The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-12-02 00:00:00

r

i

(Weak, MI X hem the
Mho
of whW V ips=ght• the
sit.watiWa bill, fie spirits
aAtheter. . .
. .
... Daughter of fileikapreoljaltrpirits beer, he., had
hero dedivaed to eh t of V., but she could
PM
not my boa mu; le.
twas no
, 1,3,,,,, Jolene* the Jury that by law the
flaitstir we Dot so retreat the spirits. The plaintiff's
dellsmd Wm* 111111 for than 21. ; they. couLl not,
more thou this sum, but for u much
cheygi=
Jury, after cosoahtng a few mir.utes, gave a verdict for the
01011.--Thimares two guineas.
Loma Curry Jurricu exnremed considerable displeasure
wt Ole Jury for their verdict "I am very sorry," said his Lord-
sh ,to that you have returned this verdict. I consider it to he a
mo.I pernlcirms practise for publicans to give credit to working
men to Dish an amount, and by your verdict yew have sanctioned
thj=„co:'
, ''''

COOIiT OF COMMON PLIIAS, Taunt
likets Staiags after MicAmbito. Term, lallsre Lord Chief
Justice BRIM and Common Juries.
MIRO T. CRANDICRLAYIII.
?bistros as hone diverted to be tried by the Vice-Chancellor, to
dalenolas the yawners whether the detrulant, as executrix of her
law mother. mai indebted to'the plaintiff, in right of his wife, in
*earn of OWL which it was alleged by the plaintiff had been lent
. by hi. wife, previous le his marriage with her, to the mother, but
h;l41 it was atErmed on the part of the defendant was a gift, and
tot a loan.
t VAURIRAIN stated the facts of the case to be shortly
than— re. Chetahs,lapse the testatrix, formerly Insides! in
lient-reeth awl kept a school there, in which her
• tleaghters, tomes Sad Ann, satiated her, receiving from
terse a willey of. a-year. In the course of the year
dim MOM hod melt lam of 050/. left to them by will, of
Mak beetbdo teas ells executor. The mother's ti 9 rhea be.
Meableabarramad, her two children advanced her money from
tined dm, until, at length, they had both lent her the whole of
tinifffneopes. The sister Frances, baring experienced some diffi-
culty is obtaining her money from her brother, had been obliged to
*Mg to a prolessionel gentlernan of great respectability to recover
it bother. At that time the plaintiff was clerk to that gentleman,
and the frequent hitter less that took piece between him and Mira
Fleeces Ctiamberfayne iu the course of the liminess ripened into
.as intimacy, which at length led to their marriage. The lady li:d
Mein attained the age of 35 years, and was therefore fully compe.
teat to judge for herself in an affair of that kind. or course, he
this marriage all personal property became vested in the husband.
l'poo finding that his wile had lent her fortune to her mother, he
in de appFeation for it. It not being, however, in the power of
Chanaretlayne to pay it, she applied to Mr. Parker, an attar.
ney, to make an arrangement with her son.in.law, that interest
should be paid him until Mrs. ('hamberlayne was able to raise
safficient mercy to pay or the principal. This, however, not being
can Huh with, it was proposed and agreed upon that the plaintiff'
en'l his wife Auld board and lodge with their mother, for which
'hen should be charged l&01. per annum, which was to go to the
lie lid, eon of the debt, and the plaintiff did accordingly go and
litre in him Chamhertsyne's house for some short time. But as
Air. and Aim Drew could not very well agree, Mr. Drew separated
himself from her, leaving his wife with her mother until that old
bely died. The other deughtcr having been appointed her eat-
su r x, she became entitled as such to all her mother's property,
.•übject to the payment of her just debts. A suit in Chancery be.
ing .aammenced, the present question had arisen,whether the defend.
ant. as such executrix. was or was not liable to pay to the plaintiff
the sum of 6001. which had been lent to the mother in the manner
be ii.d stated. Upon the evidence of Air. Parker, confirmed as it
*old be by a gentleman of the name of Edwards, the Learned
Ser.ceant contended that he should be clearly entitled to a verdict
to the plaintiff:
M. Parker and Mr. Edwards were then examined. Their tee-
'tim went to support the statement made by the Learned
So ,!.ant.
lir. Sergeant TADDY, on behalf of the defendant, said he
sh add be able very satisfactorily to prove that this money waa a
gi t by the daughter to her brother; and that it was never contern-
glided at the time or since, either by the plaintiff's wife or her
ai,ter, as anything but a gift. True it was his Learned Brother
lead put into the witness.box two gentlemen, who spoke of the poor
old apeman having treated this as a debt, and that she had ex.
premed her anxiety to thiChINC it : but the Jury would look at the
circumstances under which there admissions, a. they were termed,
were made. lire was a poor, infirm, and aged woman. threatened
to i e arteired and thrown into prison by her son.in.law, a man
who, by his conduct in first marrying the daughter for the Rake of
the fortune lie now pretended he supposed her to pots (although
he should prove that he was told, before he married Alias Chem-
in:Jayne. that she had no property); then threatening a distressed
mother with incarcentinn, which at her age was calculated to
secelerate her death ; and at length, finding that he could not sue-
e:ell in his object, notwithstanding he had declared he would not
intre a stone unturned till he got the money, deserting the woman
whoe: ha was hound to shelter and protect ; and now &gaits, after
it., ell lades death, harassing the sister of his wife by involving
her to a Chancery salt; and all this for the iniquitous purpose of
unjustly obtaining possession of that money which had been de..
voted by an affectionate daughter to comfort and cherish
erfortutrate and aged parent in her latter days, before he
any legal tide to her property, and wire" she was sole mistress of
all s!R possessed. A man who acted thus was entitled to no favour
!men an English Jury. What, under such circutnatances,might not
the fern of an old and nervous woman prompt her to do ? She knew
eNe hal received the money ; and no doubt tier parental care for her
..'niltren made her anxious tn restore it ; at all events, she had the
dre idfal alternative of a gaol before her eyes ; what would a per-
son woo for lilt yet: • had lived in the world with an unsullied
reputation, rot do to avoid such a fate at last ? Would then the
Jury rely upon words extorted from fears thus excited? Would
they give credit toe case thus supported, when on the other hand
they would have not only the evidence of the sister (for she
was in some degree interested) but the testimony of a most re.
spectabie woman_, whose evidence could not be suspected, and who
far ruby years had been clerkly intimate with the family of the
ll:eamberlaimea, and had on frequent occasions heard Airs. Drew,
brore her marriage with the plaintiff, say that site had given all
brae fortune to her mother? The first witness he should call would
be the defendant herself, whom the Vice-Chancellor had directed
stottld he examined. If the case, indeed, depended upon her
single testimony, there might be room to apprehend that the hits.
rat which that lady had in the result of the cause might have an
undue influence on her mind; but corroborated as she would be by
snottier person, there would be sufficient to warrant the Jury in
git rag credit to her evidence.
Tee LORD Cutter JUSTICZ took occasion to remark, that the
practice of examining parties who were directly interested in the
route Was wholly peculiar to Courts of Equity, and he for one,
with all deference to the Learned Judges who presided in those
Courts, could not but disapprove of the course taken when issues
were directed to be tried in Courts of Law ; namely, the ordering
ut Coutt to examine the parties in the suit ; nor was he the
osly Judge who entertained the opinion of its impropriety. Lord
L'llenbirough had said that such orders ought not to be binding on
the Lommoi Law Judges. His Lordship hoped it would not be
lung before an alteration took place in a practice which, in his
mind, was most objectionable, and tended to work great mischief.
Arm Chemberlayue was then examined. lier evidence was in
accordance with the statement of the Learned Sergeant. She said
that when the plaintiff first paid his addresses to her sister he was
told that she had no fortune. His reply was that he did not want
to marry her for money. He represented himself to be a partner in
the house where he was living, though it appeared be was only a
dart.. She and her sister always considered the money advanrod
to their mother as a voluntary gilt, for which they never took any
'eve:lets. The advances were made in consequence of the mbar-
reseed circumstances of their parent. She was 63 years old when
thl plaintiff Married, and was very nervous indeed. Shc had
heard the plaintiff say he would leave no stone unturned to get the
money, upon which hit wife observed—" No. Drew, you can never
get it, for it was a gift before I married you."
'Llr-• Vaughan was then examined, who said she bad often
hood Mrs. Drew speak of her having given money to her mother.
Or. berrrant VADODAN, in reply, contrasted the evidence on
the one aide with that oo the other, and said he was assured the
Jury would feel it their duty to turn the Peale in favour of his
cart. It was • case peculiarly for their decision, and he was
quite satisfied he could wide in their intelligence. in their know-
stodge of the world, and in their candour. to try it most correctly.
They would not be misled by die appeal of his Learned Friend ;
bet, after orating every due allowance for those kind feelings
which miht prompt children to aid their parent, they would divest
their minis from the inffirence of a species of mistaken generosity,
asul judge fairly and dispassienstelv between the parties. His
Learned Friend seemed to think that ,beesuae d.c plaintiff might
have been a 'Mamma husband, there would be no great harm in
their snowing • sort of pious fraud upoo their consciences, and give
a verdict agiinst him. But they had nothing to do with the chs.
voter of the husta:.d. Did they, or did they not, believe Mr.
Parka and Mr. Edwards? If they did (anti there was nothing
that mild impeach the character of either of these gentlemen) they
tirit. fist a verdict for Lis
The LORD Cuter Jusitr.r. In summing up the evidence to
the Jury, ntr.erved that ettbonif„,b this was • case cloning from the
Cry; of chancery, he had no knovrlndge whatever of any thing
cyst had prised there. It would be in his judgment a very good
pi* Ire I,* the bids and answers In such cases were to be given to
the judg elet iit:f might know what had trsaspired in that
COOT. It, howeter, &witted to he important io some snit pend-
ing there, to know whether Mn.e Chamberlayne was indebted is
Iter Life" in the coin of MIL to Mrs. Drew, and as the Court
of .Chancery had no power. to receive Mu vow evidence. theques-
800 4Yat dto be tried Li a Court of Common Law, and it was
the duty of the Jury to cry by their verdict whether Airs. Cram.
bertay lye was eis indebted or not. The principal point they had to
was, whether the words and conduct of the old lady, u
listed tythe plaintiff's *imago, were the result of fear working on
ienoeveus naiad, or thecormetion of lice being legally liable to re-
fuel the mole; His bordsliis having recapitulated the evidence,
the Jury, atter consulting meatier aortic minutes, retired, and were
111110USeerly two hours. On their ;morn they said they era of
erasion the: the money was • gift and not a lota, sod accordingly
.ant.: a verdict tar the defendant.

POPIARTT 1. STOCRDALE.
.11%.. We. !to action brought by the plaintiff; at printer. to reenvor
from Lhc itetrodmit, u publipinsr of ills notorious fin/wits 4/ Mar.

riet(e Wilson, the sum of 96L 145., being the balance of an account
between them, to which the defendant pleaded the general issue.
Mr. Sergeant VALIOHAN, in stating the ease to the Jury, ob-
served, that the plaintiff was a respectable master-printer, living
in Jewin-street, who had been compelled to bring his action
against Mr Stockdale, for printing certain parts of a work with
which he (Sergeant Vaughan) was not acquainted, but he had been
told it was a week which had ministered much to the taste of the
public. His Learned Friend (Mr. Sergeant Wilde) had, he per-
ceived, one of the copies before him, which, he dared say, formed
part of hie library. (A laugh.) The circumstances of the cane
were very short. The plaintiff contracted with the defendant to
print WOO copies of a number of the memoirs, weekly, for
which the defendant was to pay on every Saturday the sum of 61.,
ati when the whole of the numbers should be completed, ke was
to give his acceptarce at three months for the balance. The sale
of the work wan certainly prodigious. In the first place the plain-
tiff was to supply 10110 copies a week, then it was to be MO ;
af-
terwards 0000, then SOW, anti at length no less than 17,000 copies
per week of this work, which, he W. 113 sorry to may, had been de-
scribed by ide. Stockdale in another place (the Court of King's
Bench) as one of the best works (the Holy Scriptures excepted)
that estritad appeared. Tt was to his fortune
by the salt of it ; hut while he did so, he was apt to forget those by
whose labour and instrumentality his money was matte. When
railed upon to pay, Ite used to make all sorts of frivolous excuses,
till at length a balance ac....ited, due to the pliintiff, to the amount
of M. 14s. He should be able to show that this work, in its pro-
gram, became so greatly in demand that it at last became necessary
to print it by machinery, and he did not know whether, in the end,
it was not requisite to have a stcam.engine erected, such was the
avidity with which the corrupted tuts armlets devoured this no-
torious and infamous work.

The son of the plaintiff was then called to prove the agreement
entered into between his father and the defendant. A written do-
cument was handed in as being the contract on which the action
was founded ; it appeared to be signed by the witness himself,
but it was not stated to have been so executed on behalf of his
father.
Mr. CHITTY was putting questions o the witness with a view
to show that although the contract was so signed yet it was really
the contract of the father and not the son, when

Mr. Sergeant IV ILDE (on behalf of the defendant) objected to
this mode of examination, and contended that it WWI not in the
power of the plaintiff first of all to put in a contract which pur.
ported to be entered into by the sun OS principal, and then to ex-
mice that son for the purpose of showing he was acting only as
the agent of the father. Parole testimony could not be admitted
to alter the liabilities which the contract itself had created. .

Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN said that the agreement which had
been put in was not the one on which his case rested.
The Learned Sergeant then put In another document, but which
was expressly similar to the previous one, except that the latter
was signed by the defendant only.
Mr. Sergeant WILDS contended that these were hut duplicates
of each other, and could not be separated. There must be two parties
to a contract, and in order to ascertain who were those parties, his
Lordship would be obliged to look at both these documents, and
then It would appear that the son, and not the father. who was the
plaintiff in this action, was the contracting party. He would not
repeat his argument that no parole evidence could be allowed so
alter the nature of this agreement, because what ho li,ul already
urged had not been answered.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICF. observed, that in the case of
brokers of the City of London, it was well known that they might
be examined to prove that the contract was entered into by them on
behalf of another party who was the principal ; but that was be-
cause brokers could not act as principals, although in point of fact
they often did. But the distinction which his Brother Wilde had
taken was certainly a very forcible one ; and although his Lordship
had an opinion upon the subject, yet after the case which had oc-
curred at Guildhall, where evidence of this kind Was received, he
would rather not take upon himself to decide the point at Niai
Prius, but wished it to be reserved for the consideration of the
Court shove. He would therefore allow the plaintiff to proceed
with his examination, giving Mr. Sergeant Wilde leave to move to
set the verdict aside and enter a nonsuit, if the Court should be of
opinion that such evidence was not admissible.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN said he had other criticize, as to put at
least of his demand tilt the contract.
The LORD elms' JUSTICE—Let us hear it then.
_ .

The witness then went on to state, tit it the work was done by his
father to the extent mentioned in the bill delivered, and that the
prices affixed were under the usual charges in the trade.
Some letters were then put in and read. The first was from
Stockdale to the plaintiff, dated 31sy 10, 1025, in which, after ac-
knowledging the receipt of a note with an enclosure, he proceeded to
abuse the plaintiff in the most unmeasured terms, designating hie
conduct as being the most scandalous in the overcharge* he had
made, and that his whole procedure proved him to be a great
scoundrel. lie had, however, no wish to embarrass the plaintiff;
and was willing to pay him what was reasonable. The plaintiff's
answer, dated the 1 lth, stating that his only wish was to settle the
thing fairly, and that he would call upon the defendant the next
day, was then read.
The witness proceeded to say, that he and his father did accord-
ingly wait upon the defendant, when the plaintiff cfferel to come to
terms if defendant would accept a bill for the balance, to prevent any
troublesome proceedings or any unpleasantness between them ; hut
the defendant said he would not come to any terms with him—that
he (the plaintiff) bad behaved like a scoundrel, sad that he would
not have any thing to do with hint. The defendant kept the bill of
exchange, and would not give it up to the witness's father.
The several orders for the delivery of the numbers to a Mr.
' vans, a bookbinder, sent by the defendant to the plaintiff, were
n put in and read.
he witness said, the articles were delivered by his father to 111 r.
vans, according to Mr. Stockdale'srequert.
On his cross-examination, the witness said he frequently signed
his father's name in matters where his father was a party. Some of
the numbers now handed to him were printed by his father, and
some were not.

Mr. Sergeant WILDE—Have you any prosecutions against you
for priming this work P
Witness—No, Sir; my father is only Mr. Stockdale's servant.
The LORD CHIEF Al/TICE—You are not to think that be-

_ - ...... -
cause he was only Mr. Stockdale's servant, he was not therefore
guilty of gross misconduct in aiding in the printing and publication
of such a scandalous work as this.
One or two other witnesses were then examined as to the reason-
ableness of the charges, which closed the plaintiff's case.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE, in addressing the Jury for the defendant,
said he would state the reason why Dlr. Stockdale resisted the plain-
tiff's demand. A bill was delivered to him by the plaintiff. mak-
ing certain charges tnr the printing of the work, the name of which
the Jury had already heard. He disputed those charges. A second
bill was produced, varying the nature of the items, but terminating
in the same result, the amount demanded being the same. Mr.
Stockdale conceived those charges to be exorbitant, and the demand
unjust, and for these reasons he had resisted the payment. Plaintiff
complained that thedefendant had refused to accept a bill for the
balance due, according to the terms of the agreement, and that
therefore he was liable to this action. Ile (Tile. Sergeant Wilde)
insisted that no bill of exchange was presented to the defendant
for acceptance until after this action was brought. But an attempt
had been made to bolster up the case by a refusal since the com-
mencement of the action. The first mention of the bill was in the
letter dated the 10th of May. ()n the 12th of May the plaintiff
called upon the defendant, and then it was that the refusal took
place. But this action was commenced on the 11th of May; there-
fore the Jury would be excused on the present occasion from con-
sidering any other question, inasmuch as the right of action not
having accrued when the writ was issued, the plaintiff could not be
entitled to their verdict. These were the facts as contained in his
instructions. But if he had no other than these, he still should
feel it his duty to call the attention of his Lordship and of the
Jury to the nature and quality of this wort, and ask whether a
Court of Justice should protect and countenance a man in enforc-
ing his demand for printing one of the meta scandalous (and he
did not forget that he was ,Mr. Stockdale's Counsel when he ap-
plied that epithet), he would say one of the moat scandalous and
vile works that ever issued from the public press; a work deeply tb
be deplored that it ever was produced—for not only the reputations
of private individuals, but the very character of the country itself,
must in a great degree hare suffered from it ; for when he looked
into that book to-day, for the first time, and heard that frum 1,000
to 10,1100 copies were bought with a voracity anti an appetite that was
astonishing, it told how poworfully it had worked ha way over the
public mind ; a work on which he should have thought no two men
could have spoken but with indignation. Thloe who censured the
production should not foster it, by their patronage, their protec-
tion, and their perusal.
The LORD CHIEF JusyrcE said, hitherto he knew nothing
of^he work, but as his Learned Brother had opened it, he certainly
now thought lie must take notice of it. lie felt himself bound to
look after the public morals, and from what had been amid respect-
ing this work, it was kis duty to see whether it was such a thing as
could be charged for.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE then proceeded to comment with great
severity on the Immoral tendency of the work, and pointed out the
announcement of other publications on the covers of each number,
the very titles of which were too abominable to repeat. They had
had robberies of all sorts, but a new species of plunder was risen
up in modem times, by the means of that press a which they all
looked for instruction, and which the must all deplore to sce pro-
stituted to such infamous purposes. But that press had been made.
the engine of the greatest oppression and injustice—of violating
the privacy of families—of obtruding upon the most secret affairs
of men ; setting the parent against the child, and etc:ling suapicion
and jealousy between the husband and site; and all this with no
other view but of extorting money from the timid, who would
rather purchase the silence of the alandcrer, than risk the torture
which his venom would inflict, though every drop were distilled
from the deepest sink of malignity and filsehood.
The Louts CHI El JUST ICE—.llmther Vaughan, is not this the
history of a common prostitute, and does it trot contain an account
of her amours with certain persons ? I have no hesitation in eaying.
that no one who assists In putting forth such a work to the public
can recover for the price of his labour in a Court of Justice. The
plaitittff has lent hnnself to mint this infamous work, which has
a double objtct—that of corrupting yruth and extorting money,
or of making a vast profit by the publication of its blander. His,
Lltdship regretted that any portion of the press should have been
so far debased and perverted from its right use as to have had a
work of this abominable description issue from it; and he hoped
and trusted that a publication of so black a character would not be
permitted any longer to disgrace the British press, the teneftts of
which, when properly used, could not be too highly appreciated.i
It was the child of the Government, and Governments could not
exist without it. No man could era see that wonder foil agent of '
good (ifs* used) diegrarsd, without feeling considerable pain. I
Aare now GOthillg more to do than to call the paintit,

. -

'-'44011m• A.,