The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-06-29 00:00:00

" AN OLD MAN'S LAMENTATION."

[The verses are of a nature which prevents our inserting them.]
Now, Gentlemen. I have done with this disgusting ribaldry.
There is no sohject, you know foil weR, that may not be touched
by ridicule: Ido not mean to say that Ism much of the stoic, or
that I affect much unnecerstry gravity. I do not contend that if
a man of sixty chooses to marry a lady of thirty, his friends may
not joke about it over their glass or round their tables; but there
is a barrier over which they ea„ ht not to pass. People may say or
think what they like privately, but they have no business publicly
to scandalize their neighboara, particularly those with whom they
have moved on terms of friendship. They have no business to ,
stigmatize a woman, who (for aught that appears to the contrary)
is virtuous and modest, as a lascivious wanton picked up from '
the streets. They have no right to print and placard a man in
. characters of obloquy and terms of ridicule. That is what this de-
fendant has dune on the present occasion ; and however the non-
set.sc 1 hive read to you may excite u smile, I trust by your ver.
diet you will deal out an adequate punishment for the man who is
capable of such treachery.
Mr. Charles Corrie examined by Mr. COMYK.—I know the
plaintiff: He lives in NVebb's County Terrace, Kent road. The
defendant, Mr. John Boast and his brother carry on business in
the same place, within a few doors of the plaintifF. I was an ap-
prentice to them in the year 11125. I recollect the marriage of the
plaintiff with his present wife. I received instructions frotn Mr.
John Boma, the defendant, to copy some verses, which I paw him
' writing himself. I received orders from him to have those verses
which I saw him writing, printed. Mr. David Boast give me the
order, but whether Mr. John Boast was present at the time, I
am not exactly clear. lam sure the verses that I received orders,
to get printed were Alr. John Boast's writing. I found out a
Printer, to whom I took them ; the printer's name is Burke, end
he lives in the Seven Dials. A hundred copies were printed at
first. I paid for the printing with money which Mr. David Boast
gave me for that purpose. I saw Mr. John Boast write the first
copy of the AIS., and a second was written by myself, by the order
of Mr. J. Boast.. The copies that were given to the printer I never
saw afterwards. Two nets were printed, one from the original ma-
nuscript, and the other, about a fortnight afterwards, Irons the
copy I made. A hundred copies ware printed each time. The
printing was ordered by me, by disorder of Mr. John Boast. Mr.
John Boast did not attend to the family of the plaintiff as his me-
dical man. Mr. David Boast did. (A bill put into the hand of
the witness.) I look at this bill. It is in the hand-writing of Mr.
John Boast, and I always understood both brothers were partners.
I saw copies of the versi a in question distributed about the neigh-
baurhood, and I saw one stuck up over the gateway leading to the
yffaee where the plaintiff' lives. Some were left in our shop, and
given away there. I cannot say who gave them away, but I gave
away some. 1 rewired no orders to give them away, but I laboured
under an idea that it was according to the Messrs. Boast's wishes.
The shop was an open shop, and persons who came there ter medi.
circa got them.

Um:is-examined by Mr. COMMON SERGEANT—I never knew
Mr. John Boast attend the family of the plaintiff. I remember ite
once extracted a tooth for 31r. Lock, at his own house. Mr. Boast
came to thlt neighbourhood a tong time before I went there. I
have said that I remember the marriage of Mr. Lock, the plaintiff,
with his present wife. He in an old man, but not a very old man.
He is upwards of sixty. She is not very young, but she is young.
Mr. Lock has some daughters. I should think his eldest &ugh ler
is about the age of her new step-mother. I was paying my ad.
dresses to Miss Mary Lock at the time these verses were published.
The COMMON SERGEANT—I believe the young ladies were a
good deal annoyed at Mr. Lock getting married to his fourth wife.
Were they not ?
Mr. SCARLETT objected to this question as irrelevant.
The Loin CIIIET JUSTICE—WeII, if it UM so, that is the
greater aggravation.
The COMMON SERGEANT—You were paying very particular
attentions to one of the Misses Lock at this time.

The LORD CIDEC JUSTICIG—YOU are not bound to answer
(list question.
Witness—Certainly I was acquainted with the family.
Cross-cwaminarion resumed-1 was not on good terms with Mr.
Boast and his brother. They complained that I paid too much nt.
tcntion to the young lady, and that I neglected business t but the
business was not neglected. There were complaints of that kind,
and they told me I must go. I did go in consequence. In my es-
aininstion in chief, I said I found out the printer who printed these
verses, and his name is Burke.

Re-examined by Mr.SCARLETTI have no doubt at all that
the person alluded to in the verses is Mr. bock, the plaintiff:
John Burke, called sod examined by Mr. SCAIILETT—I am a
printer, near the Seven Dials. I remember the young man, who
was the last witness', coming to my office with smite manuscript
verses to be printed. I knew hint before, and knew where he used
to lire ; but I did not know that he then lived with the defendant,
as that was 'tept a secret from me. He had 100 copies of the
yip s printed on the 16th of April, 1823, and another hundred
printed on the 25:h of the same month.
Cross.examined by Mr. CHITTY—I look at the printed copy
of verses first printed : an alteration was made in that for the
second hundred. The last witness ordered an alteration with
respect to the heading, and tdao brought an additional verse. I
have not the original copy. It is customary in my office to file
every job . • and the first job was filed a usual, but it was taken off
the file to be corrected, and it was destroyed.
Reexamined by Mr. SCAIiEgTT—The heading of the original
reeves was, "The Oki Man who hu had four Wives:" and the
alteration was, "An Old Man's Lamentations."

Re-cross-examined by Mr. Cu T T Y.—l am not sure which was the
additional verse, but I bclkve it was the last one. I believe there
were also alterations of the wording in two or three instances, but
I cannot correctly state what those alterations were.
Mr. conic was again called by Mr. Scan t..ETT-The poetry of
the additintod verse that the printer speaks of wu the composb ion
of defendant, Mr. John Boast. Ido not recollect whether there
were any other 'aerations made; possibly there might be, but I do
not remember them.
The libel was now proposed to be read.
The Costmort Sgaorawr objected. He contended that all
the count. having averred that the libel published was headed
" An Old Man's Lamentation," the proof was directly other-
b:cause the libel was originally, " The Old Man who had
manic I Four iVites."
Mr. SCAILEWT contended there was sufficient evidr c: to go
the Jury.

The Loan Cuter J sr ICE overruled this objection, and an-
other, as to matter of tom.
The libel was then read. '
Mr. COMMON SERGEANT was about to *arum the Jury for
the defence, when
hadas'ft hheeeettliec,poeritaeroaedt'iCotnil.lealnEva:nrr,Jecialti
tShtratertcptlaeir7eitimbeeiln.e.dwearstifep,Buttrih.isielleahhedwreloestithas,enedteehmactorinyie:
coning her by moue. as %elites her husband.
Mr. SCARLET T then called the son of the plaintif, Mr. Joseph
Lock, who proved that his new step-mother's name was formerly
Euphrosine St. Geules, as averred in the declaration, and also
proved that the defendant attended his father in a medical capacity.
fir
lt'iti.ee (teroensestdeot:tet. S E
GentlemenltGEANT L10716%41E1
Jury, on
onthe
tJhuerypeoetn tlofre ptahrte
defendant, tile. John Boast, it is nftw my duty to address s few
observations to you, and I trust you will not suffer your minds to
labour under the idea that this case has been at all made out ac-
cording to the speech of my Learned Friend. To the evidence ,alone
year roust look : and I aubint to you most confidently that the
evidence does not make out the charge which this declaration con-
tains. In the first place it avert, with some degree of vanity for
an o'd man, " that the plaintirliad been lawfully married to
divers—to wit, three wtves, and that he had divers, to wit, ten
children." Of the wives we have heard nothing but the fourth;
and of the children we have seen nothing but the one who was
last called, though we have heard something about two sisters, to one
of whom the principal witness, Mr. Currie, was paying addresses.
The imperfect proofs you have nail upon these subjects, ought. I
think, to affect your views of the attempted proof with respect to
the other parts of the case. Now, if this publication be a libel
at all, I think a gentleman who boasts of his having gained
the charms of no less than four ladies, would have much
better consulted the peace arid domestic happiness of this lady with
a French name, this Miss Euplussine St. Genies, if he had suf.
reset: the nonsensical publication now before you to die in peace
I do not pretend to defend it fur a single instant ; but I subm i.
to you most confidently, that the proofs of the case furnish con-
viction for arty re Atonable mind that my client was never the
author of it. You have heard a great deal from ray Learned
Friend about the ribose of private and medical confidence; but
io judging whether men are guilty of baseness and treachery,
you will necessarily look to see whether you can find any snit
of motive that could incite my client to the publication of such
a libel as this; ana I assert confidently that in no part of the
case can you find the shadow of a proof that fixes guilt on my client,
or any motive thus to attack the plaintiff: But, Gentlemen,the author
is tolerably well manifested through the piece. Mr. Currie. you will
recollect, is the person whogets the libel printed ; he is the person
who now charges my client with theguilty outrage ; and being, accord-
ing to his own acknowledgment, an accomplice (supposing that RI
client were really concerned). I say his evidence is wholly desti-
tute of confirmation, and therefore is unworthy of credit. lie
would affect to come forward here as an unwillinr witness against
his former employers, in order that my Learned Friend on the other
side might suppose he was not anxious to give Mr. Lock any fur.
titer good turn than the law would compel him.to ; but you cannot
forget that this young gentleman was paying his addresses to Miss
Mary Lock, one of those young ladies to whom naturally the fourth
alliance of their father with a step-mother, about her own age,
might be justly obnoxious. Having penned this libel, as I say. to
please the !atilt s—and having quarrelled with his masters, who dis-
missed him on account of the assiduous attentions he was paying to
one of them, while he neglected their businolt • he next endeavours
to squeeze himself into the good graces of the old gentleman, by
fixing this libel on my client ; and thin, no doubt, fa the secret his.
tory of the whole case. (If the libel itself, Gentlemen, I shall say
rothing. It is so ludicrous and so ridiculous, that even my Learned
Friend himself was obi gad to laugh while he was reading It to you ;
and, therefore, supposing (which I can scarcely believe possible)
drat you should find a verdict against my client. I cannot conceive
how you can appreciate any daiturge the plaintif has sustained. I
cannot imagine how any person could sustain damage from any.
thing so ridiculous or so laughable. Peter Pinder truly says—
" To laugh is a laudable thing,
When people are silly or mean ;"
and really, i trust, you will think with me, that the folly of this
nonsemical publication it only exceeded by the stupidity of thus
bringing it before the public.
Toe Loan CHIEF tIUdTICE, in charging the Jury, observed
that if the evidence of the witness Corrie was not to be relied on. it
would have been ewe rely easy for the defendant to have produced
his brother, for the purpose of contradicting that witness. It was
very easy to charge a witness with falsehood; but such an accusa-
tion was extremely dangerous, where the evidence objected against
was susceptible of comradiction, if fal-e, and yet not coateic ed.
Great stress had been laid by the Learned Counsel for the defen.
dant on the fact that no motive was made apparent atrial could in.
cite the defendant to the publication of this libel; but his lordship
said it was impossible for him or tor the Jury to dive into the secret
inotives of men. No motive appeared, it was moat true ; but the 1
question for the Jury was, wheher the libel in question was pub.
hotbed by the defendant ? (for that it was a libel there weld be no
doubt.) if they thought that Mr. Corrie had written and pub-
lished the libel, and then wrongfully charged his former master
with it ;-or, in fact, if they thought the publication was not brought
home to the defendant, the verdict ought to be in his favour. On
the contrary, if the Jury were satialied that the publication was
fixed open the defendant, then the verdict must be for the plaintiff:
The only remaining question was that of damages, ableh was a
question solely fbr the Jury; and his Lordship was sure that their
good sense would suggest such fair and temperate damages as the
case justly called for.
The Jury deliberated for a few minutes, and then found for the
plaintiff—Damages 601.