The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-12-09 00:00:00

THE BRITISH PRESS.

msn proceeded :a monocrat nn th, improper substitution " any
one" for every nne," and the subsequent mention of one in the
plural by the word " their." The description went on to say, that
the picture created this efrxr, although Jerwph Flume was looking
on at full length to hear. This bad- allusion to a portrait of Mr.
Hume, which was placed close to this picture which could not
hear, and which could have had no effect whatever In " filling one
with astonishment and engrossing their attention." This anti.
climax reminded him of the host hue of a poem, written Li a Bard,
whom he nevi not mention, for he was now no more, inwl he might
therefore saltily quota him—
. . .

"Anil filed the world with rapture and delight."
The passage to which he should now invite their attention was,
that which contained observations osi 31r. Etty. In speaking of his
performance, the writer thus expressed himself—" Mr. Etty has a
st I le of Lie own ; it is nothing earthly ; and yet his drawing is beau.
Situ! sea hie imagination eniquisite. sincerely wish we could in.
duel him to bea little mare terrestrial in his ideas, and we doubt not
of his bee oini nr one of the greatest rwrianichtn of the English school.
The present wnrk has all the beauties of which we have been epesk.
Mg, and is quite as full oewhat we consider the errors of his style."
Mr. Etty it was said had amyl* of hie own • so much the better if
he had. Ili. style was, moreover, said to be heavenly—im much
the better pail: • but it was nevertheless mentioned as a reproach to
him, sett as it deter of this heavenly style, thee " yet his drawing
was beautiful, and his imattination exquisite." And thie was the
sturwhich it was &Hegel would regulate puhlie taste, and improve
and instruct the world in the fine arts. Ile hail, he submitted to
the Jury, given surecient proof of the incapacity of the task lee
Nut presume to undertake, and of his utter ignorance and rl:w.
eatalifiration to treat of it. As well might an action be brought
against any esnon who would say that the medicines of Dr. Solomon
or lee. linxitite, one of whoa. was still living, were rather destructive
than beneficed to the amstitution. The warning, he would repeat,
was useful to the public, anti an action might equally be brought
against a person who said that he did not appmre of Dr. Solomon's
Balm of Gilead. as against any one who salt! that he did not re-
gem or admire die criticisms of Mr. IVestmacott. Men of estab-
Imbed reputation were snie against the shafie of puny calumny ;
but those who were not so secure, were naturally appreeensive of an
*Rink in such a publication. It was in ties sense, and not with a
view of imputing that species of estartityi to the plaintiff, which
would amount to a felony, that the compilers ei ere spoken ores hire-
ling writers. The nature and description of itch a publication as that
of which they were speaking, naturally lead to the exaction of money
front Rene whose fears might he worked npon by a person who had not
dust morel corn (lion which education gives, to restrain from the pub.
lieation of whatever his pnetulices er his imerces might suggest.
It had been stated by his friend (Mr. leumce), that a communice-
lion was niece to Mr. Theaters% that the ylat eite would forego the
prevent action, on the name of the author of the paragraph coat.
plained of being given up. Now there was no peel' of such a
communication in evidence, and he only tequired that the Jury
would leave such a communication riling-thee out of their con.
retention. There was no imputation of malice on the defendants,
and as far as he (Mr. Scarlet') could jude, the criticism was a
fair (me, and the consequences were all fairly drawn and justi-
fied by the nature of the publication. The case was one which
came within the legitimate line of obsersaeon which the several
casts on this subject juetitied. He rememliered some time ago an
action was brought against a popular Reviler for the publication
of a criticieni on " Sir J. Carr's Tours." Two Noblenien, on that
occasion, had the candour to 'mite that they were deceived by the
work until they had read the Review, and that the rrusal of it
gave them jateter and mote correct notions es to its merits titan they
enter:Med before. The ease was tried before Lent lillenhorough,
who he well remembered to have said on that occeeon, that such
puldieltions were perfectly justifiable; flirt they were often of
great importance end utility in regulating and directing public taste,
and that " they preveeted the press from terming more than it al-
ready did, with the rapid publications that oppress as every day."
In his opinion the present publication lame under this class of mt.
ticism : it was candid and correct : it evinced no sentiment of per.
'anal hostility : it contained no individual attack ; but as the name
of an eminent artist had been attached to it, and as the public
might be induced to suppose it to be his production, the caution
that swell an ignorant publication did not conic from the pen of a
man of taint and reputation, yes beneficial and salutary. He
(Mr. Scarlett) had stated to them his sincere conviction upon the
case, and he wax satisfied that the deliherate consideration of its
circumstances would lead the Jury to • similar result.
The Loup Curet' JCSTIICE briefly Rimmed up the evidence.
When a person gave anything to the world, whether it was a paint-
ing, a boek, or any tleecript inn of publication, it became the sub.
ject of legitimate criticism' and a fit topic for public discussion.
No action would lie fee such criticism, severe nit might be, pro-
vided it die not eppn'tr to result from motives of malicious hostility
or personal acrimony. But it was nut allowable for a person, un-
der pretence of giving a candid criticism, to impugn the mural cha-
racter of another. As to the book, or publication, in quzie t,in
his opinion it contained many punter' &entire of rep
There were inwtainly Livances in it of bad grammar and bad mate,
as far as he (The Lord thief Justice) who was not very conversant
in such matures, could fudge. But there was an allegation lane
portant for the consideration of the Jury ; it was the Imputation on
the p!aintiff of seeking to extort money from the artists of the
Royal Acstleany : of this no proof had been attempted; and
this gave a ilifierent complexion to the case from what it
would othersise bear. La other respects the paragraph was writ-
ten w leen the legitimate bounds of fair critical discusaton ; but here
there was an imputation cast on moral character, which, as it could
not he sustained, it *holed never hare been made. As far as his
observation wcut, ho thought. an far from tile observations being
hostilt to the artists, they were quite the reverse. lie wait there-
fore disposed to think that their verdict should be for the plaintiff,
subject to such neelerate damages as the circumstances of the ease
required.
Mr. SCARLETT, in reply to the observation of his Lordehip
that the articles were generally favourable in the artists, remarked,
that tie untie publication of the preceding year was very severe.
The Loan Cuter Jos' it e said, he had spoken from what he
had observed. The publication of the preceding year was not in
evOence before the ('curt and Jury.
The Jury cotaulted together fur a few minutes, and returned a
verdict fur the Plaintiff—Damages, Is.

PREROGATIVE COURT, WxasEnna', Dzc. &

llVore Sir Jon x SicaoL, Ma.

TFI.FCIRT V. THOMAS.

_ ...„--.
This was aeon in which& creditor had called on the widow of
the deceased to exhibit an invenuwy of the effects of the deceased.
The widow had put in a declaration instead of an inventory, which
was objected to ma not specifying the whole of the property.
Dr. Lusittrittruit, on bslialf of the widow, relied on the
drci%ion of a case in the Court of King's Bench, that this Court
had not the poser to declare an inventory falsified at the suit of a
creditor.

-----
Hr. JENNE', on the part of Mr. Telford, the creditor, contended
that the Court had the joriuliction.
Sir Jolts Nteuot. delivered the judgment at considerable
length. The case came before him in the form merely of a notion,
but it involved a question of very crest importance ' • it arose in
this manner: Amy 'norms was the widow and sole executrix of
' John Thomas, deceased, late a victualler in the neighbourhood of
Clare-market, and she was cited by,Mr. Telford, • creditor, to ex-
hibit an inventory of her late hut:liana's property. She exhibited •
declaration instead of an inventory, and prayed to be dismissed
from the suit. The creili•or objected, and prayed to be heard on
his petition. Ile objected that she had rot set forth the par.
neuters of evrtain ',flats of the deceased, nor by whole they
were appraised ; that she still carried on the busineo of' a vie. ,
tualler in the 141111 C house, at a great profit ; and that the
lease of that house was of much center value than she had
stated it to be : and that therefore the Inventory was not a full and
perfect one. t rn behalf:of the widow, it was argued, that the
Court had no jarkeliction to object to an inventory at the suit of a
creditor, sad that it was so decided in CAMS at common law, par.
ticularly in the recent case of " Henderson v. French," reported in
Mettle and Selwyn, which also referred to former rasa; they
seemed to have been decided without any great discus:ion; and the
case of " Henderson v. French," so much relied on, was decided
probably on the authority of the former cases. It was much to
be regretted that • question of jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical
Courts, more especially lung exercised, should have been decided
without the arguments of Civilians, who, by long experience in
the ecclesiastical law,_ were much better informed in that respect
than the Advocate. of other Courts. It was a matter of great eon.
venience that creditors and legate:et:should be sble to ascertain what
the deceased died in possession of, before going to the expense of
prosecuting a long suit in these (.4 _ourts. A dkelosure of assets,
the executor was bound to make, by the oath which he takes at the
time of entering on his office. lf an executor or an administrator
coted get rid of a disclosure of the assets, by the production of any
paper he chose to exhibit, that mete fact should the propriety of the
Courts enforcing a more correct statement, otherwise the purposes
of this practice would he in a great measure defeated, for it fre-
quently happened, that the very persons called upon were those who
were the h..s disposed to make a full disclosure. The ease of
" Henderson v. Fren: h," v hich was decided in the Court of King's
Ilcuch, appeared to hare Imen argued on the footing of the statute
of Henry the Eighth, as if the giving an inventory rested solely od
the authority of that statute; the arguments went principally on
that amend, as far as could be collected, for they bore referenc., to
cases. all of which appeared to have been argued on similar
grounds. The cases cool Supposed the jttrisdictitm of this Court
as recanted inventories, to be merely n 111 l isterial, for they quoted
that portion of the clause in the statute which ordered an inventory
to be given upon oath to the Bishop or Ordinary, and inflicted •
penalty oh ten pounds open either the Bishop or I hdinary who shall
refuse to receive the invert tory. It was much to be doubted whether if
the II beset of King's Bench had been attended by advocates in the lie-
cicalas; ice!Cntirts WllO %meld have argued upon what the cecina:est ice!
law previous to the Statute had been, it would not have come to
different eye:elution. Even before the Statute of !fogey the Eighth,
Linwood, who once et that mime, admitted the jurisdiction of the
Ecclesiastical ('ours in enforcing a full disclosure of the deceased's
effects front the executors or wheanietrators I and Linwood wrote
both before and after the Statute of Henry the Eighth was in ex.
Wenn". tew:nheirn also confirmed what Linwood had written upon
this point. He acid, that if any executor had metre goods of the
testator's than were mentioned in the inventory, the same must be
stated fully. bitch had been the old ecclesiastical law, and the
contineed practice both byline and after tile Statute in ques-
tion. Now, what were the objects of this Statute?
to limit the amounts of the fees to be taken fur probates of
testaments: nod the whole of the preamble declared the floatation
of fees. The only part respecting the inventories was In the
middle of the fourth clause, occurring as it were incidentally. It
stated that the execu:ur or czcor.en., or two other Worst men,

should make, or cause to he made, a true and perfect inventory of
all the ttoods, wares, chattels, and merchandises, moveable or not
moveable, soil shall cause to be delivered nn oath, taken before a
Bishop or his Ordinary, and the other part to remain in the hands
of the executers or administrators. It then went on to state the
fres, and towards the conclusion it ie.:hetet! a penalty of ltd. upon
the Bishop or Ordinary refusing to receive the inventory, so that
this Art did little more than confirm the previous practice, with
some additional formality ; it also regulated the fees, which
were a Dotter of serious import. The eighth clause of this sta.
tine rapressly reserved to the ecclesiastical law all its jurisdiction,
I so that the Act, in fact, stated, that they should do every thing
I concerning the same as before the Act, but they should take ro
larger Ices than limited by the Act. The statute did cot make the
jurist:joie* of the Court inertly ministerial in receiving possession
I of an inventory, but by its purport intended that die Court should
enforce a full and complete inventory. It seemed that this Act of
Parliament had not been fully explained in the Court of King's
Bench, otherwise the ease of " Henderson and French" might,
perhaps, have been derided differently. If the Act had been
in his (Sir J. Nichol's) opinion, rightly explained, it would
have been the duty of this Court to pay all possible obe-
dience to the Court of King's Bench, as that Court was the most
proper for deSoing Acts of Parliament. The Learned Judge then
enumerated a number of cases, one of which, Shackleton v. Lord
Barrymore (in wbich the present Lord Stowell was an advocate),
decided in 17:114 bore exact reference to the present case, and after
some further comments, gave it as his opinion, that the jurisdiction
of the Court. respecting the question at issue, was evtablished long
previous to the passing of the statute of Henry VIII., and in fact
recognised by that statute, besides tho fact of the practice having
been long exercised. lie was therefore of opinion that the widow
had not given in a full and.perfect inventory, containing every re-
quisite information of the property of her husband.