/., and two sureties in 30/. each, tor his anpearanca next Tuea•
day, when other evidence will be heard. His taffer and another
became his sureties."

" Dow-sirkevr.--Andrew Duncan. who was charged a week
ago with suempting to violate the person of a girl of 13, named
Anne Chandler. was again examined, but no further evidence was
beard, and he was ordered to enter into recognisance, to the amount
of 2001. for his appearance at the Sessions, and all the witr.esaeo
were hound over to prosecute. Mr. Alley attended on the part of
the defendant. We have been requested by the father of the little
girl Ann Duncan, to state, that she slid make resistance e e'en the
defendant took hold of her, and that she endeavoured to esesine at
the instant he first laid hands upon Anne Chandler. He further
begs us to add this fact—that his eldest daughter, who aftsawarsla
went into the defendant's chamber, in consequence of what the other
girls told her, had an infant with her at the time. Mr. Duncan,
the father of the girls, we understand is a very respectable man."
This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. Dllol:t3H•Jl.—Then, Illy Lord, I humbly submit that
there is no case to go to the Jury. We have it in evidence, that
there are two Andrew Dune:ins. but there is nothing to show to
whom the libel appl.es. There is no evidence whatever to apply
the innertdo to the son, and as the alleged libel speaks of .trairew
Duncan, it must mean the father.
The ATTORNEY-GENellAl..—The answer ro that it extremely
easy, and very short—kw it runs out of the libel itself. The libel
states that Andrew Duncan was discharged upon two sureties, one
of whom was his &dm.
Mr. nitOttollAY.—Really, my Learned Friend seems to be
much better satisfied with the, answer than I confess I am, for he
concludes that Andrew Dundb, the father, had not a father, but
for aught we known to the cortrary, it might have been !sir father,
and nut the plaintiff's. who was surety.
The ATTOILVEY-61:NittA I.—T could be answered. if I
thought it were necessary to du so, by yang that Andrew llu:.-
can, the tither, has nu father, not had twat die tin: tine lase. was
published. 10
The Lear CgtEr JrITICE.—That de:sends upon yearself.