The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1818-08-18 00:00:00

LAME V. 111111/FLL.

This was am act' brottotlat by the Plaintiff. the
Rry. Newton Charlta Luny, N0w..., iii. Dir
Joseph Sowell, for drl.lltottitos.—Tto% cause of
action uru•r out of the riectloovertog dispute', at
Foatl, aliefr the words charged were allrgrif to
have beret Pp(' kris .

Mr. Serjeent Pau, stated the cuss for the Dein-

St.V. N P..N' L.

tiff, whom he represented as a respectable Clergy.
man, pnssessed of cousiderahle church prefermeiit
and uncle to Mr. Luny, oho claims the patronage
Fowey. The Defendant, foi norly a sto...isoc•
ter, is et present a inalistes, res-ding at Petisyn„
and took a warm interest iu the contests which have
for some time imitated the Borough of Fowey.—
The Learned Serjeunt was free to admit, that in
cases of disputed election some latitude should be
allowed for the heat of party, nor should estprese
sifts used ill the heat of ■ 1,011111111 tllllttlit he WO
iniuntely set titinized. But as their
must iir(essa-
rily be some limit to thoet. rhullitioua, I-c cots. teed
the Jut), would 1 ounce. that Oil the (1(4.61149
which gave rise to the present action, ell the bounds
of mo.leration had lure exceeded. It would he
proved, that on two duos rent occasiiii.s the Defen-
dant had, iu words in which the: e %tau no
riuhi-
guity, charged the Plaintiff with bring ). seiley of
acts so horrible, :is to render I wholly mai) for
society, if the charge was true. The (anise tit this
atrocious attack was the eferetice 1.1. the Pianitiff
in the concerns of the Fowey election, fur the
purpose of promoting the interest of his nephew,
its opposition to that of the Candid-de whose cause
the I)efesidatit espoused. Ile should call witnesses
to prove the utterance of the slanderous repressions
by the Defendant : after hearing the evidence. it
would be for the Jury, unties the direction of the
Court, to say what reiteration was due to the as-
persed character of his client.
James Tool resides at Fowey. Oil the 2311 of
March lag be was in Mr. Lamb's shop in that
place, in company with Lieutenant Nicholls. Mr.
Lamb was reading a written paper, conteitiing
questions and answers whirls were at that time cii•
culated et Fowey. The paper immited a detest-
able offence to the Plaintiff. Witness and Mr.
Lamb said they believed the statements to be true.
The Defendant came into the shop, and heard
them commenting on the parer ; he asked if they
doubted the truth of the charge made in the paper.
Souse of them said they hopes-it was nut true. The
Defendant replied, that they need not doubt it
they might rely on it as a tact. and if they wanted
any further information they might go to the house
of a gentlemen whom he named, where they would
obtain a confirmation of the truth. The Defendant
further stated, that the Plaint:if had lost his gown in
cons-quence of the affair in question ; that tie wits
disowned by his connexions in London ; and that
whoever applied to them for information respectiiii;
Inns, was told he had been dead for hive years. The
same anor tttt g, the witness heard the Defendant
repeat the amuse observations respecting the Plain-
tiff in the shop of a person named Luke", it) pre-
sence of Mr. Croger, of Plymouth, Lieutenant
Nicholls, and Captain Heerle. A daughter of
Ltikty's was present, and witness deoired her to
leave the *imp. that she might nut hear the übserva-
Costs of the Defendant. At this time the Defelidisist
said that a tew days before Mr. Lane'. nephew canoe
to Fowey; but as salon as he found his uncle was
there, he left the place, as be would have no sister•
course with him.

Ott his cross-examination the witness said, that
himself and Mr. Lamb had had conversation oil the
subject before the Defendant j iineil them. %Vot—
eless reported what the Defendant had said to M.
Bennett, who took liim before Nli. Graham, w
Magistrate, where he made ail affid .sit res.,ecting
the expressions used by the Defendant ; and whicit
affidavit lie left in the hands of Mr. Brown.

Thomas Nicholls, a Lieutenant in the Nary.
confirmed the testimony of Mr. Tool as to the no-
port of the words spoken by the Del...idiom
though with considerable variation as to the preci is
expressions used by him.

On his cross.rxamination he stated that he made
an affidavit before Mr. Graham, on this subject*
which he left with the Magistrate, and Mr. Brown
the attorney.
Mr. ADAM made an able appeal to the Jury on
behalf of the Defendant. He admitted that a ye'.
diet insist pass against his client ; but he deprecated
vindictive damages. The evidence of Tool he con-
tended was evidently overcharged, and should he
taken with great allowance. He was not instructed
to defend the charge; on the contrary. he was
thorized to admit that it was wholly unfounded t
but it should be recollected that at the nine, panty
heat was great at Fowey, and this disposed primal*
to let:d a ready ear to any charges insole against
their opponents. It was also rumarkable. that
the witnesses for the prosecution bad been carried
before a Magistrate in order to tin Unlit to their
statements; so that they came into Court %kit their
affidavit hung round their neck, and gave their
evidence under the ides of being liible to an in-
dictment for perjury. if they deviated from their
former account. He recollected that
proceeding once came before a Judge on a Wesiein
Circuit, when it was reprobated by his Lordship
in the strongest term.. It did not appear tout the
Defendant was the person who first propagated the
report, which it was evident was current iii Fow, y
before the day mentioned by the wito.e%-vs ; nor i1,.1
it at all appear that the Dofeialaui I a.l a.iy thing
to do with the writteri sniper, which the wiiiieps
spoke of. The °Weiler of the Defei.dan, was. that
he had found the report in civcillation, and had,
mosi imprudently. he admitted, prupe%litit it in
two instances. Under thetee tircitinstancea. the Joie
would lecnllect that it w.toi the vindication of 1111
elli4nicirr, and ant a pti••.ti sr; coinprinuition, ihat
that the Plasuiiff avows..., 05 iiis ui, yet, and regulate
their verdict accorilingl%.

J u-tire Bu Knot. 40.11.:4•-(1 sap the evileneet
and oloa-tvest. that 1.1%, knew oolong of
vindurti%e it:o.o44ts, the PiA:ntitf was r0u11..1 to
*hut would 15e,.1 his character. wlsteb
wager mould spot
The Jury, alter u short deliberation, fools(' fur
the riminstf.—Damages 400/.
In the causes of t h King v. Crapp anal HA
for issopstitatmg a sondar report, verdicts for
damages were taktis cousetit.