The Sun.
London, England, 1824-12-09 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, DEC. 0:
REDrEARN V,ATTWOOD.—JUDGMENT.
The subject here was mines and iron. works which the plain-.
tiff held of the defendant, under powers of re-entry which had
been exerted against him (the plaintiff), while the right of
bringing actions at law was also secured to the defendant by the
contract, The Vice Chancellor had affirmed the breach of
covenant, and had given the costs of all the.pwceediogs to the
defendhnt. •

The LORD CHAT4CELLO .now confirmed the decree of the
Vice Chancellor Upon the breach of covenant; but ins Lord-
ship thought that the decree went to a length which the. prac-
tice of the Court would not justify in giving the costs of all the
other' proceedings. The petition. and appeal prayed in the
second instance to restrain the defendants from proceeding with
their action at law ; and though • there wits no, proof that they
had commenced any, such 'action, his Lordship thought that
his order must have the effect of restraining them at least till the
blaster shall have reported the state of the accounts.

IN' HE ELEPHANT AND eAsTLF, CHARITY.
An original grant of 6/- a-year-copyholdlands, made by the
Dean and Chapter Of Canterbury to the overseers of Newing-
ton parish. in trust, has reached ar-Length the value of 600/.a.
'year. The Master of the Rolls had directed the Master to re-
port a plan for an improved distribution of the funds. l'ionie
difficulty arose upon the words of an Act of Parliament which
vested this trust in certain parish officers " for the time being."
The LORD CHANCELLOR. • bad promised judgment, but felt
himself oppressed by doubts ; first, as to whether the official
character of the parish officers with whom the trust was to vest
had not changed so greatly, as to be totally at variance with the
nature of the-trust ; and next, if the bill could, with a proper
regard to the Act of Parliament, be entertained at all. So that
the case must necessarily stand over.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Disc. 8.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL 2'. PIE CORPOIIATIONT OF

WINCAIr:BI.ER•

. .
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL stated that this cause came on
before his Honour for further directions on the, Master'e report.
—The facts of the case, as they. appeared front the soceclies of
Counsel, were as fellows:—The Corporation of Winchester
had been for a lonl period in the possession of certain eetetese_
the proceeds of which they applied in various ways, as they saw
fit. Some portions of the money arising from. these estates were
distributed for charitable purposes. It being, however, be-
lieved'hy some persons who were interested for the cityof Win-
chester, that thesemonies were disposal of ley the Corporation
'
in an improper manner, an inquiry was set on foot, for.the pur-
pose of ascertaining from what sources they proceeded, and
upon what trusts they had originally been vested in the hands
of the Corporation. This inquiry not being satisfactorily an.
swered, two suits were commenced in Chancery. One of these
was brought by the Attorney-Cenerar's information at the rat_
tioh of an individual, and sought a discovery front the Corpora-
tion:of the property they hail received, in trust for the mainte.
stance of the Hospital of St. John, in the city of Winchester,
•-and under the will of one ltelidi letufo. The second inferma-
tion was alko at the relation of an individual,: and demanded a
general discovery of all the charitable trust property in the
hands of the Corporation, and the purposes to which the pro-
ceeds were applied. These two. Milts had since been'connoli-
dated. The answer of the defendants admitted that there had
been a charitable institution in the' city of Winchester, called'
the Hospital of St. John, but that it Intl been dissolved in the
reign of Henry VIII., since which they had no traces •of its
existence. • They ralmitted that, by the will of one. Ralph
lamb, in the year 1550, certain tcnetnenta had been devised
to the Corporation, of which they believed thephatl come into
possession, axtd that these lands} were charged with a trust to
pay •30s. neyear to three persons, therein naMed, and after
their deceasee-
the remainder to be applied to repair and main-
tain the church
, -St. Clement's. They stattal,. howeVer,
that no such enure'', Was „we, iu existence,
and that they had
no means of intlemoiry4l4
, the lands devised, or of distinguish-
I- in.. them rum the nines, ds they. held. • The answers disclosed
moreover, tint there Wes;,i,-2
,C4lolparteitadWbeydto: predecessors of the of vations rious de.
scriPtions -re" in the'urpo•eution. the proceeds of which Were.distributed in the :tanner 4
Corporation ; and the present- denied that they possessed any:
information, or-the means of acquiring any such inform.ation,
as to the trusts upon which the donations were originally
.con-
fided to them. 1 here were, however, two particular donations,
respecting which, it was argued by the Counsel for the relators
sonic more explicit answer should be glee'''. thie- of these was
under the will of a Mr. Ashton, detail,' At this period
the Corporation distributed a sum of Gs,
quarterly to each of
1.5 poorpersons, and this was called .aAshton's.Nahles." It
was therefore clear that some fund MUst exist for the payment
of this Kum, and on thun.. the r }
. Court, it was hovels, would
now charge such a trust alit should think right. Another
donation was under the will of a Mr. Simmons, respecting
which the defendants' answer alleged that they could. give no
explanation, the will having been lost. The Comnuesioners
appointed by Parliament to inquire into charitable institutions,
however, thought fit to visit Winchester since the filims.the
answer, and they had been aide to hunt up the lost will, by
which it appeared that, Simmons devised the whole of his real
estate to the Corporation for charitable purposes. A petition
had. been filed in the nature.of a supplement to the original in-
formation, and brought these facts before the Court. The re.
port of the Master had verified the facts•now stated, but it did
not point out either what particular estates in the possession of
the Corporation of Winchester were charged with the satisfae.
'lion of charitable uses, .nor what were these uses, because the
Corporation, who alone could give that Information, profeseett
to be unable to furnish it. It was, therefore, now prayed, that
the Court would refer the matter latch to the Master, with such
further direetions as should enable hint to pursue satisfactorily
the inquiry to which the relators were entitled. -
Mr. Hunter and Mr. Tiltxt:Y were heard on the same side.
The. VICE-CHANCELLOR, upon rising, directed that this
case should be resumed on Friday (to-morrow being the seal-
day); but he said he did not at present see how any further
inquiry could be made in the hope of its procuring an adds=
don of the subject. The answer of the Corporation was, that
they had followed the footsteps of their predecessors, and that
they possessed no means of satisfying the inquiries of' the re-
lators, who did not impute any misconduct to them,- or any
wilful misapplication of the trust monies.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DEC. 8.
IVESTMACOTT v. irtIWAJT.EB. •
This was an action by Charles Molloy Westinacott, author
of A Critical and Descriptive 'taigas qf the Exhibition,
against the Proprietor and Publisher of the. Norlling
for a libel. The paragraph complained of clostal n article on
ihe Exhibition, in the Herald of the 13th of May, and. was in
the following terms
" We here warn tbe public against the purchase of any cata-
logues outside the walls of. the Academy. These catalogues
are necessarily imperfect, since, if- thy were otherwise,. they
would be subject .to a legal prosecution by the Royal Aca-
demy. But the reason of this notice is, they present notes
' descriptive and critical,' scarcely intelligible from bad gram-
visitors, and are totally igtio-
Mar ; but the writers of which are hirelings, who extort money
rittnotfhtehaerstiusbutj;cir they hoanveUtlehe.presumption to handle."
- - - -

- -
ki T. WIGHT MAN opened'the pleadings, by stating that this
was an action for a libel, td which the defendant had pleaded
the general issue.
Mr. GURNEY opened the case on behalf of the plaintiff,
whom he described as
gentleman of considerable literary at-
tainments, the natural brother of Mr. Westmacott, the artist.
The occasion which the defendants took to libel this gentleman
was the publication by him of an annual descriptive and ciiti.
cal.eaudogue Of the pictures exhibited at the Royal Academy.
There was no doubt that pictures publicly!exhibited became
the •subjects of fair and temperate criticism, which tended to
discourage bad taste, and to procure for merit the honour and
reward which were its due. The catalogue in question was sold
near Somerset-house, not for theporpose of forestalling the ca-
talogue published by the Academy, which contained no ob-
servations, but to amuse and instruct those who might be will-
ing to assist their Own judgment with that of another. Yet,
innocent as this purpose was, ft called forth an
article, in which
the writer, not content with representing the work as unintel-
ligible on account of grammatical errors, and manifesting a
total ignorance of the subject on which it treated, but added the
fbul-and false charge that the author ivaA a hireling, who ea.
toned money from artists. hoe this calumnious egarge,there
was not the slightest pretence or foundation;
had not -dared to allege its
truth ; yetthey the defendants
had neither offered
a public apology, nor disclosed the name of 'the anonym-us
libeller. Their journal had a large circulation, anonalntainett

a respectable character ; but this only increased the evil .for
which Mr. Weittnacott now sought redress.
Joseph Shackell, who printed the Descriptive Cate:brie,
proved that Mr. Charles Westniacott was the author of that
work: The second edition was delivered to the publisher on
the 7th of May,
Mr. Sherwood, of Patemoster-row, proved that he pub.
lished the catalogue for Mr. Westinacott, befdre the publi.
cation of the article. It was sold by :11r. Onwhyn, of Ca-
therine-street.

-Mr. Onwhyn, who sold the catalogue, stated. it was sold in
the street opposite Somerset-house, and the sale was consider-
able. Ile recollected the appeerancoof the article in the Morn.
ing Hirald about a fortnight after the publication. The sale
was not so good in the latter part of the season as in the
beginning. It was not so good after the appearance of the
article.

Cross-examined,-;-The catalogues were - ofrered for sale at
the door of Somerset-botise by the plaintiff'.-desire. He slid
.not know who corrected the grammar fur the second edition.
The second edition was on smaller paper titan the first. He
did not think the second edition was sent to bins till the end
of May.
Mr. Charles Trevor, from the Stamp-office, produced_the
affidavit, proving that the defendants were publisher and pro-
Prietor of the rliurtain Herald. •
"rho article with which the paragraph in question concluded.
was then read. By desire of Mr. ScaItLETT, some papers ox
the first edition were read, and 'compared with tan'resPoll.4l4
passages in the .second edition. There were several of
grammar, which were generally corrected in the second edition,'
and one error oho corrected in which a picture of the young
l4ord Clanwilliayn was described as a portrait of " the vener-.
able Earl Fitzwillitun." The general style of the 'remarks
appended to the pictures; and read'in Court, appeared, twthe
unlearned in the art, very bombastic and unmeaning ; and
" A Pindarie.Ode" excited occasional laughter. It was not
clear from the evidence whether the second editiOn appearedbe-
!lire or after the article. Mr. Shackell said it was delivered be-
fore; but Mr. Oriwityn thought he did not receive it till the
end of May.
Mr. Scaur.sm: addressed the Jury or the defendants. It
was a little strange, that while his learned friend regarded .pie-
tures as fair objects of criticism, he did not seem to Consider
books as subjected to the same censure. It surely 'did 'not be-
come an author, and especially one who.writes on-the Merits:of
others, to betray so much sensibility when he,. in his turn, fa
beneath the lash of criticism. Was not the 'censure applied to
him amply justified by the book on which it was founded?.
Was this plaintiff competent to bestow praise or administer re-
proof? True lie praised some men of undoubted genius; but
this showed their fame, not his diseernment ; for they were too
conspicuous fo.be omitted in the eulogies of any man who pre
tended to r know ledgeof art ? He obviously did not uoderstand
the language in which lie wrote, or .the subjects on which he
professed to expatiate. The Learned Counsel here gave in-
stances of breaches. of granimar, and ridiculed in pointed
terms the " Pindaric 'Ode:" What, he asked; must that' critic.
be, who could mistake the portrait of the young Lord Clan-
william for " the venerable Earl Fitz without," who was undoubt-
edly venerable, but whom Sir Thomas Lawrence never paint--
eil What could he be who talked of a portrait, as " fleshy hi
tone and firm in pencil!" Had he said fleshy In toe," there.
might. have been ',tome meaning in the-phrase; bin it was,
the mere alliteration ".fleshy 'and-firm ;" and why not ." firm
in tone, and fleshy in pencil ?" And was' it not trite that
this catalogue was likely to iniporte cm 'Visitors —yoUngladies
and gentlemen from the country--4ho would Writ, thinking
they had procured thegenuine catalogoe published by audio....
rity of the Academy ? . 13u: then there was the assertion, that
the writer extorted money from artists; this did not mean ex.,
totting money feloniously, but that their proceeding might in-
duce than to give Money to the author. . Watt not this the na,
tural tendency of the work? • Here it was sold at the door;
thrust in theface of the visitors, and a threat held out that the
same course would be annually pursued. • What was-this but
holding out to young artists the .fear, that they would. be )ire,-
judieed in their course by the endeavours of the writer, on-
less they. propitiated him With .money ? The writers
.who
exposed such attempts deserved only • the thanks of the pub-
lic; they came within the,eases • which decided that fair eriti.
cisin should be protected; and were entitled to the verdict 'in
their favour.

The Lout) Cams after reading the passage. al.
)(wed to belibollonsobserved, that it was- founded oil. a pub.
lieation by the Phintiff, whichhetotildnot forbear to remark
i
was circulated, n a manner calculated to induce visitors of the
l!lxhibition to purchase it as the genuine catalogue of the tiCa,
tlemy.: When= :author laid his work betbre the public, he
gavo to every man aright fairly to criticise its merits ;• but
it did not therefore follow that, the'critic might extend his ob.
servations to the Moral character of the writer,. unless that cha.
meter Vas exhibited in the book. If the defentlants.hatlmere,
ly asserted that the catalogue was almost uniutelligible,i.
front its bad grammar; that it was calculated to impose on.
visitors ; and that its authors were wholly incompetent to the
task they professed to execute,. it would have been for. the.
Jury to decide whether this was Just and legitimate criticism..
There were -errors in grammar,. • there were, .at the least, in,
stances. of b:ut taste; and perhaps, if the article had gone no
Ibrther, the jury might with considerable propriety have timid
a verdict for the defendants. -But it did go further ; it assert-
ed that " the writers were hirelings who extortedmoney from
the artists—a very grave and serious imputation, and one which
nothing in the publication itself would justify, and which was
wholly unsupported by evidence. It had been urged .by.the
Learned. Counsel for the defendants, that the obvious tendency
of the work was to induce young artists to avert the severity. of
the writer by prpsents ;- but this did not appear ; on the eon«
trary, young artists seemed rather farourites, of the author, who
reserved his censures for those who had already acquired suc-
cess and fame. It, then, the. Jury thought Ibis insinuation to.
tally unjustified by the mark itself, they ought to iltid a :verdict
fur the plaintiff; with such damages as the circumstances of the
case would justify. • . .
The Jury, after a short consultation, rot' mil .4 verdict for the'
damages One .
Sir T, Lawrence, Mr. Mee, and several other artists, were in
Court.