The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-02-21 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Moiro*Y, Fss. 20.

Li BEL.
BEM HOYT v. WILLIAM CON/ITTI. •
This wee en action brought by Mr.lienry flunk, of varied celebrity,
against Mr. Wm. Cobhett, the proprietor and printer of CulAelee
Weekly Register. for a stoppered libel published in the Itegietcr of
the 14th of May 111-23. alleged to impute the crime of perjury to
Mr. Hunt, committed in a certain trial, entitled " Byrne o. Par-
kins." Plea, Not Guilty.
Mr. litet.opened the petweedinge ; and
The ATTOIIXET-URNEHAL stated the case to the Jury. Ile
commenced by saying that the parties to thin action were intlivi.
duals who had been so held before, and were so extremely well
known to the public, that it was unnecessary for him (the Actor.
ney.General) to introduce them to the Jury by any particular de-
scription. This action was brought by Mr. Hunt to vindicate his
char • er from an unmerited and false aspersion cast upon it by
Mr. IVilliani Cobbett; end it the libel in question had only con-
sisted of general abuse against Mr. Hunt's private or public cha.
racier. he, ih. Attorney-General, should have advised Mr. Hunt to
peso it by unnoticed hi silent contempt. relying on his general cha.
ratter as the best answer to slander of that description. But some.
times libels of this sort contained charges so affecting the honour
and metal character, and were so specific and precise in their nature,
that the individual against whom they were published owed it to
himself, as well as to the situation in society, of which he was a
member, to come forward for the purpose of meeting such charges.
and making thelli the subject of iequiry in Courts of Justice.
%Vitt' this view, therefore, and in order that the party preferring
the clisrge against Mr. Hunt, attacking his character, and imput-
ing to him a crime of an infamous nature and description, might
have an opportunity of substantiating that charge If possible, the
present action was brought. Mr. Cobbett in the libel which wee the
subject of the present inquiry. had imputed to Mr. hunt wilful
and corrupt perjury • and for that libel, it was very true, that :Hr.
Cobbett might have been Indicted; but ..Mr. Hunt knowing that if
lie had pursued such a course, Mr. Cobbett might have turned
round anon him, and said. " You have rendered it impossible for
me to show the truth of what I bare asserted," preferred bringing
an action, in order that, if Mr. Cobbett thought fit, he might
plead a justification on the record. Ile had not dared, hnwever,
to do any such thing; but had contented himself with
a plea of "not guilty." It was the Learned Counsel's duty now
to state what were the grounds of the present action. It had hap-
pened some time ago that a person of the name of Byrne, who had
been the sictini of some oppresilion in Ireland. was invited, either
by Mr. Cobbett ore Mr. Parkins who was formerly a Sheriff of
the City of Lindol. to come to this country. That individual was
received by Mr. Parkins, who opened a subscription for him, as he
was eunsidered to be an oppressed and injured, though humble
individual. Among other persons alto collected subscriptions for
th;s man was Mr. Cobbett, though Mr. Parkins was the chief
collector. Something was received by Mr. Cobbett and was
handed over to Mr. Parkins, as well as other subscriptions; and as
it was eubacquently mannered by Byrne or Ms friends, that
Mr. Parkins did not act fairly by Byrne in the payment of these
subscriptions, an action was brought against him, in which Byrne
recovered a verdict of M., the deficiency of the subscriptions, for
which Parkins had not accounted to Byrne. Parkins was dime.
tidied with this verdict, and after application to this Caurt. he ob.
tainted • new trial. Upon the second trial the former verdict was
reduced to between 1611/. and 1601., which amount was paid over
by Parkins ro Byrne. Upon that second trial Mr. Hunt, the pre-
sent plaintiff, was unwillingly suptenaed as a witness in behalf of
Mr. Parkins; he refused to have any previous communication
%jell Parkins, and he refused to have his evidence taken down be-
fore lie came to the trial. When the trial came on, Mr. Hunt was
examined by Mr. Parkins, who conducted his own cause, and he
then stated that Byrne had called upon him, and had been very
abusive of the conduct of Mr. Cobbett, but had spoken in very high
terms of Mr. Parkins. This was the only part of the evidence
which it was now necessary to advert to; but Mr. Hunt was very
much surprised the following week to see in Mr. C,obbett's Regis-
' ter a great many observations relative to this trial, and a long aid-
' ale remarking upon Counsel, as well as other person., and directly
charging Mr. Hunt with Moral perjured himself in the evidence
lie had given. Mr. hunt had 'always sustained a character in
society for the strictest veracity and respectability ; and therefore
he wiz astonished at such ea imputation, without any cause being
assigned, and when he was perfectly free from all connexion with
Parkin.. It was remarkable too, that fur. Cobbett himself had
been a witness on this trial, and therefore though he stated he was
no' present when Mr. Hunt was examined, It wag not open Inc him
to say that he had been misled by the misrepresentations of other:
persons. The Learned Counsel then read thesupposed libel, which
was to this effect: —" I should firm observe, however, that on the
lest trial there came as • witness for Mr. Parkios, Mr. Henry
Hunt. 1 was not In Court when Mr. Henry Hunt was examined.
but I read in the A:arising Chronicle that Mr. Hunt had said
Byrne lied spoken evil of me to him, and had said that he could
not get from me the money I had collected for him, and afterwards
spoke in the highest term' of Parkins." The alleged libel then
went on to set forth en affidavit made by Byrne, In Dublin, which
Mr. Cobbett said be merely believed to be true, and which directly
falshied the supposed evidence of 31r. Hunt in the trial in question,
thereby imputing to him perjury. The Attorney-General coin- I
rented upon this publication, passage by passage, and we lament '
we have not room to nodes the Learned Gentleman's speech at
length. _ _

Mr. James llsllieon, from the Stamp-office. then produced the
copy of Cobbett's lierfirter of the 14th of May last, containing the
sublication in question.
Mr. Charles Trevor, also from the Stamp-office, produced the
affidavit of Mr. Cobbett deposited to that office, and stating that he
tsio, the proprietor and printer of the Irrekly lirgixter.
Mr. Choice Swift stated the evidence given by Mr. Hunt on the
second trial of Byrne v. Patkins.
The libel was here read.

Mr. Cnautta PUILLTPII thee addressed the jury for the de-
fendant. 111 all ordinary cases of libel he should feel the greatest
difficulty in adtlresaing a Jug for • defendant, because the nature
of the charge necessarily involved peculiar embarrassments. If a
defendant set out by entering a justification on the record, he must
necessarily fail, if be did not auhstantiate that justification strictly
to the letter; and if .he did not set out a justification, he was, of
course, met with the observation, that he had not dared to assert
the truth of the libel which he was chtnied with publishing. If the
jury, however, would look through the supposed libel published
upon the present occasion, they would see that in no pan of it was
there the slightest charge made against Mr. Hunt that he had. cora-
mitted perjury. If time web • libel at all, it see upon the Morn-
ing chronicle, for Mr. Cobbett, conscious that he had acted with
the greatest generosity and the most unbounded hospitality towards
Byrtu• and Ilia starving faintly, was surprised to read in that paper
that Mr. blunt bad asserted Byrne had spoken evil of hint ( Mr.C.)
He therefore treated the matter as • misrepresentation on the part
of .110 paper, and never once charged Mr. Hunt with perjury. It
was natural enough for him to supptne that Byrne had never been
an ungrateful as to calumniate him after all his kindness, and there-
fore when Byrne debied it by his affidavit, he (Mr. Cubbett) ear.
minly said be believed him to state that which was the truth.
But what injury could this • Mr. Henry Hunt complain of? Ile
had not antlered the loss of a shilling ; rind the beamed Counsel
was perfectly convinced that every one who knew Mr. Henry Hunt
would go out of this Court with quite as good an opinion of him as
they entertained before. " I remember once," continued the
Learned Counsel, " reading of one Henry punt, now no more,