The Sun.
London, England, 1825-07-30 00:00:00

SUN.

SATURDAY EVENING, JULY 30, 1825.

IS.IZE IN f ELLIGENGE.

EXETER, JULY 27.
Ctvli. SIDE.—( Before Mr. Justice LITT LE nAi.x.)
LIBEL.

THE SING, ON THE PROSECUTION OF LEY, CLEIII.

v. POLLARD.

Mr. ilaval, opened the pleadings- This was an indictment
preferred against the defendant for having wilfully and onalici-
ously written a libel, of and concerning the prosecutor, in a cer-
tain letter addressed to the said prosecutor. In the second
count it was charged that the defendant had written a second
libel, reflecting on the character of the prosecutor, in another
letter. The defendant pleaded " nut guilty," and on th plea
issue was joined.
Mr. C. F. WILLI A ers, who appeared as Counsel for the pro-
secution, stated the case. The prosecutor, he observed, had
been obliged to resort to a Court of Justice for redress, in con-
sequence of the libellous aspersions which the defendant had
maliciously cast upon him. The prosecutor was the father of
a large family, consisting, he believed, of eight or nine child-
ren. He was a member of the Church of England, and offici-
ated as a minister of that church. Twa of his sons were at the
• University, and, on consideration, it: appeared to him that
his third son might be advantageously employed as a pro-
fessonof the medical art. In consequence of that view of
the mode in which his family might best be provided for,
he applied to the defendant, an extensive medical practi-
tioner living at Torquay, a negotiation ensued, and the pro.
secutor's son was ultimately apprenticed to the defendant.
A liberal education had been bestowed on the youth, and a
liberal premium had accompanied him when he became the
apprentice of the defendant, yet, within a fortnight, the de-
fendant had chosen to express his decided opinion—an opi-
nion which the Learned Counsel was confident would be found
premature and illiberal —that the young man was unfit for the
duties of the medical profession. The defendant represented
to the father of tine young man that his sun was imbecile,
that his conduct was foolish, and his understanding weak.
The Jury might easily imagine how painful such a communi-
cation must he to a flutter, even supposing it to be conveyed in
the mildest terms. But, he would ask them, what must the
sensations of a father he, when information of that nature was
conveyed to him in language which was not limited by the
pain the intelligence was calculated to inflict on the parent,—
which was not measured by any consideration of the circum-
stances in which the youth to whom it related was placed.
[ Here the Learned Gentleman read several letters which had
passed between the prosecutor and the defendant.] On two of
these letters, the indictment, he observed, was founded. He
then proceeded to argue, that there was nothing extraordinary
in the backwardness of the father in refusing to give credit to
the imputation of utter incapacity which had been cast upon
his son by the defendant. So far front deserving the accusa-
tion of having imposed on the defendant, by sending his son
to him, he considered that the prosecutor paid the defendant a
compliment, when he offered to intrust one of his sons to that
individual's care. Tine accusation was, in fact, against the
other side. The accusation was against the defendant, who
had wantonly outraged the feelings of a parent, by accusing
his ion of incapacity ; and, not content with that, by charging
the father with having attempted to impose that son on the de-
fendant as a clever youth, when, in fact, he was quite the con.
tray. He could not imagine an imputation more gross, nor
could he conceive language more offitnsive than that in which
it had been conveyed ; and to whom ? To a clergyman of the
Church of England, and --with shame be it spoken—to
the father of a family. No terms that he could use were
sufficiently strong to mark the impropriety of the expres-
sions which the defendant made use of in the two letters
which formed the ground-work of the prosecution. The
answers of the Rev. Gentleman, to whom these letters were ad-
dressed, breathed a very didlcrent spirit. They were written
with the most gentlemanly feeling; and they proved,that, while
the prosecutor did not, as lie ought not, forget the feelings of a
parent, Inc knew how to express those feelings in a manner be-
fitting the sacred character belonging to his profession. The
defendant's opinion, with respect to the incapacity of the pro-
secutor's son. was expressed after a fortnight's experience; but,
notwithstanding this. the defendant talked of referring the
amount of premium which ought to be returned ; and, because
that proposition was refused, lied the boldness to accuse the
prosecutor of meanness. If the jury were acquainted with the
prosecutor, they would at ORCC decide that such a charge was
wholly groundless. Leaving these considerations out of the
question, how came it. he would ask, if the prosecutor's son
were, as he had been described, " an incumbrance" to the de-
fendant, that the defendant, wino thus designated him, and who
wished to be thought a man of generous spirit, could, on account
of the trifling loss of a portion of the premium which he had
received, abstain from getting rid of one who was, according to
his account, any thing but useful to hint in his business ? The
defendant had made a parade of his willingness to refer the
whole matter, provided none of the facts were kept back or con-
cealed. This apparently candid proviso conveyed a gross im-
putation against the prosecutor. What concealment could the
defendant allude to ? There was in fact, nothing to conceal ;
end the artful proviso was in reality an
insult, oared in a most malignant spirit, to the prosecutor.
The letters to the prosecutor formed a powerful contrast to those
lof the defendant. The language of the former, wounded and
goaded as his feelings had been, was still the language of a
gentleman. In the second libel, the defendant spoke of " the
paths of feeling and honour" as being " against the usual
mode" of the prosecutor's dealings. The jury, he conceived,
would not form the beet opinion of a man who, without any
just cause, accused a clergyman in this style of intemperance.
The defendant had made allusions to tine Lord Chancellor,
on which he would not crifer any comment. He would not
stop to enquire whether the wretched attempt at wit which
this part of tine defendant's correspondence displayed, was
meant as a reflection on another character. All he had to
do was to examine the libels as they related to the prosecutor,
and he should confine himself strictly to that point. Ile be-
lieved there was not one heart in that Court that did not re-
spond to the feelings of the prosecutor; he believed there was
no person present who did not think that the prosecutor acted
most properly in making those letters the subject of an indict.
ment. He was ignorant of the defence that would he set
up—perhaps he ought rather to say, of what would be offered
in extenuation—for, in the strict sense of the word, defence, he
believed, there would be none. If his Learned Friend, (Mr.
Sergeant Pell) who appeared for the defendant, was instructed,
to heap more insult and contumely on the prosecutor, in-
stead of endeavouring to extenuate the original injury, the
jury would know how to Beal with such a course of proceeding.
He should call the father ; and he should also place in the wit-
ness-box the much-calumniated son ; and if the party on the
other side could elicit from either of them any thing favour-
able to his cause, he was welcome to it. Ile, however, war
perfectly convinced, that the evidence of those individuals
would prove, in the clearest manner, the injury which had
been sustained by the prosecutor; and he wits equally well con-
vinced, that the Jury would perceive. after hearing all the
facts, that they had no other course to pursue, but that of find.
ing the defendant guilty of the publication of a group and un-
werrantable libel on the prosecutor.
The Learned Counsel then called the following witnesses :
Mr. W. Lev—l am the son of the Rev. Jacob Ley, when is
a clergyman of the Church of England, residing at Ashpring.
ton, in this county. My father has four eons, of whom I am
the third. In January, 11124, I went apprentice to the de-
fendant. I left him some time afterwards, and reside at pre-
sent with a gesoleman named M'and, at Cirencester. Ile is a
surgeon inn considerable practice. Sortie of these letters (allud-
ing to letters which were shown to the witness) are in the hand-
writing of Pollr.e
inO
racy the hisantthl-ewir'iatnindg-
owfrtiltniengd defendant. nt .

- An altercation, carried on with sol-9e degree of rharpneas, at
to the particular nature of the letters to he produced, in con-
formity with uotic..!, here occurred between Counsel. This
having sithsided, the following letters were put in and read .--
have made'
" Asbprington, June 8, 182.1.
" T. w. Polhird, E,q.
general assertions, reproachful aripital:Egeneuieandigtitelto..
nor is
p ietara,4Sri,r-ea-il)it,:.tlt(o)erlinneottobbeecottileeor,bie,cttooufwiet.co-sla,rsont(e:
an-abund:!nce of
ligible; but have not stated one tact to which I might apply
them. Ylti have praised yourself. and have abused me. IV,
bisulontevs,c.ry
litleocuor,ouys.myl
slooltiv edNoTer,,,
nlcitpk,s;;. t iyt.obuy;,
=.l I
now
per.
ceive that you 110 not suit my son. lOn say you do not wish
to injure him. Certainly, I shall he sorry even to inconvenience
you. Y.>u wish to settle the buaiuin tetween us amicably.
In this we agree. Under these circumsta:;,:es returu roe the
premium v,u. has: received,
and enrage to sign over the inden-
ture to any perton I may hereafter tow% who may suit viy
son, tusa whore my son tray init. I make dill proposal, bv•.