The Sun.
London, England, 1824-12-16 00:00:00

LI npr,.

of
at
:Tlnh
jct
sis:
teeanst iTcb:t
ectnett t
e f t
Iroh
these,
b.
defendant
eel
Harrisl lit)
11 Mr. !!Jerk,
i.1:641
would
flank,
issue:
a,
it :1
a:yr tattorney,
ipasseda
MARIUS versus JAN'.
n
nd
ch
d
r.
e
at Hereford, against Mr:Jay, one of the partnet; in the ba
Alr. SCA ittETT stated the case ot' the plaintiff: There had
ben
silence.
thatn e.
he u
hot
an
ridt r
eifrmuotimmotimel
one of
malice
taken
thatheenn
iilh) co:I:do:71e!
produced much animosity; and if the letter charged as libel.
blackest causes. These imputations were conveyittiinieras
dishonestly, ite the receiver of the rents of a gentleman named
from Mr. letter
under them Mr. Harris &had not be silent. 'They were wholly
groundless; for the, rents had always been paid ; and the
action which had been so stigmatised had tcucceeded.
'The letter, dated January ar.
ink; to put (town the sset, to whom it was e:t
geti fulfrowirll2ieee'lierni:lnsasPi:tw(d"oi:nlhl.
ab
ntt
plibeletrg:aottit:
by
static(; art affair relative to Some noitleciirsooftutilrrleoh:lmiki:osienntoi:y,
were taken, on which one of the partners wrote, " We want
no furling proof that Mr. Harris is a great blackguard." It
to
then intimated that
future to Mr. Weston had forbithieet-lim,ft.
It thensr teidrr
wivillghttrayLtc to hold it candle to the devil."—
d that Mr. Harris had, out of malice, picked up
'one of the blackest causes ever beard of, by.one Crouse against
rslr. ,Tuherville, which that gentletnan intended to defend ; and
concluded with a hope, " that God Almighty would soon rid
the earth of such a diabolical wretch."
On the cross-examination of 31r. (Jarrett, that witness stated
that he ceased to he a member of the firm in April, 1t122, and
Wa,beea at variance with his late partnere. They bad`. ,at
Yam
••• Stl to ruvikr..l4lll., UUI WU teas
know whether he was in arrear nt the time the letter was Written.
At that time he had as bad an opinion of Mr. Harris as he
could entertain; and he never produced the letter till after he
left the firm. It was produced before the Comndssioners on
the bankruptcy of a person named Waukee, in July, 1823, not
on account of its contents, but on account of a memorandum
endorsed on it, totally foreign to the present cause. Mr. Harris
was present; the letter was taken away by some one ; but the
for
rtnpeesrsj
perjury
1 andn Harris
tsad imtet
carried
cal 1
ia,rnr iSinbtawdeeinndliciteedm irr
re-
specting large•transactions in which they had been engaged ; the
letter was demanded of Mr. Harris, but he never returned it.
It was proved that Mr. Harris was receiver of Mr. Weiton's
rents, anti that in the action against Turberville referred to in
the letter, that gentleman gave a co/merit, and judgment was
finally entered up for 3811. damages, and costs.
The AvronarEv-OENEttar. addressed the Jury for the
defendant. If Air. Harris really sought by this action' to vin-
dicate his character, surely he would have brought it to trial
in the city where he was known, where the defendant also was
known, and where the injury„ if arty, must operate. if suet
had been his object, he worthd have contented himself with a
single action ; yet the very next cause in the list was an action
by-Air. Harris against Mr. Hadenham, Alr. Jay's partner, be-
cause he happened to direct the letter which he culled a libel.
Was it not clear that the vindication of character was not his
objeci ; but that he, being an attorney, only made use of this
letter to put costs into his pocket, which he knew must follow
the farthing he would obtain? Could he ask for mare ? • The
letter was written from one partner to another on the business
of the firm—for Turberville was their debtor, and Weston
their customer—in all the cenfidence which such a relation de-
manded. Fifteen months after, it was produced for a collateral
purpose ; seen and caught at by Air. Harris as a ground of
action ; and now by him, and him only, published -to the
World. Could there be any doubt that he purloined this letter,
though Mr. Garrett did not see him take it ? And would the
Jury now give him more than a farthing for the injury done
to his character, by a letter written to a person who thought as
ill of him before as he could—a letter accidentally produced,
which he himself had taken, and now had the audacity to make
the ground of an action for damages ?

, -
Mr. it:AItLETT submitted, that an the Attorney.Oeneral
had stated a fact which was not in evidence, relative to the next
cause in the paper, he had a right to reply.
The LORD CHIEF J.tlirrlCE thought the allusion scarcely
justified a reply, its it was very usual for Counsel tOrefer. to
aootherr .cause depending between the same parties.
M r. SCAR LET T said he would wave his right at presenti btit if
.the Attorney-Gentle' stated a fact again, he should certainly re.
ply upon his speech.
' The A rTnht NI EYMENERM, said, he was quite ready to oh.
serve this strictness. if. his friend would do the same;' bur he
as regularal his friend.
re'ld‘liyietirdi,ligtinktClitcow:rJtrisikeT:ef relit:pressed his opinion, that the
letter, though written from one partner to another, was not a
privileged 'communication ; and that therefore the action would
lie. The Jury Wonld recollect that it painted between partners
both at variance with Mr. Harris; that the person to whom it
wits addressed entertained as bad an opinion of Mr. Harris be.
fore as after it; that it was not intended fur publication,. ivn4
that it had, been taken, by Mr. Harris or some one who placed
it in his hands. The law said the action would lie they would
say what damages the plaintiff ought to recover.
The Jury consulted for some minutes, and then returned
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 201.,

HARRIS L. BODENIIAM•
In this action, connected with the lust, and referred to by the
AttorneyAlener;il, a juror was withdrawn by consent. , • •
Mr. SCAR t.ETT begged to state, as it had been imputed to
Mr.'. Harris that he stole the letter, that the person who took it
was now in Court.
'f he it vronwEr.(ll:l4Eltal., AS we understood said be did
not now to impute •thcft in an offensive sense to Alf. Barris.'
The LORD C.RIEF JUSTICE stopped the discussion as trre.
gular, and the Matter dropped.
[For the remainder of the LAW Pkocerimtos of yesterday,
See the retqth I'4tte.l

On Friday, as a poor Rid • man, upwards of 8(
milt old, who travels about the country as a chair-mender, or
broomilasher, was walking alone in the dark towards Dover.
near the edge of the cliff' at the back of the Castle, by Kole
means he fellfrtim the top of the cliff down upon the be4eliv_a.
perpendicular height of 60 or 60 feet; ,he was, picked up and..
conveyed to a !edging by some of the coast blockade, and
although it would seem scarcely credible that he should cape
being dashed to pieces, none of his bones were broken, and he
is still alive, though suffering much from his bruises.—( Kea.
flab Gazdtc.)

LITERARY NOTICE.

An HISTORICALINQVIRY into the PRINCIPAL CIR.
CUMSTANCES and EVENTS relative to the late EM.
PEROIt NAPOLEON ; in which are investigated the
Charges brought against the Government and Conduct of
tbat. Eminent•lndividuld.—lly Ksac Lav'Mov NTE N EY.
OurAuthorbasindeed,ventured on dangerous.
gronnti. Au attempt to defend the apparently
worst of NAPOLEON'S nets will be regarded by'
many as ridiculous, and by others as impolitic.
SJch, however, is the fact.,; an individual now.
skrtsferwatd to palliate, if not to justify, many
,of the alleged errors (to use a miltLtettu)of
(C
yo4Eox LivosusPAltte,and apparently brings the
.high recommendation of impartiality to the task.,'
The attempt is . todeell a bold one, and•although-
rertalto not on nil points unanswerable, we may
.ventiire to-pronounce on the whole a succesful
of..•NitroLtoN has again turn-
ed, Public attention to the. acts'which he perform.
ed while living, and many have been the opi.
nions formed on the possible propriety, or actual
turpitude, of his conduct on particular occasions.
MouserotEr disclaims an endeavour to jus.
• tify NAPOLEON On all points, and to sheave him
•to the gaze of an admiring world pure and krt..'
-reachable, but, not wishing his character to be
. unnecessarily blackened, institutes his inquiry as
-4o ,the. possibility of exculpating ‘him from the
sweeping „and indiscriminating censures which
have been passed upon his particular actions.
'The question has been often proposed, and nu-
merous boeks of ponderous magnitude have
issued from the press relating to detached
parts °fhb; conduct. Mr. MouNereNev,however,
,takes a more comprehensive view, and boldly in.'
Nestigates all the principle charges which have
.been brought against the late Emperor, and, as
• Ave, have before observed, with apparent impar-
tiality. He tells us in his preface, that he has
Written his work in the form of a reply to the
observations of the Editor of the New Times,
slot from any personal hostitity to that gentle.'
man, but in consequence of his having always
• %timely himself the most strenuous and irrecon-
cileable of NAPoLcoN's literary enemies, and
heads each chapter with the statements of the
Editor, which have appeared front time to time
thee particular charge which is therein investi-
gated. This appears to us a good way of intro.
ducing his inquiry ; we are well aware of the
opinion generally entertained of NAPOLEON'S
&NIS, hilt no wotk, we believe, has hitherto up.
scored distinctly chargiug him with his various
alledged atrocities ; the reply, therefore, to the
Editor, as the, organ of a party possessing such
opinions, appear to us well imagined. We have
observed that our author is not generally success-
ful on all, points; every justification of the
com-
rapre of the work before us must
noonr to parttculartse, even tt ou%-I,a.beriftire.lt,P
ted o greater scope, than a few remarks on the
relleral merits of the hook. Such points, there.
fore, we must leave to the consideratimi and
_judgment of our readers, who, after all, 'might
differ from us in opinion, and think those 'parts •
-strong, where We itnagioe Mr. MacNil:l/ET
'comes lard 4 Or" It w: i$ out LURID, P! extract part of the reply to we ooseluvatain's;.in
,ythe Editor of the New Times on Waterloo ; hut,
oil a careful re-perusal of the Chapter, we cannot
select any passage without injury to the
aroment, while the insertion of the whole
would occupy too great a space 'for the ne-
, cessarily brief Literary Notices of a doily
paper. It now only, remains for us to speak of
the
,style in which the work is written. Mr.
MouNTEsteir we think unnecessarily deprecates
censure, by disavowing all claims to authorship.
A want of just ilVotonsion is certainly not per-
ceptible ; the diction is easy, Bowing, and often
spirited ; the quotations are good, anti generally
so well applied as to leave no doubt of the rank
nbich the out hor holds as a scholar ; and we most
regret that any vain fear of the critics should
live exposed him to the possible charge of af-
fected modesty. We have, however, derived
(midi amusement from the work, which certainly
olght to be perused by every one who is in die
slightest degree interested in the history of NA.
POLEON ; and we dismiss it with the conviction
that it will deservedly occupy a high station
among The numerous works which have appeared
relating to that emittent,intlividual.