The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-12-20 00:00:00

CUSTOIII.IIOUS. D►c. 17.

-.-
SHIPS ESTZNED IPwertus.—The Prince of SAX!! Coburg,
Tremoyme, from Denis, Alicuit, aud Allea ; Susannah, Carpenter,
from Sicily ; Caledonia, ',pill, from Quebec; Alexander, Pottin-
grr, from St. Peter..burgh ; Ceres. Becker, from Elbing and Pil-
lan ; Catherine. Fligg, from Almeria and Gibraltar; Vronw
Wimmina. Stehr, from Leer; Broderne, 3leenes., and Samuel,
Burgess, from Lisbon; Ann, :tlarohall, from Standgate Creek;
Sovereign. Sly, from Messina ; Commerce, hasten, trout Villavi-
chola; Friends, Liuen, from Sen ile; Rover, Cook, from St.
Ilieasers; Sappho, Noabce, from Smyrna; Kiagaton, Cheep,
from Cork; Fume, Miller, front IVaterford; May, Anderson,
from Itublin.

ENTEIIED OUTIVARDS.—The .3lary Ann, Rising, far Grand
Catiary ; Ailrim, Brown, for Sidney, New :South Talcs; Meiluse,
Lobbing*, for Antwerp and Brtmeli; K:ng George Packet. Hart,
for Antwerp; Landon Packet, Mackay, for Buxton ; Sea Nymph,
Splttle. for firemen ; Jace, Elliot. for Waterford.

•CLEARED OUTWARDS TIN.II.LT AT Gneeestwer.-.-The
George, Forster, for Havannah !loyal Charlotte, Ford, for Ja-
-113.601; Atalanta, King, and Two lirothers, Robson, for Haniburgh.
CLEARING Ouvwanus.—The Julie, Pr:sgcr, for Calais;
Thetis. Chrisp, for Lisbon; Runnymede, Kemp, for Calcutta; Ks-
:mance. Annicore, for Calais; Edward, {Vessels, for Bremen;
'Troia Arnie, Schur. for Antwerp; Fair Arcadian, IVhillis, for
Demerara; Trois Freres, Rieke, for Antwerp and ;
Penierrick, for Rotterdam; Sector, Hart, for St. Michael's;
Braze, Duthie., for A ',leant y Four Sisters, Foreman, for St. 31i.
cheers ; Cordelia, Watson. and Aran, Ossberg, for A licant.
('ono/Ilex's INuukee.—Last seeking, at half-past six
oVG,k, the Coroner and Jerry assembled at the Savoy Palace, anti
resumed the investigation touching the death of the young woman
who threw herself into the Thanits, at lVsterioo-bridge, and was
dror.cr I. on Friday outen.nie las•. The Jury returned their err.
diet_• That the .erceseed drewiteri bench' in a ill el insanity, pro.
d :cal by distress and iatets:ation."

THE BIUTISVI PRESS.

LAW NUTICEL
COURT OF CHANCERY.
DITORT TAI LORD CUANCELLOR TIMIS DAT.
Part heard—British Mine Company.
After which, Motions..
RETORT ?RE TICE-CI
CAUSES, PETITIONS, •I
In re Mitchell
%Ilan v Triinby
Lomas v Simmonds
&Iron • Cooke
trr Stansfield
e Tadcaster School
Adam • Ashton
Campbell v Coding
A.Miernety.General • Mayor of
Rochester
1 In re Strode's Charity
Edmonds • Ackland
Deacon v Deacon
In re liclwar's Charity
In re Layfirld's Charity
Rawlings v Jennings, 2 Petitions
Elriogton r }Arington
Harrington • Gregson
Attorney General v Mayor of
Rochester
In re Ashhy de la Zouch School
Thelluson r ‘Voodford, two Pe-
titions
Portal r Cobham
Avery • Russell
tt
Nelson • London Amursaiti
Company
Richards • Lord Macclesfield
Pettit • Pettit
Beer v lVard
Miller • Elkins
In re Waddington Hospital
Hoyd • Poole
Prebble • iloghurst
Jervotse v Jervolse
Jones • Jones
In re New Post Office Aet
Bushell • Brachap, 3 Petitions
In re Christ Church Charity
Muir v Priest

D REMAINING MOTIONS.
In re Henry Kelway
Deane r Deane
Wilkinson v Wilkinson
In re M'aleot Charity
Garrick a Lord Camden
Payne v Long. two Petitions
Heathcote r Edward.
In re Surrey and Sussex Road
Act
Davies r Ogden
Grainger v Berkeley
In re Rhosdes
Browne v Rippengall
Randnli r Covert
In re Gedney Hill Charity
Gibson v Knowles
Gilbert r Wetherell
In re Commissioners of Paving
Bermondsey
Attorney-General v Hulton
Lord Shaftesbury r Duke of
Marborough
Orick v Binney
Jones v Jones
Kilshaw v Galway
Wilson v Al•Ketnie
Duteus v Lord aulkeley
Marckus r Wolf
In re Phillips
In rc 31unchester Market Act
In re Mernick's Charity
Town v Selater

ir Smith

Firker v Canichsroe
Wool • Batchelor
Sitmhona v (intteridge
Lam-timer • (Mon
Shefford v Sharon!
Miller v Elskic.

ROLLS COURT.
GENERAL PETITION DAY, AT SIX THIS 111 VINO.
Atkinson v Dowbig- Satterthwaite v Sat- Price • Fria
gin, by order I terthwaite Barnes v Suttle
Collins , Blackburn Caldeclough v Reid Bennington v Hu-
In re Doveys School Peacock v Saggers wood
Gibbons v Howell Guilfrer v Waist Qucich v Farquhar
Griffith • Wynne In re Union Canal Simian v Baliantyne
Thompson v Bur- In re Judd Potts v Norton
block Harvey v Harvey Bowker v Nichson
Borgius v Warner Fentar r l'orrall Vainey v Hill
Hickson v Lloyd Groves v Pride'', Gailmond v Hirst
Enever v Field Orchard v Sandy* Porter v Ferry
1
Brougham v Idle Pilkington v Smith Adams v Gillett
In re Sayer's Charity Rowley v Elwell Fletcher v Helps
Coussmaker v Forbes Whatmore • Earl Massey v Dixon
Withers v How Wilkinson v Berton Squire v Squire
Andrews v Sewell Downe v Goody Farrar v I‘linshull
Barnes v Rhodes Harvey v Harvey Pearce v Tate
Clarke v Clarke Young r Cowell Rune v Rinlock
In re Maunsel Hughes v Wynne Rutherford v Douglas
In re Southwark Roberts v Roberts Berson r Maude
Bridge Company Carlow v. Cade, two In re Thompson
Ker v Clobety petitions lit re Bateman
McAdton v Riney In re Swindon's. In re Eiger
Bronthead v Hunt Friendly Society Frowd v Frowd
Snelson v Snelson I Garbutt v Tit I Beaumont • Paine
_...

Campbell vC3 •ling
Ex-pane 'Farris
Mason v Dyett

Ippiry
I.lleward v Sihurron
Harvey v Hervey
llytnmark v Ashton

Clarke

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

CAUSES TO BE TRIED THIS DAY IX LONDON', IT SPECIAL

il*RIEs.

F;dnieeds v Avhby
Bishop v Benecke
llobvon v. Rich. Bt.
Tooke v Oldlield

Woolley v Jenning. Johnson v Huelin
Wheeler, Whitaker I Eicke v Pedder
Wheeler v Leather
Parkes v Creswicke

LAW IIV7'ELLIOENCE.
—.mu—
COURT OF CHANCERY, MOXDAY, Dcc. 19.

BOITCHIE AND OTHER! V. TETER! AND OTHERS.
HEALD stated that he appuured as Counset for the defend.
ante in this suit, and that he had now to apply to his Lordship for
dissolving the injunction which had been obtained on the other
side. The Court would recollect that an injunction had been ob-
tained to restrain one of the defendants in the suit front receiving
certain funds which were now in Court. Th• Learned Coansel
said he would, as shortly as possible, put the Court in possession
of the priccipal facts of the case. It appeared by the proceedings
that some time ago a reference bad been made to the Master fur the
purpose of an account being taken of the estate of the testator, Mr.
Jean Cnurtois. This gentleman had died, leaving three illegi-
timate children. These children had been made wards of the
Court, and the Court had ordered a sum of money to be paid out
for their maintenance. A decree was afterwards obtained on fur-
cher. directions, and the respective sums then due were set off to
the credit of the pieties etc i,led. The testator had died possessed
of large property, to the amount indeed of upwards of three hue.
dyed thousand pounds, and. these children therefore became entitled
to one hundred thousand pounds each. The eldest child having at.
tained the age of 21, she had received bee proportion under the or-
der of the Court, and the seine order had been made in regard to
the second, but which was prevented from being carrittl into exe-
cution by the filing of this bill by a foreigner, who claimed to be
next of kin. It wan stated on the affidavits in behalf of the plain.
tiff's case, that the bequest of the property in question had been
obtained under undue h fitience, end they hid obtained an injunc-
tion ex parte. His (Mr. Heald's) clients had taken the earliest
possible opportunity of appearing to oppose it, and the whole of
the affidavits were now before his Lordship, and certainly such
affidavits he (Mr. Heald) had never seen. It was most fortunate
for the persons whom he (Mr. Heald) represented, that they could
bring before his Lordship the affidavits of persons whose clime-
tens stood so high, that their testimony could not admit of dispute
—persons wholly disinterested, and which went fully to meet the
cue so basely set up on the other aide.
Mr. HORNE said it was a duty he owed to the Court to state at
once that lie wan not in a situation to support the injunction.
Mr. HART, on behalf of a professional gentleman whose name
appeared in these proceedings, was particularly anxious to state on
his behalf that there were no grounds whatever for the imputation
thrown upon him.
Mr. HEALD begged to say, that, if the case hod gone on, he
should have disclosed to his Lordship such a mass of perjury,
quiet', and turpitude, that he (Mr. Heald) had never seen in the
whole course of Ids practice in that Court.
Mr. lititarownt.t. appeared on behalf of the mother of the child-
ren, and said his Lordship would fully recollect what her conduct
had been when formerly before the Court. She had evinced the
most tender anxiety for the welfare of the children, and her conduct
in their affairs was most exemplary.
The injunction was dissolved, • ith costs.

IN RR MARSH AND CO.
Mr. HEALD (with whom was Mr. Montagu)applied folds Lord-
ship for an order, that Messrs. Stracey and Graham might be ex-
amined upon an issue that had been directed by his Lordship to the
Court of King's Bench, on the 13th of April last, to try whether the
bankrupts stood indebted to Messrs. Stone and Co. in the sum of
16,0001. He stated that, since the order had been issued, these
gentlemen bad obtained their certificates, but as their names stood
as defendants on the record, it was necessary to obtain hia*Lord-
shi_p's order for their being examined as witnesses.
The SOLICITOR-GENERA,. (III!II whets was Mr. Horne) stated
that in whatever view the case was looked at, there could be no
ground upon which these gentlemen could be examined. He con.
tended that if this were allowed the nature of the issue would be
wholly and completely changed.
His Lorimar', inquired if thesegentlemen had obtained their
certificates since the issue was directed ? aid was informed in the
affirmat-ve. Hia Lordship then intimated that Messrs. Stracey and
Graham, though defendants oh the record, should be examined as
prayed.
The costs of the petition to be allowe 1. but not paid at present.

LADY •NSON V. THE BRITISH MINING COMPANY.
This vise came before his Lordship on x harmer day (the lath
Nov.) when theSolicitor-General moved for an injunction ex parte,
but which the Court refused t the motion was now resumed, the
parties against whom the injunction was brought being before the
Court. From the Solicitor-Ueneral a statement it appeared that
Lady Arson had purchased several shares cif four mines in Corn.
wall, the property of a 31 r. Thomas. She had also, in consequence
of an application from Mr. Thomas. advanced hint a stun of 3.000/.
which was secured not upon the our mines of which she had pre-
viously become a part purchaser, butt upon the a hole of his mines,
amounting to sixteen in number. Mr. Thomas, since tiie trans-
actions, had sold his harm,' in these mines to certain persons coil-
ing thenAelves the British Mining Company ; a dispute had arisen
between tli; parties and Lady Anson, ;and hence these proceedirgs.
'FheSolicitor.fieneral read various letters to Sustain her
case, both from Mr. Thomas, as well as front Professor Milling-
ton. who is one of four trustees that represent the Company In
question. lle (theSolicitor-bleneral) very buthorousfy described
these mines (one of which being named the " Console Mine") as
a sort of subterraneous Threadneedle-sheet.
The Loaf) Ctrawct hacitt said tt did not appear at present bow
many. persons composed this Company ; and, therefore, it was a
question whether they were entitled tc sale or foreclosure. bete se
the Court would not stake such an order, unless all parties were
before it.

The SOLICITOII.O2NCRAL laid that he had got three most
ettbstanti.,l parties as repusenting this Company, Mr. James Mas-
call, 11r. Henry Moore, and Mr. Thomas 1:01ebtooke, and as to
the rest, he could not sat they were is Imbibed', seeing that they
were under ground; but it was matter of indifference for his pm.
pu►e where they were. so long as he hid brought their represents,
lives before the Court. Tie Learned Suhriior 11. ell prayed his
Lordship's injunction that the defendants might be restrained front
working the mines, as aril as from se!: or tosissiosurs of 4issly

Amain' interest in the said wine..., ia the Courts holding peculiar,
jurisdiction in the Stannaries.
Mr. SUUDEN wan heard on the sntne side ; and, at the condu.
' lion of his speech, the Conti rose.
VICE-CHANCELLOR'B COURT, 310NDAT, DEc.l9.

This being the third Seal. his Honour the Vicc-CHANcEttoR
warrall day occupied in disposing or motions, t•.uue of winch con
tamed anything of public interest.
The motions of course were so numerous, that his Honour, being
unable to get through with the entire, was obliged to postpone the
remainder of the Seal till to-morrow.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH. GUILDHALL,
Mot:EyAy. Dec.l9.
Sitting. London before Lord Chief Justice ABBOTT and Spe.
6111 j Stria.

WILCOX AND ANOTHER V. MARSHALL.
This was an action on a policy of insurance effected on a bottomry
bond. and underwritten by the defendant.
The AvvonseEY-GENERAL and Mr. PATTISON conducted
the plaintiff's case; Mr. SCARLETT and Mr. CAMPBELL that of
the defendant.
The insurance was on a German trader from Havre-de-Grace to
the island of St. Sebastian. After leaving the former place the ves-
sel encountered a heavy gale, and, making for the English coast,
put into Dartmouth. She had received some injury, and in conse.
quence underwent repairs, when, after being examined and passed
as sea-worthy by the underwriter's inspector, she set out again for
St. Sebastian, and was lost.
Mr. Scanr.vrr, for the defendant, contended, that the circum-
stances under which this vessel wan lost were very suspicious, anti
such as to induce a strong belief that it never was intended to sail
her to St. Sebastian ; but that, in point of tact, she was a smuggler,
and that the teal purpose was to lil.d her cargo somewhere on the
English coast.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, in summing up, told the Jury
that he thought the evidence for the plaintiff did nut warrant the
inference contended for by Mr. Scarlett.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 1001.
LLOTD V.ASHRT, ROWLAND, AND SHAW.
This was an action on a bill of exchange for 821. accepted by the
defendants, and indorsed to the plaintiff.
Mr. MARItYAT and Mr. ST Ernest conducted the plaintiff's
case; Mr. SCAaLETT that of the defendant.
The plaintiff is a machine-maker ; the defendants are engrmrs
in Lombard-street. The plaintiff had made a machine for Row-
land, father of Rowland, the partner in the firm of Ashby and
Co.;• he wanted payment for his niactiiiie, and Rowland the elder
offered him a bill drawn on Ashby and Co. which he consented to
receive.

Mr. SCAR LETT, for Mr. Shaw, contended that u against him
the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, inasmuch as he was a dor-
mant partner at the time of this transaction ; that. the plaintiff did
not, therefore. receive the bill on the credit of Shaw, and that the
bill was given for a consideration in which Shaw did not par-
ticipate.

Mr. IllanaitaT. in reply to this, cited the csse of Taylor v.
Ridley, 5 List, 175.
The Loan CHIEF JVST ICC %as of opinion against the plain.
tilfon the point of law, and thought that as the credit had not been
given to Mr. Shaw, and as he had received no part of the consi-
deration, he was not liable i❑ this action.
The plaintiff was accordingly nonsuited.

QUILLINAN C. TVCICZY.
This was an action of deceit against the defendant, for having
fraudulently represented one Burton to be a Welt=' whereby the
plaintiff was induced to sell him four hogsheads of wine on the
ustvil credit.

Mr. SCAILETT and NIT. CON TN conducted the plaintifrs case;
the Al TUILNEY-IiCNER•L and Mr. CARTER that or the dc.
fend an!.

The plaintiff is a merchant at Oporto; the defendant had been
in the habit of dealing with him for wine. Previous to the April
of 1823, he had been in partnership with Mr. Burton, a young man
of no property. In April of that year the partnership was dissolved,
and when the accounts were settled, Sir. Burton was indebted to
Tuckey, the defendant, in a sum of 3241. Burton some time pre.
viously bad married a young lady, who was entitled to property to
the amount of about 1:000/. under her foam's will. This property
was vested in trustees, to be paid to her when she should attain 25
years of age, or on her marriage, if this should happen sooner, anti
with the consent of the trustees. She married, however, before she
attained 2a, without consent, and in consequence forfeited her title
to this property. Burton had run away with the lady; they were
married very secretly, and the defendant rave her away. It was
not, however, for a considerable period that they became aware of
the manner_in which this property had been settled upon her, and
it was a principal question nil this cause, whether at the time the
defendant recommended Burton to the plaintiff's agent as a person
of responsibility, he was perfectly aware that Burton could not üb.
rain this money in the right of his wife. Mr. Hoffstetter, the agent
of the plaintiff; who had had previous transactions with Tuckey, saw
him In the June of 1823, at Forelism, where he had set up bust.
ness after he hail dissolved his partnership with Burton. Tuckey
told him that lie could recommend him to Mr. Burton, at Poole,
fur an order. Hoffstetter asked if he was a safe man, to which
Tuckey replied in the affirmative. Ile then asked for a letter of
recommendation to Burton, to which Tuckey replied that it was
not necessary, as he would himself write to Burton. A few days
after Huffstetter had to go to Plymouth, in the course of his busi-
ness, and called upon Burton as he passed through Poole, to so-
licit an order. Burton then said he would consider a few days,
and, on Hoffitetter's return from Plymouth, gave him an order for
four hogsheads of wine. Before Hoffitetter wrote to Oporto for
Burton's order he again saw the defendant, and asked him if Bur-
ton was a safe man ? He again said he was, and that he hail
lately married a young lady of considerable property, which she
had not yet got, but which there wits no doubt she would get by
and by. Upon this Holiketter wrote to Oporto--the wines arrived
in 'gland in October following, and as Mr. Burton had not room
for them they were warehoused at Southampton. In payment for
them Burton accepted a bill for 711,, drawn at Oporto, and made
payable at nine months, which is the usual credit. This bill would
not, ofceurese, become due before the June or July following. In
the mean time, however, the defendant took these wines in execu-
tion, on a warrant of attorney given for the sum which Burton was
indebted to him. He attempted to erase the marks tom the casks,
but was prevented by the excise-officer. Ile had them sent to
Portsmouth and sold. These were the facts of the cue, and the
question was, whether they did not bear, on the face of them, proof
that the defendant had been induced to represent Burton as a re-
sponsible person, for the fraudulent purpose of pas ing himself, by
taking in execution the goods that Burton might obtain in conse-
quence of these representations ?
Sir. SCARLET T, in support of his use, called Mr. Hoffstetter
and Mr. Green, the attorney of Mr. Tuckey.
The A vvons Ey-GE NE MAL, fur the defence, called also several
witnesses, for the purpose of 'Mowing that Mr. Tuckey had not
knowingly given a false credit to Mr. Burton ; but their evidence
did not materially change the aspect of Mr. St-arlett's case ; and
from the whole it was clearly made out that the defendant was
perfectly aware, before his second interview with Mr. Llnffstetter,
which took place before he wrote off to Oporto for the wines, that
lie (the defendant) though at that intetview he represented' Mr.
Burton as a person who had great expectations in right of his
wife, was, nevertheless, perfectly aware, from an investigation that
had taken place, that the trustees would not pay over to him his
wife's fortune, that he h.d no means of compelling them, that her
interest, in consequence of marrying without the consent of the
trustees, was at best but a life interest, and that it was very pro-
bably a total forfeiture.
The Jury, without hesitation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff
—Damages 721. being the amount of Mr. Burton's acceptance for
the four hogsheads of wine.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, GUILDHALL,
BiONDAY, Dcc. 19.

Londe* Adjostrord Sitting, befurc Lord ride [Justice BEST axd
41 Special Jury.
LIBEL.
YRISAIIIk v. CLEMENT.

Mr. LILLY opened the pleadings. This was an action of libel,
brought by the plaintiff', against the proprietor of the Aforniug
Ch,onick, for printing and publishing a false and malicious libel
in that paper, on the 211 July last, of and concerning the plaintiff;
in his public character of Plenipotentiary and Envoy Extracutlinary
from the Government of Chili to all the Courts of Europe. The
first count of the declaration alleged that the plaintiff was em.
ployed by the Republic of (:hili as Ambassador to this country,
and that he was specially authorised to raise a loan or loans on be.
half of his Government ; that Mr. Hullett, before the time of
publishing the libel, had been appointed Consul-General for the
State of Buenos Ayres ; that the plaintiff arrived in this country,
and afterwards negotiated a loan with the house of Hullett, bro.
theta, and Co.; that in pursuance thereof bonds were issued, and a
large sum of money raised upon the sale thereof; and that defendant
had in the publication complained of imputed fraud to plainrif='
meaning thereby to injure the public character of the plaintiff; and
to degrade him in the estimation of the persons by whom he was
employed. There were oilier counts, varyhig the statement, and
averring generally that the defendant had printed and published
the same, intending to injure the personal and private character of
the plaintiff: The defendant first pleaded not guilty ; and secondly,
as to part of the alleged libel in the first count, he pleaded a justiti.
cation, and alleged that the plaintiff, in collusion with Messrs.,' ul.
lee. published a false notice, professing to be a statement t. the
annual income of the State of Chili, and had falsely alleged that
it amounted to 150,0001., and that it was equal to fourteen times
the interest of the lean, whereas it did not exceed eight times that
amount. To this plea, the plaintiff in his replication, said that
the whole was published of his own wrong, without the cause al.
!eget' ; issue was then joined, both upon this replication ant: also
upon the general issue. . . .

11 " r. rgeaut VAUGHAN observed that he had the honour to
address the Jury on behalf of the plaiatiff, Don Antonio Jose de
Yrinarri, who had been conipeHed to resort to the present action,
in order to relieve hintarlf tram the mtimitainous load of obloquy
and disgrace which was attempted to be cast upon his character by
some trout robe, unwarranted, and scandalous aspersions that had
appeared in the paper which had been already mentioned to them.
It was. ne they must be well aware. sometimes • delicate and a
difficult question to determine what course a person should pursue
in obtaining justice fur alt injurious attack levelled at his character
thrimgh the sued' of libellous publiention. If it had been only
a political attack upon the cause of the South American State to
which this gen:lemon belonged, he might have duce well to have
owtlooked it, but if it Ix a serious attack upon the reputation

of a public officer, then silence and submission would ho
to give credit to the charge, and a curreocy to t4gs.
The piaintiff might have proceeded criminally and 06rifeed
a conviction, upon which the defendant would have gine out of
Court and said, " Yes, it is true he has convicted me, because
all he had to do was to prove the publication of the libel, and
whether true nr false, a verdict must go agaiftit Inc; for I wiz
deprived of the means which a civil action would have given toe of
proving the truth of the alleged libel." it was for th,is reasons
therefore, that the Learned Sergetnt had always considered alid
best, the rirltPit manly, and most effectual mode, was to brink O
civil action, because, if the defendant had done no mere %au wilt
lie was justified. in doing, the plaintiff would find in, the truth of
the charge, the best answer that could be given to the acticio. ;t
was for this moon, therefore, that the plaintiff had broUght heft
cause before the Jury to-day ; and ha challenged the defendant to
make good the charge, and prove the truth of that lu-:putatioo
which laid so heavy upon his moral as well as his political character.
With respect to the parties to the cause, the plaintiff was a natiie
of Gnittentala, but t'te Learned Sergeant did not suppose, that, be-
cause his client was a foreigner, he would in a British Court of
Justice have miter than British justice administered to him; and
he hoped and felt assured that the weight of their verdict would
fall where it ought to fall. The plaintiff was the accredited Envoy!
Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary from Chili. With
respect to the defendant, lie need hardly mention his name, being
so well known as the proprietor of the Morning. Chronicle, in which
paper the libel appeared on the 24th of July last. The Learned
Sergeant had no difficulty in admitting that it was, in general, a
journal as free from paragraphs of a libellous nature as any that:
wars published, and it had wide and extensive circulation • and
the defendant told them that his paper was not confined to British
readers, but had circulation in every Court and Slate in Europe.
The injury, therefore: had been circulated as far es the piper
extended. At a moment of time when a country that was just
emerging frum darkness to light, and seeking assistance from all,
it was natural fur a country so circumstanced to feel eeutely any
thing that was injurious to the dawn of their liberty. The libel
purported to be a comment upon part of' a speech made by a most
able S.atesmsit (Mr. Canning) iu the House of Commdna; but they
would find that the 'wench had nothing whatever to do with the
Chllian lose. He would just read what that extract eras:—
" Be (Mr. Cann'no had an additions! reason to regret the Hon.
Gentleman's absence, as he understood that he had alluded to
another transaction, in which a gentleman in partnership with a
commercial house in the city had been appointed Consul-General
for a foreign State, and had called on hint for the purpose of enter-
ing into a discussion of a very impo Cant question. lie, however,
positively refused to listen to hint. o: even to see him again in that
capacity, such a discretion on his part being nothing more than
acting on a principle, that every rittintry has a right to refute cc
ace pt the Ambassadors sent to it. The new State might certainly
permst in the course it had adoptel. but it was very mad if Eng-
lan I was to be forced to descend from the high grout don which
It stood."

This was a speech which every man who felt warmly for Rte
interest of his country could not but applaud to the very echo that
should applaud again. For he was one who, though not as
politician, thought that the line of conduct pursued towards the
rew Staten of A merica weeniest discreet, moat honnutable. and mos;
wise, and that did honour to the administration and to the big:.
character of the country. Had Mr. Canning acted otherwise than
unon a atict neutrality, it would have beenlike the Gaol throwing
hi. sword into the scale to adjust the balance of the contending
pa ties. It woad have been lcr m n 1 to have interfered between
the present State and the S. wit Americans at that nennent, and
therefore he approved of what was stated in this extract. Upon
h s tpre. h e one the libel, w:tich certainly was more offenelve, fie
anplytng to another party, that was to the Consul General of
B coos Are., Mr. Hullett, than to the p'a ntiff. but their name;
were so inseparably mixed up in Via pare: that it was impossible
not to ment on that gentleman's name. The libel began thus—
'' Every thing conincted with the we'Lbeirg of South America
is to interesting to England and the world at large, that I hope,
Mr. Editor, you will permit me, through the medluen of your
widely circulated journal, to say a word or two on the South Ame-
rican Government, alluded to by Cannat!, which j shall do
respectfully, end in a spirit of good will. The appointment
of a Consul from one State to another may be accidental, sp
tar as regards qualifications in the person employed; the
inaptness of a public servant cannot, in such a case, be charge..
able on his employers." Upon thin passage the Learned Sergeant
could make no objection. If the thing is done in the true spirit of
candour by an editor who had no purpose to serve, no passion to
Indulge, no party spleen to gratify, this was note roantry to be
cooped in with feetielinus punctilios. Re would say, "be to our
retina a little blind, and to our virtues very kind." But when
they went beyond a certain line, it was necessary not to let it
pass by unnoticed, in order that the British might be restrain-
ed within wholesome limits, and yield proper food for the u
holding the true health of ills country. It went on to saY,
" But the person alluded to was met in the first appease*
to Downing-street by a peremptory answer from the Secre-
tary of Foreign Affairs, and in a way to preAude a hope of
being 'received at any future period." The writer was a false
prophet. Mr. Canning never meant to say there were no hopel ;
but this did not apply to the plaintiff. The libel proceeded:—
" Now I beg leave to ask the gentlemen of the EasentiveAdint-
nlatration of the South American Government who appointed the
Consul-General, whether, on recessing information of what had
passed in London, they have dismissed and removed this.
noxious agent of theirs from the eyes of the British Nista.* ?
If they have not done this, and promptly too, they me, to say
the lean of them, unfit for the places they till; nay, they lay
themselves open to the insinuations of their political ceponenta,
that they connive at the mod-practices of their agents in Europe;
and that the gentlemen on the other side of the water have a linger
in the spoils of Throgtnorton-street." This was only introductory
matter : he now came to the paragraph containing the libel in ques-
tion. " I would ask another question, not irrelevant on the present
occasion, why did the appointment of Consul-General to England
fall on the person alluded to ? It could not surely be owing to any
approbation of his conduce in meddling with the affairs of a neigh-
bouring State. which State, without being in want of money, nor
even asking for it, this London agent saddles with a debt of Otte
million of pounds taken out of their pockets, for the benefit, in
reality, of himself and the creole Spaniard [that was the plaintiff],
who acted the part of Plenipo: to the Stock Exchange in that
drama. The latter worthy lost to time in transferring Mower,
together with '240,0001. of John Bull's money, to Paris, Where he
now out-tops princes in his style of living." This, the learned
Sergeant observed, required no inttendo as to whether it was
to attack the moral character of the pleintitf or not. The im.
putation was applied clear and direct. What was it that this
infant state had done ? No mote nor less than to endearoor set
raise a loan to relieve its distress ; and it was for this the diendant
bad slandered it. Every body knew what was meant by the words
acted the Plenipo. It wets meant to convey that it wan not tree
the plaintiff was ever authorised to negotiate a loan. " The latter
worthy" was a phrase well understood. The were various ways of
libelling a man, and the Morning Chronicle had the happy mode ea'
running down a character by calling the per•on "a worthy." They
could not have given it more to the life it' they lead been speaking
of a common swindler. lie could not conceive a move_ iglus
imputation than title. 'fhe libel then proceeded :—•• Timis Dom-
rious transaction, that will occupy a prominent place In the Oath
of stock-jobbingfrated, ought to have warned the official men Of the
South American State alluded to in Mr. Canning's *pooch agelalet
unsling the management of their affairs in England to the same
heads; but they have determined otherwise, and bete are the
consequences of their acting in contempt of public opinion. I
write this, not for the English readers of the Chrowiek. 143
for the South Americans; they will not be at a loge to sup-
ply the names here omitted. If the people of the New Stavy
do not check the growing corruption of men who get hold a 4
the reins of Government, and impose a real responsibility oar
their public servants, it requires no great power of divination he
forte) that the whole continent of Spanish America will soon tali
into a state of anarchy and incorrigible barbarism. I shall conelod•
by saying, that Mr. Canning has here given In an earnest of his
attention to South American affairs, and that he takes a sOrrert
view of men and things in that part of the world." Would tan
anybody suppose that Mr. Canning had given this gentleman the
same character which this person had done ? But that emit:nate
Statesman had not in any one point spoken a word derogatory
either of the peoplep who sent the Minister, or the person whom
they had sent, flie Learned Sergeant then adverted to the da•
tandem's plea of justification, and said it was 110 more a justWO-
lion than light was darkness. The object of this action was the
arindication of the plaintsfra character. The Learned Counaet
then proceeded to state the facts which would be given in evidence
Ise to the mission of the plaintiff from Chili tp this country a
and noticed the authority with which he was invested fee raisin,
a loan which was effected in 1822. But the libel appeared dire;
peaty after; the nature of which was only calculated to depress spa
Mods, and the writer could nut, therefore, be considered in ryndei-
fmg any service to this country either at home or abroad; and that -
brought his motive into saspicion, and to justify the opiniowthas
it was a meat unworthy one. The whole that was done by tee
plaintiff' was subsequently ratified by his Government. The 'IWO
of the money was properly appropriated. All but 62,0fitIL of Ow
675,0004 that was raised was • remitted to Chili, and the plaintiff
with part of the 62,000 i. purchased a ship and paid sateen!.,
so that on the balance of his accounts there remained due
to him 11.0001. The Learned Sergeant then adverted to aa
article in the Morning Chronicle of the 14th Instant, at
which the defendant had again commented on the charactes
of the plaintiff and had very greatly aggravated the sear
against hint ; in which he runutted the character of a judge.
and actually tried and arraigned the plaintiff.. just upon the
eve of this cause being heard. The object of the writer was
obviously to prejudice the minds of the Jury. lie, by tilts
article, told his readers that he should experienee great diffi-
culty in making out his justification, and therefore wUhest
this principle of British law to he established, that he sad 'a
right to denounce any statement any man made, and then, in the
event of an aCtifill.. that he had a right to call any person to prase
the tru 13 of that statement. It was quite impossible that this gam
of thug *a
veTrdhicetTslywoaruldderealer object
ecchtaroLtthe
rr:
weoht:ldtobehapeemitted gush ve
and art hint areas zht in the eyes of the Englisl. readers of-the
iforeare eauattriele, as well as in the eyes of all its other readers
to Europe. •
lieu Garcia del Rhea examined by Mr. 'TINDAL —1 *ay
Yoder-Secretary of State in Chili at one time, and can acoueioted
' plaintiff. • left 1818. I arrfired iy
acted its'Mt-
a the tiMe

with the who . .. Chili in December t.
EnAlind about three years ago. The plaintiff hu
ulster Plenipotentiary tr. this country during some part of
I hare been here. •
Tito I.oeD Cumr Jur"tce observed, that be did not keg.
s hat was tLeaat by a penua act;.ng 1:t the character u' Xcati*

AL