The National Register.
London, England, 1811-01-20 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL REGISTER

associating as he does with such convicted traitors as Despard'
Lemaitre, and O'Connor?"—understood the defendant to mean
the plaintiff, Lesnaitre—had no doubt that he meant him.
Cross-examissed by the AT TO N ley NER A L.-••• That Meet-
ing was not called by Mr. Quin—it was called in consequence
of a requisition—Mr. Quin's name was among the signatures to
that requisition—the business was parliamentary reform—not
the only business of the meeting—the late alarming assumption
on the part of the House of Commons was one of the promi-
nent features of the discussion, as also the character and con-
duct of Sir Francis Burdett—heard the conduct of the House
of Commons iu that instance reprobated—not severely repro-
bated—in his judgment not severely—could not ',lye three lines
from Mr. Quin's speech, though he heard it all—remembered
Mr. Jacks' words, because they contained so severe an attack
upon his friend. Attorney-General, " Did Mr. Quin or any
other-orator praise Sir Francis Burdett ?" Witness,—" I heard
several of those who spoke approve of his conduct." Attorney-
General—Extol him as a patriot of thelir.vt water ! In the same
• way as I might praise Sydney or Lord Russell ? Mr. Jacks,
however, entertained a different opinion ? Witness—He did.
Attorney-General—He controverted that point ? Witness—He
tried to c.. ntroverLit. Attorney-General—Oh, but he did con-
trovert it? Witness—That is matter of opinion. Attorney-
General—lt is matter of factsand you have proved that fact ; in
short, you don't understand the meaning of the word contro-
verted (A laugh.)
Mr. Quin was the next witness called. He was present at
the meeting of the Common Council in June last—witness spoke
--defendant also spoke—he was as near the defendant as lie
then vas to his Lordship—Mr. Jacks spoke after the witnes:;—
be could not pledge himself to the exact woi els, or to more than
the subl,tance—Mr. Jacks said, that he diCei-ed more widely
than witness did from the political doctrines of Sir Francis
Burdett—he (the witness) having previoasly stated in his
speech, that he did not agree in ail the doctrines entertained by
Sir Francis Burdett—the defendant then took occasion to re-
mark, in speaking of Sir Francis, " who bad associated with
such traitors as Despard, Lemaitre, and O'Connor."—witness
could not speak distinctly as to the arrangement of the names—
slid slot know whether the name of Lemaitre cr that of O'Con-
nor followed next after that of Despard, but was sure Despard
was the first name mentioned—Mr. Jacks' words excited a ge-
neral burst of indignation, and a ory of shame ! shame !---
thcre was no apology offered by the defendant.
Cross-examined 4 i!e Attorney-General. You gave notice of
this meeting; you summoned it ? Witness—l did not; I had
no such power.- Well, Sir, I am unacquainted with the forms of
the Common Council; but were you not one of the persons who
signed that Requisition?—Unquestionably. You spoke that
day ; did you not ?—I did. You talked of the alarming assurnp.
tion of the House of Commons?—l did. Mr. Jacks was of a
different opinion ?—He was. There were some fire speeches on
that day ?—Mr. Jacks made a fine speech. Was there much
speaking ?—Some of the speeches were of half an hour's conti-
nuance. Rather long, Mr. Quin ?—I am not to judge of that.
I was not asking ycn, Mr. Quin, your opinion of your omen
speeches (a laug); but was there not a good deal of earnest-
ness, of vehemence among the orators ?—There was earnest-
ness, perhaps, not vehemence. You are the Editor of the
Traveller ?-1 am not ; I am the Proprietor of that concern.
Did you edit that paper containing the report of the proceedings
in the Common Council on that day ? To be the best of my re-
collection I did not.—To the best of your recollection ! Why,,
can't:you recollect the fact whether you did or did not edit it on
' that day ? I cannot. lam anxious to answer every question in
the fullest manner I can. I cannot say particularly that I did or
did not edit the pazaer on that day ; but this I can Lay, of the re-
port that appeared in the Traveller, that not a line of it was writ-
ten by me.—Are you notthe Editor of some other paper? lam
connected with another.—Did you edit that paper upon this
occasion ? I can answer this question only as I did the other re-
lating to the Traveller, and upon the same principle.—What
principle-? That I cannot recollect whether I did or not ; though
1 take it for granted that I did not.—Will you swear that you had
not seen the account of that debate before it appeared in those
papers ? 1 might possibly have seen it ; but I did not read it.
‘, Will you take upon yourself to swear that you did not edit
those papers on the day following that debate ?" Witness—
I cannot.
.114 i. James, a partner of Mr. Jacks, examined by Mr. GA R..
VI.--•(` Is not Mr. Jacks a Government Contractor for great-
coats for the Army ?" Witness, No; he only renders water-
proof coats.
Mr. GA aitow-011! he renders those coats—does he ?—well!
• renders is a new name fur contracting—( laugh ! ) Witness,
I mean he renders the coats water-proof.
Mr. GA RR OW understand you, Sir,—look at that paper—
is that the hand-writing of Mr. Jacks ? Witness—.No ; 'tis
tune. Witness tints stated, that the pap (Mr. Jacks's answer

47

to Mr. Lemaitre), had been written down by him according to
the dictation of Mr. Jacks; it was dated the 14th of June, 1610,
and was as follows :

" I have spoken to several of my friends who were present at
the Court of Common Council on Wednesday last, none of
whom remember to have heard the words imputed to me by
Mr. Lemaitre • several have no recollection of his name having
been mentioned, and I have not oty,erved that any of the news-
pancrs have noticed that circumstance ; apprehending, however,
that as a Member of the Corporation of London, I have an ma.-
cioubtcd privilege to deliver my opinions freely in that Assembly
on public ineasiin.s, and also on men, whose conduct has came
before the public view, I feel no disposition whatever to apolo-
gize to any one, for any sentiment or language uttered by me,
in the execution of my public duty on that occasion.—June 14,
1810."

AVlreVs aithman was the next witness called-,he was present at
the Conn of Common Council; Mr. Jacks sat opposite to hint.
The defendant, speaking of Sir Francis, said, as nearly as wit-
ness could recollect, " who had associated with such traitors as
Despard, Lemaitre, and O'Connor."
Lvrd EL LENROROUSII-44 Pray Mr. Waithntan, was there
any conte uporary, circumstance which occurring then, served to
fix the memory of those expressions on your mind more forci-
bly ?"—Witness, " certainly, my Lord, my mind was the mores
sirongly directed to those expressions by the burst of indignatiou
which they had excited around me."
ATTORNEY-GEN ER A Then it seems it was the burst or
imdiguatton which first directed your attention to those express-
sions?"—Wicrite,s, " It served to fix the memory of them more
strongly on my raind." Attorney-General, " Did you take any
part in that burst of indignation ?"—Witness, " It is probable f
did." Attorney-General, " You, then, were one of those who
cried shame?"--Witness, " I dare say dit' cry sham-." Attor-
ney-General, " And your own cry of shame directed your at-
tention to the expressions that excited that cry ? You will not
say that, I am sure, Mr. Waithinan !"—Witness, " I have not
said it ; I say only that the general expression of disapprobatieu"
--Attorney-General, "Excited your aitcntion to those words -
Witness, " Fixed it, rather; fixed my attention more strongly."
Mr. GAMOW —Here I rest my case.
The Al Tote N EV-0 EN Ea ;.,before he entereo on the Defen-
dant's case, begged leave to submit to his Lordshi? that the cafe
of the had not been made cut. The first count must
be given up at once—the words stated in the remaining five had
not beeil proved. This is an action for words uttered, we can
therefore have nothing to do with reference drawl; from werds
not laid in the action. The indictments runs " For that he
spoke these words"—Let them prove these words, otherwise
they cannot maintain their action-s-an action of slander can
have uo other foundation th4tt the specific words complained
of.
Lord ELLENROROUCti" The five first counts trust he given
up ; then as to the sixth, where am I to look in the evidence for
the certain words?' the word traitor is proved, but nothing
more.
Mr. GARROW—Then your Lordship may reserve the point.
Lord ELLE:NROROUGH-1, must take on myself the responi!-
bility—the allegations have not been made out—there must be
a nonsuit.
Tht‘AT TOnNET•GENEE An then said " My Lord, I am au-
thori2ed by Mr. Jacks to state that he has no doubt upon his
mind he never used the words imputed to him as ascribed to
Lemaitre." Mi.
We understood then, that in consequence of the apology offered
by Mr. Jacks, of his never having intended to use the expressions
imputed to him, Mr. L. was induced to withdrew a Juror, its
preference to the nonsuit ofkred by the Court.

THURSDAY, JAN. 18.
RUDDER AND CO. V. SMIDTZ.
The plaintiffs are respectable Jewellers and Silver-smitbs,,
carrying on business in Eondon and at Birmingham, and the
defendant is a Dutch merchant.—lt was an actiotibreught to re-
cover 2701. for jewellery goods, sold and delivered to a man
named Buller, a bankrupt, of whom it was alleged the defen-
dant had given the plaintiffs a false character to obtain credit.
It appeared in evidence, that the defendant called at the
plaintiff s in June 1809, and said he had a customer to recum-
mend him, and in a day or two afterwards brought Mr. Buller
in his hand, and they looked out together, goods to the value of
1271. and in.the month of August following, they called,together
again, and selected more goods to the value of 1401. odd.
The Court asked the witness whether the plaintiff's were to
give the defendant any pecuniary curl6idvration for recommend-
ing them this customer ; to which he replied, that his employ-
ers were to give 10 per cent. on the goods sold, and he bad been
in that proportion paid for goods purchased by Mr. Buller.
Lord ELLY.NR,)RoUim hire irterpos! 1, and said " that this
was a CvVClti,il:: Yillitib the law woui J. not endure. It Ws, ase