The National Register.
London, England, 1808-07-31 00:00:00

494

THE NATIONAL REGISTER.

had had criminal intercourse. Two other servants spoke to the
frequent visits of the Defendant.
Mr. Dallas, for the Defendant, made a most animated and
elegant speech, in which he vindicated his innocence. He com-
mented on the singularity of the present action, which could he
for no other purpose but the design of getting money from the
pocket of the Defendant, a 4 for all the purposes of a divorce,
the former action was sufficient. Ile observed, that in most
questions of this kind two consdierations occurred, the fact of the
adultery, and the quantum of damages. Upon the latter he
should not have a word to say. The woman had, with a most
base and crapulent appetite, debased herself to prostitution
with her own coachman. For losing such a wife who could
demand damages ? But he stood there to assert what the Defendant
had before asserted, that he was not guilty of the fact imputed
to him, and of this he hoped to convince the Jury. The learned
Counsel then went into a minute examination of the evidence,
and contended 4t did not bring home the guilt charged upon the
Defendant.

Lord Ellenborough having summed up, the Jury withdrew,
and after a deliberation of two honrs, found a verdict for the
Flaiutiff—Damages One Shilling.

MONDAY, JULY 25.
SIR JOHN CARR V. HOOD AND SHARPH.

This was an action brought by the Plaintiff, to recover from
the Defendants, booksellers in the Poultry, a specifir damage
for an injury he had sustained, in consequence of a book 'tab-
lished by them, entitled " Ilinlß fur a righte Inerrie and eon-
ceitede Tour, in quarto, to he called The Stranger in Ireland,
which, it was alledged, was written with a view to ridicule the
Plaintiff's work, called A Stranger in Ireland, and generally
to depreciate his reputation as an author, and hold him up to
public derision and contempt ; the consequence was, that the
Plaintiff had lost the sale of a manuscript w ork,entitled .1 Tour
through Scotland, and had been others ise damnified and injur-
ed.—The Defendants admitted themselves to be th.! publishers of
the Hints in question, and that it was written for the purpose of
ridiculing. the Stranger in Ireland, but contended that they 11::(1
done it in the fair exercise of free discussion, and their just right
of fair and honest criticism.

Mr. Darrow addressed the Jury, commenting on the nature of
the book in question, which he contended was not legitimate
and fair criticism, and for the motives with which it was writ-
ten, he bade the Jury look to the frontispiece, N% hick he
said was grossly personal and scurrilous. In that Sir John
Carr was represented as the Stranger in Ireland, and the de-
scription to the plate makes him exclaim—" a blazing comet
shakes its fiery tail over my head, and marshals me the way.—
Yon behold a cloud before this erratic stranger—'tis Shake-
speare's, and very like a whale. The moon, my favourite star,
smiles benignly upon my labours, and three wild Irish are for
this night only seen flying in compliment to me."—The learned_
Counsel quoted other offensive parts, to skew a tendency tam
ridicule the Plaintiff, and called upon the Jury for ample
damages.
Sir Richard Phillips was called to prove that he bad refused
to purchase the Plaintiff's Tour through Scotland, from the
prejudice he supposed the book published by the Defendants
had raised against the productions and writings of the Plaintiff.
But for that publication, he should have given him the same
sum he had received for his Stranger in Ireland, his Tour
through Holland, A Northern Summer, &c. namely, 4100/. Sir
Richard said that he had not read My Pocket-Book, and he was
not in the habit of reading publications of scurrility, and anony-
mous libels. He admitted that his name was to The (Word
Review; and he had done so, that there might be one honest re-
view.

Lord Mountnorris said, he had read Sir John Carr's Stranger
in Ireland, from having previously heard that he had spoken
handsomely of Ireland. Ile had also read the criticism upon it,
and he had been deterred from purchasing Sir John's book in
consequence.
Sir Vicary Gibbs addressed the Jury. The Defendants, he
said, had done nothing more than they were justified in doing,
exercised just right of fair criticism, and the result of that criti-
cism was, that Lord Mountnorris, who had compared the Plain-
tiff's works and the critique together, had made up his mind
not to purchase it, thereby proving the truth and propriety of
the remarks upon it. The learned Counsel said, it was the
lot of authors to have their works criticised, ancient as well as
modern. The philosophy of Socrates was exposed by A risto-
pha.nes, Descartes was refuted by Sir Isaac Newton, and Locke

JULY 31.

overturned theitoctrines of Sir Robert Filmer. In short, the
Defendants had done nothing more than perform their duty to
the Public as critics, and the Plaintiff had uo right of action.
Lord lillenhorough said, that every man who wrote commit-
ted himself to the judgment of the Pnblic, and every one might
comment upon his work. If the commentator did not step aside
from the work, or introduce fiction for the purpose of con-
demnation, he exercised only a fair legitimate right. In the
present case, the Plaintiff had embodied himself in his work ;
the principal part of his tour was concerning himself, and there.
fore placing him in Dubliu, and the long coach waiting for him,
was not irrelevant to the subject. Had the party writing the
criticism followed the Plaintiff out of his book into domestic
lift for the purpose of slander, that would have been libellous,
hut not otherwise. To repressjustcriticisin, would be extremely
injurious to society. If a work was sent into the world that
was likely to disseminate a had taste, or was destructive of
public morals, it wits of the first importance to correct and ex-
pose it. Society in that case was inlebted to the critic. 'hi
Lordship then alluded to the advancement of philosophy and
science, by the opposition one great man had offered to another,
and repeated the observations of the Attorney General on that
subject. If an individual, he said, presented the public with an
outline sketch of himself, that the public had a right to finish
time picture ; and if the criticism was a fair one, the author
. must take the consequences of it. Ills Lordship added, that he
did not know of any more threatening to the Liberty of the
Pres, than the species of action before the Court ; and he
would again repeat, that if the publication complained of was a
fair criticism, and the author had not travelled out of the work
;ie criticised for the purpose of slander, the action would not
lie; but if the Jury could see any thing personally slanderous
ioins po •
it the Plaintiff, unconnected with the work he hal given
to the Public, in that case the Plaintiff had his right to action,
and they would find accordingly.
The Jury consulted together a few minutes, and found for the
Defendants.

WINCHESTER ASiIZES, Jui 2S, ISM

BEFORE MR. RARQN CR.111.131 AND A SPECIAL JURY..
Clllll. CON.
COLON EL T. R. PO IV LETT V. LORD S cK v 1 L LE.

This was an action to recover damages fur criminal conver-
sation s ith the plaintiff's wife—the damages were laid at 5000 t.
Mr. Serjeant Lens, proceeded to state, that Lord Sackville
had introduced himself to Mrs. I'owlelt as the friend of her
husband, and that Ile had, on several occasions, taken advan-
tage of the absence of Colonel Powlett from his town
house in Baker-street, North, and also his country resi-
dence at Southampton, to debauch the wife of his friend. It
►would appear in evidence, that on the 10th of June, in the last
year, the Defendant effected his criminal purpose at an Inn, at
Winchester, w hile Colonel Pow lett was gone on a water party.
The facts were too glaring to admit of a doubt. The Defendant
rank aggravated the offence, and the Jury were bound to visit
his conduct with the utmost severity.

Mrs. Ile!! lived at the White Hart, Winchester, two years
and a half; remembered that on Friday the 10th of June. Mrs.
P. came to the house, witness knew Lady P. very well. In
abrut a quarter of an 11)..nr a chaise came with a gentleman.
She did not know who he was; but since knew it was Lord S.
Shortly after lie arrived, saw Mrs. P. walking across the hall.
on the ground floor. Mrs. P. looked at witness as she passed;
to the best of w itness's belief they did not notice each other as
they passed, when Lord S. was standing at the door. Witness
knew Nits. P. went up stairs, and saw Lord S. walk several
times across the hall. Witness was desired, by her husband, to
go up stairs. Witness went to the attic story first, and returned
to the door on 2d floor, (No. 4, bed-rooml. Witness knocked
gently with her knuckles. The Lady answered witness could
nor go in. On this witness went to No. 3, the adjoining bed-
room, and found it locked ; both chambers communicated by
inner doors ; one of the window s looked against a wall, and
not the High-street. Witness then retired to No. 2, oil same
floor.—Witness left the door of No. 2, open, and she
could have seen any person pass to and fro : remained half
an hOur before any thing occurred.-11'itness then went down,
and sent the chambermaid Charlotte.—After the servant came
tip, witness waited half an dour. Her attention was then
attracted by the door opening, and the Lady came out--Mr).
I'. asked the chambermaid for a towel from No. 4 door-11 it-
ness continued in \o. 2; Mrs. I'. stood at the door, and weut iii 1