The Sun.
London, England, 1839-02-14 00:00:00

TURNER V. lIITCBORN.

EEN'S BENCII.-(THIS DAY

(Before the Lord Chief Justice and a Special Jury.)
LIBEL.—THE QUERN V. GREGORY.
Sir William Follett and Mr. Alex-ander were for the plaintiff; the
Attorney-General for the defendant.
Sir W. Fota.crr said in this case a criminal information hail been
filed against Barnard Gregory for a libel published in the Satirist
newspaper—a newspaper which having a considerable circulation,
made it the more necessary for the law to interfere to prevent attacks
upon private characters. The libel in question was one which
related entirely to private character—it had no reference whatever
to public conduct—it was altogether private slander, attacking
private character without the slightest foundation. The prosecutor,
Mr. Hogg, was the Member for the borough of Beverley, in York-
shire, which place he had represented for many years. In
early life he was at the bar, and went to India in the
year 1815. He practised at the bar in Calcutta for some time, and
in the year 1822 was appointed to the office of Registrar in the Su-
preme Court in Calcutta. He mentioned these facts, because as the
name of Mr. Hogg was not mentioned in the libel, his history was
important to show that it pointed to him and no one else. In the
year 1822 Mr. Hogg married a young lady of the name of Swinton,
the daughter of a gentleman of ancient family, who at that time
held a high office in the Government of Calcutta. The marriage was
a very happy one, there were several children, and Mr. and Mrs. Hogg
continued to reside in• Calcutta, until 1833, when, Mr. Hogg having
realised a sufficient fortune, returned to this country. He was shortly
afterwards elected for Beverley, which place he still continued
to represent. Of course the character of Mr. Hogg gave him an
introduction into the best society, and up to the time of the publica
lion of the article in question no whisper of slander or calumny had
assailed either Mr. or Mrs. Hogg. In the early part of 1838 Mr.
Hogg received certain letters respecting his wife, but as they were
not written by the defendant, he could not state their contents.
But Mr. Hogg also received information that there appeared in the
Satirist a paragraph strongly reflecting upon himself and family. He
immediately sent for a paper of the 22d April, 1838, and saw the
paragraph, which he would now read :
" THE WIFE. OF TWO HUSBANDS.
" A very curious question, we understand, is likely to come
shortly before the gentlemen of the lon g robe A lady was
married some twenty years back to the Captain of an
Indianian, and subsequently eloped with a friend of the late
Lord Byron, with whom she lived till his death. She after-
wards proceeded to India, and thorwarried again, her first husband
being still'alive. Her second huZarid filled a lucrative appoint-
ment in the Supreme Court at Calcutta, realized a large fortune, and
is now Member of Parliament for a Yorkshire borough. The lady's
identity was for some time doubtful, but this point having been
cleared up, the first husband is about to take such proceedings as
may, under the circumstances, be required. The lady has had
several children by the second marriage."
This was the paragraph. That it referred to Mr. Hogg there
could be no doubt. There was no other person whom the descrip-
tion answered. Mr. Hogg did till the office of Registrar of the Su-
preme Court, and was now the Member for the Yorkshire borough.
Ile was also married in India, and had now come to reside is this
country. Mr. Hogg took the step which, under the circumstances, he
was bound to take. If it had applied to him alone, bernight perhaps
have treated it with contempt, but he could not overlook au attack
on one so dear to him. This wos a charge reflecting snore upon the
character of his lady than upon himself, and he had felt it his fluty to in-
stitute proceedings, in order to bring the slanderer of private char.
after to justice : and the course he adopted was to apply to this Court
for a criminal information. Whilst the law was in its present state,
there could be no other effectual mode of putting a stop to slander.
If slander should be allowed to circulate for weeks and months un-
contradicted, how many persons were there who would be belie. eel ;
and whatever might be the result of the proceedings, the effect
could never be entirely erased. Mr. Hogg applied to this Court,
tenderest his oath, and the oath of persons acquainted with him
was also tendered,- that the story was false and untrue ;
and the jury 'were aware that no one could obtain a cri-
minal information unless he satisfied the Court that the
libel was absolutely untrue. The defendant had the opportnnity of
answering < n affidavit, and if he could show the charge to be true,
or a justifiable excuse for publishing it, the Court would leave the
prosecutor to the fate he deserved. But Mr. Hogg satisfied the
Court that the charge was entirely false. The information was
filed, and it was for the Jury to say whether the defendant was not
guilty; and when they knew how common these attacks on private
character were—when they km w that so many persons were living by
working on the fears of others, or on the profit which their slander
produced—they would see that the public were interested in the-
matter, and that Ibis was an appeal to the criminal justice of the
country, to remedy the nuisance. Mr. Hogg had instituted these
proceedings, in the first instance, to vindicate the character of his
wife, but he also felt that it was a duty which he owed to the public.
The only question war, whether or not this was a libel on Mr. Ilogg.
Of this he apprehended there could be no question. To charge Mrs.
Hogg with having gone out to India, the wife of another person ;
with having there been guilty of the crime of bigamy in marrying
Mr. _Hogg, with living with Mr. Hogg, her former husband being
still living; he could hardly conceive a more unjustifiable publica-
tion. It had been published without any provocation ; it had no refer-
ence whatever to politics; it was purely private slander; and he was
certain this was not a case in which the Jury would give a reluctant
verdict.

A c'erk in the house of Messrs. Oliverson and Co., produced acer.
trifled copy of the affidavit of Barnard Gregory, which he had pro-
cured at Somerset House; and also a copy of the Satirist newspaper
of the 22d April, which he had purchased on the 26th, at the office,
334, Strand.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said this was statutory evidence if com-
plete : but he apprehended it was not. In the affidavit, the paper
was entitled . The Satirist, or the Censor of the Times." The
newspaper itself was entitled " The Satirist—the Censor of the
Times." Another discrepancy was, that in the affidavit the resi-
dence was stated to be " No. 334, Strand, in the parish of St. Mary.
la-Strand, in the county of Middlesex," whereas in the paper it
appeared " No. 334, Strand, in the county of Middlesex," omitting
the name of the parish. Under these circumstances it was for his
Lordship to say whether the statutable evidence was complete or not.
Lord DENMAN—I think it is.
The following witnesses were then called :
James Weir Hogg, Esq.—l am the prosecutor in this case. I
resided 17i years in Calcutta. I went to Calcutta to practice at the
Bar, and practiced there seven or eight years, and during the last
ten years held the office of Registrar of the Supreme Court. I was
appointed to that office in 1822. I married Miss Swinton in July,
1822. She was the daughter of Samuel Swinton, of Swinton, in
Berkshire. Mr. Swinton was at that time in India, and held a
public office there. She was not 18 when I married her. I re.
turned to England in June, 1833. I had seven children at that
time. I was elected for Beverley in 1834, and have represented
that boroui,h since, and now represent it. In April last, my atten.
tion was called to a paragraph in the Satirist. That was on the
24th. I read the paragraph, and do not believe It could refer to any
person but myself,
Cross-examined—l was in Court when cause was shown against
the rule, and waited until the close of the proceedings.
J. S. Brownrigg, Esq., M.P. for Boston—l have known Mr. nogg
about twenty years. I knew him when be held the office of Regis-
trar of the Supreme Court in Calcutta. I have not the least doubt
that the paragraph applies to Mr. Hogg, and no one else.
Lord Hotham also believed that the paragraph referred to Mr.
Hogg.

Lord DENMAN did not think there could be any doubt about it.
Mr. John Temple—l am a member of the Oriental Club. I read
the paragraph, and considered it to apply to Mr. Hogg. I was not
acquainted either with Mr. Hogg or Mrs. Hogg.
Ihe ATTORNEY-GENERAL then addrsssed the Jury for the de-
fendant. It gave him the greatest pleasure to begin' by observing
that there was not the slightest imputation either upon Mr. or Mrs.
Hogg is the article complained of. Mr. Hogg was a most honourable
man, and had ever conducted himself with the greatest propriety
Mrs. Hogg was one of the most excellent of women and possessed
every rirtue which could adorn her sex, and all who knew her
must at once have been aware that there was some mistake, and
that she never cou'd be the individual referred to. He certainly
blamed Mr. Hogg for instituting this prosecution—it was quite
unnecessary, for what was here stated, and was supposed to apply
to Mr. Hogg, was not only improbable but impossible. The lady
here referred to was supposed to have been married
twenty years ago to the Captain of au East Indiaman,
at a time when Mrs. Hogg must have been almost a child.
Ile did not altogether blame Mr. Hogg for having this
matter publicly investigated, because there was a possibility that
some individuals who were not acquainted with the history of him.
self and Mrs. Hogg might for a moment have given credit to such
a story; but he thought that Mr. Hogg ought to have been satisfied
with the atonement already made. From the beginning the Satirist
newspaper had disclaimed intending to impute any thing to Mr.
Hogg—there had been the most earnest desire on the part of Mr.
Gregory to assure Mr. and Mrs. Hogg that they were not the indi-
viduals referred to, and that he had not had the most remote inten-
tion to injure them, or wound their feelings. It was for the Jury to
say whether the defendant was guilty or not. It was not possible
for him to lay evidence before them—he could not give in evidence
the manuscript itself from which it was published, because it was the
act of defendant himself, and could not be made evidence. But he was
authorised by Mr. Gregory in the most solemn manner to assure them
that there was not the most remote intention to refer to the prose-
cutor—that there was not the slightest pretence for saying that
Mrs. Hogg was the individual who had been married to the cap-
tain of an List Indiaman—that it was utterly impossible she should
have been, and that it was another lady, much more advanced in
life, and of altogether different connexions. Under these circum.
stances, the task which he had to perform did not require him to
say that this was no libel ; but he was called upon to declare that
there was no intention to ascribe this to Mrs. Hogg. If the jury
came to that conclusion, it would be their duty to find a verdict of
not guilty It was for them to say whether, atter his explana-
tion and solemn assurance, they would not be justified in acquitting
the defeMs it.
Lord Dersusis was about to charge the jury, when
The Foreman said they would not give his Lordship the
trouble, as they were already agreed. They then returned a
verdict of Guilty.

LIBEL IN THE " DISPATCH."
WILMOT V. HARMER AND ANOTHER.
This was an action against the prop' letor and editor of the IVrekly
Dispatch newspaper, for an alleged libel inserted in that paper on the
6th of May, 1838, in which the plaintiff was charged with the se-
rious offence of bigamy.
1•Ir. Lge stated the cause on behalf of the plaintiff, wbose name

The bill in this case was filed by the executors of Edward Tur-
ner against the executors of James Turner, for an account of the
partnership dealings and transactions as woollen manufactures,
which business they carried on with their brother, Robinson Turner,
in London, and at Manchester, Rochdale, and Hasselstone, in Lan.
cashire. The plaintiffs also asked for certain directions with regard
to the computation of interest on the amount of capital each party
had brought into the concern.
Ills Lordship interrupted the arguments of Counsel by ordering a
reference to the Master, for the purpose of settling the accounts,
and ascertaining facts, at present disputed, which it was geese-
sary should be settled before the Court could pronounce its decision.
QU