The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-05-22 00:00:00

put down in the list fc

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, SATURDAY, MAT 20.

2111CMOIRS OF HARRIETTE WILSON.
FISHER V. STOCKDALE.

This was an action brought by Mr. Fisher, a solicitor, at Lyme
Horsetshire, against John Joatmh Stockdale, the publisher
er •• The Memoirs of Harriette Wiheon," to recover compen-
ssiion in damages for injury it:tumbled in consequence of the pub-
lization of an alleged libel in that work.
-Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN mated the ease to the Jury. This libel
was contained in a work which the Jury had, no doubt heard of,
and which work was of such a character as was calculated to de.
wroy, and indeed had destroyed, the peace of many families. The
tOairftll had felt it his duty to bring the defendant before a jury of
his country, in order that he might, if pos,ible, put a justification
i•pon the record. 3lr. Fisher was a gentleman advanced in years,
and the father of a family. The work in question was of such a
nature, that he would almost say, the highwayman who robbed to
satisfy his immediate necessities was a better character than the
n•an who would lend himself to such a publication. lie would
call their attention to the correspondence which contained the
libel—he meant the supposed correapondence contained in the
book, for in that shape site libel was introduced but which cor-
respondence, In fact, ne►er existed except in the brain of the de.
Umlaut. or of the Infamous Harriette Wilson, if such person there
was. He would first call the particular attention of the Jury to
the envelope of the work, upon the back of which, as the parts
came out, there was a list or persona who would be shown up in the
following numbers; lie would not mention the names of these per.
sons: it was sufficient to atty. that amongst them were those auntie
s•l the highest characters in the country. The intention of this shot'.
in was evident; it was unquestionably to extort /loch money;
and it that was not forthcoming. up the parties were x'rou•rs. It
was highly creditable to Mr. Fisher. that he had been bold enough
to meet the libel, by bringing a civil action, and seeking a remedy
almost as painful as the tli.elsw, and which many had not nerve
eismich to do. They would bear a speech from his Learned
Friend. which would no doubt amuse them for a considerable time,
but they would not sutler it on that account to mislead their minds.
The plaintiff's name was Hugh Evans Fisher; in the work he
was represented as introduced by a fictitious character, an •• old
Irish crack General." to Harriette Wilson, by the name of
•• Charles Frederick Fisher, of Lyme Regis." The introducer,
wish surprise, says, " What, don% you know• Fisher, the lady.
Inffer of these parts?" sibling that "he has such black eyes,
and is six feet high." The plaintiff is then represented to have
written a letter, wherein he invites Harriette to meet him.--
" Come to my chambers just after dark," as that was
the only time he ass at leisure At this, Harriette becomes indig.
rant, and exclaims. " I meet this dirty Devonshire lawyer !" and
Charles Frederick is afterwards made to my, " I vow to ti—d I
would not have her, if she was to fall down upon her knees to mc."
There are other representation' made as to the moral conduct of
Charles Frederick. and which insinuate that he was the gallant of
inary married
Tae libel was then put in and read.
The marriage of the plaintiff was proved. It was also proved
or that he had three •one, the your:grit of whom was nineteen years of
axe. TM plaintiff had lived at Lyme Regis for many years; and
was twenty years since any other solicitor of the same name had
raided there.
Another witness being examined, said he hid no doubt but the
character drawn in the work was intended to represent the
. . .

Mr. Sergeant SPAN LIE addreesed the Jury on the part of the de-
fendsot. fie contended, first, that thennwa no evidence to show that
the plaintiff was the individual referred to in the work; end. se-
condly, that the charges against Mr. Fisher were of a light. trivial
description, and could not affect his moral character. The plaintiff
In this cause reminded him of a story told in the Spectator :—A
pragmatical fellow read flunyan's Pilgrim's Propels. and there
found a great number of sins and faults announced. As a proof of
the proneness of individuals to scandalise their fellows, it was dis-
covered that to this catalogue of sins he had attached the names of
every one of his parishioners. Now this was precisely what Mr.
Vtahre had done in reference to himself. (A laugh.) In the alt.
sr ,tee of all peon( of his being the individual meant in the alleged
libel, he came into Court and affixed his name to the sins contained
in Harnett, Wilton's Memoirs. (Great laughter.) He was sure
the Jury would consider that there was no pretence for the present
action. The plaintiff bad only been charged with having black I
eyes (a laugh). and with being the " Natty of Dorseahire, ' (sad
let it not be forgotten, D tree:shire might have other black eyes sad
other beauties.) and with having exhibited that sort of gallantry
which might be attributed to a gentleman, without a charge of
humanity being its necessary atterdant. He sl'ould leave the ease
to his Lordship and the Jury, feeling confident that the latter would
show by their verdict that they could not attach such importance to
the alleged libel as was attached to it by his Learned Friend.
The LORD CHIEF Jusrier then proceeded to charge the
J.iry. His Lordship had eCTIA!nIy been much entertained by a
very pleasant speech. He had no oblation to the application of
'Owe le to abject of a frivolous nature; it was well calculated to
repose hilly ; but it failed in producing any effect when applied to
that which was serious. Was this a lit subject for ridicule ? litany
of the Jury were probably thesti.eiva•manted men, and were there-
fore well able to decide whether it tees only ridiculous to charge an
individual who had been minted thirty years, who was now • hus-
b od. and the father of a large family, with the excesses sot out in
the libel. Was it merely ridiculous to inform big wife and family,
that he was only " controlled in his excesses by want of strength ?
lle had an haitaticet in telling them that this was a libel. because
that was Ithellotte width dragerd an individual forward, and held
Let up in an nclinut and ridiculous pint to view. This case, how.
air, went still further. That the libel was a complete inveatiew,
trots beginning to end, there could be no doubt; and the plaintiff
fad take') the best possible enlarge to show that it wt.,. PO. He had

. ---
knight a civil action, acrd the defendant was thus afforded an op-
portunity fur showing, if he could. that the charges were true.
This he bad not done. With respect to the correspundenoe, there
! cmld be no doubt that this wits altlalse, and invented foe the
sea abominable purposes of thisaddeus publication. This appeared
on the face of it; for the teal signature of the plaintiff was Hugh
flatter. and that Ailed en the letters was Charles Fisher. It also
reterred to the " chambers" of the plaintiff: now it was well known
that solicitors in the country had not ea:embers an in town ; they
conducted their bu.i,q.iis in their private houses. The next point to
Le considtred was, whether or not, the plaintiff was the individual
ut:snt in the libel. It had been proved th 4at Lyme Regis there
was only one solicitor, and that the plaintiff' was meant, therefore,
there could be nn doubt. It had been said the charge contained in
the libel was to fl,ng: but what right had this infamous prostitute,
n, this pander, the defendant, oho attempted, by publishing these
labels, to support her—what right had he to bring persona forward
sod represent them in a ridiculous point of view ? lie trusted,
Lou, they were not no lost to a sense of morality, an to admit that a
married man might bv eharg-4 wits having connexion with other
married 'males., and yet be considered a moral man. The plain-
tiff's name was earaiciired wilh those of °Orr highly respectable
individuals; bat the °Renee was not less because the same work •
attacked all (beiges great, mile, and a iniobi: in the country.
Neither was it anemia on men only; it aotatirti females, married
and unmarried. It was the production of a woman who had passed
the early part of her life in horde-lion, and who, now that her
charms was on the decline, caught to carry on the remaining I
wretched portion 01 her existence by extortion. It might be said
of her, as it was observed by the Komar. satirist—" Lneratu nom I
babel. °iris." No man was more likely to suffer fiom such inipu-
'atoms than an attorney ; for they were calculated to exclude him
from all respectable families. if the Jury considered that to charge
a married man with having an illicit intercourse with married
women wan a libel, they would fird NI the plaintiff.
The Jury. without the least heti:titian, returned a verdict for the

plsintif—Datnages 7001.
•
In reporting the case of Fairhe and others against Herring,
fitrah3ni and Company, which wee tried in the Court of Common
Pleas on Thursday the 18th instabt, we ttnd that Our Reporter
a:tted to state that the principal groups! o➢ which the detention:a

resisted the action was that Etterokho, it was stated, was the de-
fendants' sub-attorney, and was the drawer of the bilis, had a large
sum of money in his hands belonging to the defendants, for which
he refused to account—that they were not bound to accept his
drafts while he held monies in his hands belonging to them, for
which he declined to account ; and that by refusing his drafts they
would be thrown back upon him, and be would thereby be corn-
pell,ll to appropriate the monies he held belonging to them to the
payment of the drafts.
It appears also that the Lord Chief Justice said, " You see, in
the first place, there is a large sum of 1100/. outstanding, and tf.e
facts cannot be altered. It seems to me that the best course will I,e
for the Jury to find a verdict for the plaintiffs. If there is not that
species of promise (which cannot be collected front any part of this
evidence, an I am at present advised,) that will be left open for the
C tun. There is no pretence for saying there is any acceptance. but
that will be open for the Court if I take a wrong view of it." And
at th^ con' lusion he said, '• Then take a verdict for the plaintiff fur
1000. subject to the discussion of the question of law hereafter."

POLICE.

IVORSHIP,STREET.

Richard Maniflel4l: ;;;;;;;WasfilliiWinrnitted for trial, on Ss-
futility, on a charge of burglary and robbery, at the house of Mr.
Miller, clothes salesman, reskltng in Stepney-rents, H sek ney-road.
It appeared that en 'Tuesday last 31r. 3111Ier took unto himself
a wife, and at night left his own solitary chamber, at Nn. I I, and
retired to repose in that of his bride, in the adjoining house, No. 10;
but anon after midnight he was rather unpleasantly disturbed by a
loud knocking at the street-doer, oecnitioned, it s,etned, by one
Wm. Grimes, aho had caught the prisoner carrying awny a large
bundle, containing wearing apparel, from the house No. 11, which
had for the night been left untenanted. On searching the premises
it was found that the back part of the house had been broken into,
and tie shelves in the shop completely stripped.