The National Register.
London, England, 1820-04-17 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL REGISTER.

Slibieet Of intrrrili in iron but that µa+ a stil)icct
entirety of ecclesiastical, anti not of temporal eogni-

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages
ICO.. costs 40s.
LIBEL—CLEARY I'. STOODA RT.
This was an action brought by Mr. Cleary, the advocate
for Reform, against Dr. Studdart, Edward Quinn, anti
----- Mitchell. editor, winter, and publisher of: the
Neer Times, for the publication of an a'leged libel. The
declaration charged the defendants with publishing in the
above Paper, of the 28111 of November, ISIS, a letter,
imputing that the plaintid had been guilty of a crime not
to he mentioned, &e. The letter was addressed to Sir
Francis Burdett, and signed Henry Hunt.
Mr. Brougham, on the side of the plaintiff, stated the
case to the jury. Ile described the libel to be one of
great malignity, calling on the jury to give damages. It
exceeded in sting any thing of the kind he his h ever ex.
perks's:ed. The plaintiff was a young man, a r.-spertable
Membrr of the Law. He. was a Conveyancer, and one
cf the Members of the Inner Temple; be .vas in that
situation likely to be known to the Editor of the " Noe
Vines," Mr. Cleary was an Irishman, and it was almost
unnecessary to ret aa iaa d the jury, that the crime with
%%1001 he was charged was unknown to the natives
of Ireland. He was charged with practices so vile and
tomato; ol that Mr. Brougham could not enlarge on them,
Hs understood it was to hr said of this coarse libel, that
it watt ulr. Hunt's libel, and not Dr. Stoddart's. Admit-
ting it to be written by Hunt, it would be no answer in
law to the action. Mi. Brougham concluded by call.

jug i
James Mallison, front the Stamp Office, who prodirced 1
the New Tim:s of the 28th of November, 1818. The let- I
ter of Hunt was then pot in and read ; it was dated the
221 of kpril. It began by complaining of the condoict
of Sir Francis Burdett, at the Crown and Anchor Ta-
vern; then alluded to the letter fi om Cobbett, and ac-
cused Mr. Cleary of forgery. He called Min by the
name of " the kept come-pti.itress."
Mr. John Wright ,aid, he had known Mr Cleary for
some time. He knew there was such a person as Henry
limit. The letter which Mr. Cleaty was accused of
tinging was written by Cobbett. Cleary and Hunt had
been writing letters to each other.—He never 'heard it
said that Mr. Cleary was living with a mistress.
Mr. Scarlett then addressed the Jury for the defendant.
The alleged libel was not written by Dr. Stoddatt. It was
Mr. Hunt's libel, and the plaintiff had omitted bringing
his action against Mr. Hunt for the sole purpose of press-
ing heavy damages against the New limes. As well might
Agamemnon, Achilles, and other Grecian heroes, com-
plain of old Homer (if' the parties were living) for libels
uttered against them by Thersites. Hunt was the
person of whom the plaintiff might to complain, and nut
Dr. Stoddart. Mr. Scarlcit then contended, that the
meaning the plaintiff had affixed to the letter was a false
construction—the words kept most mistress implied that
the plaintiff was admired by ladies, and in the habit of
receiving pecuniary gifts from than. Dr. Stoddart at'
inched no other meaning to the letter; be would have
been the last niau to publish the letter had he supposed it
would convey any other meaning, The charge the plain-
tiff endeavoured to set up never was made. He contended
that the Jury ought in candour to dud a verdict for the '
defendant.
The Chief Justice summed up the case, and said, be
was of opinion, lookiug at the declaration, that unless the
Jury were of col )i )) iou it was the intention of the Editor
and Publisher of The New Times to impute to Mr. Cleary
nonatural practices, the defendants ttttt st have their ver.
diet. The plaintiff knew the letter to be written by
Hunt, and it could not be disguised that he preferred
bringing his action against the Editor of the Paper, rather
Than against Huai. Under all the circumstances, the
Jury had to ask themselves whether the meaning was that
which the plaintiff had imputed. If it was, the plaintiff
was entitled to their verdict, and they would give I'
such damages as the case required.
The Jou y retired horn the box at four o'clock, and at
six o'clock sent a letter, stating, that they could not agree.
The letter was read by the Judge Associate, who commu-
nicated to the parties. One party was willing to with-
draw a Jmor, but the other would nut, and a comu ttttt ice-
lion of that 'fact was made to the Jury. After eight
o'clock the Jury came into Court, and found a verdict fur
the plaintiff—Damages 1001.