The Sun.
London, England, 1846-12-15 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Dec. 14.

LIBEL.—THE SPECTATOR NEWSPAPER AND THE SOCIETY
OF BRITISH ARTISTS.— MC RLSTONE V. CLAYTON.
Sir Frederick Thesiger and Mr. Edwards appeared for
the plaintiff ; and Mr. M. D. Hill and Mr. Phipps for the
defendant.
Sir F. THESIGER stated the case to ti.e jury. He said
the plaintiff, Mr. Hurlstone, was the President of the
Society of British Artists, in Suff place, Pall-mall, and
the defendant the printer and publisher of the Spectator
newspaper, and that the action was brought to recover
compensation in damages, for a libel which appeared in
that newspaper on the I lth April last. It appeared that
the society were desirous of obtaining a charter of incor-
poration, and a memorial to the Queen was framed,: and
suspended on the walls of the institution, to which a
considerable number of names were attached ; amongst
which were the names of several distinguished noble-
men and gentlemen who had either been members of
the institution, or who i-iad purchased pictures from its
exhibitions, or given .:onajuna to the institution. If the
article in question had merely contained remarks upon the
works which were exhibi:ed, or on the ability of the artists
however unjust, or iiidaeral, or severe, the plaintiff weuld
have had no right to complain, because any person-who
exhibited a picture. as a work of art, to the public, or
published a book, offered himself to the public judg-
ment ; and a newspaper had a perfect right to critisiz-
them in whatever strain it thought proper. The only
appeal was to the tri:Anal of public opinion, and the
plaintiff had not the slightest de; re to fetter criticism or
to prevent the free exerci.,e of the critic's judg-
ment ; but ho did complain that on the
present occasion, the at title complained of trans-
cended the free limits of criticism, it left its proper
field and descended to an attack upon the plaintiff, and
in fact, the Society, of whick he was the President, of a
private and personal nature. If the article had appeared
in any of those newspapers which, he reg-etted to say,
disgraced the high character of this country, and which
were in the habit of making attacks upon indivi-
duals of a grossly personal character fur gain, the
society might have treated it, and properly
treated it, with contempt, but when it had been
published in the columns of such a newspaper
as the Spectator, which, he was bound to say,
possessed a very high character, was conducted with
great talent, an,l which, as far as he was able to judge,
olmest invariably expressed itself in fair and liberal
terms, and which deservedly enjoyed groat public influ-
ence and a very extensive circulation, it was impossible
any man, or any body of men, c mid afford to allow it to
pass unheeded, and not to come before a jury of their
countrymen, in order to vindicate his, or their, charac-
ters. After having alluded to a number of notices of the
institution which had appeared in the Spectator since 1840,
and which severely criticised its proceedings, he pro-
ceeded to read the article out of which the present action
arose. After referring at some length to the conduct of
the managors of the iiistitut:on, it went on to state that
there was reason to believe that they had suzpended a
fraudulent list of names to the memorial, which they
had not received any sonction to use.
Mr. Nihbitt produced the memorial which had been
transmitted to the Home Office for presentation to the
Queen. •

Mr. George Stevens, one of the managers of the in-
stitution, stated that the attention of the society had been
directed to the publication of the notices of the'Spectuter,
from the time referred to up to the present time; that
tickets had during the whole of that time been regularly
transmitted to the editor of the Spectator, as well as
noblemen, gentlemen, and Members of Parliament, for
private views of the exhibition, and that he had been
furnished with a season ticket which had not ex-
pired. He also proved that the names attached to the
memorial were either the signatures of the persons
themselves, or were affixed by their express permission.
Mr. lime, Q.C., then addressed the jury on behalf
of the defendant. Ile said the defendant, as soon as
he ascertained that the writer of the article
had fallen into an error on account of the hasty
glance which he cast at the memorial, he made
an ample apology, and expressed regret for its
publication ; he was at a loss to understand why the
plaintiff bad not deemed that apology sufficient. On the
evening of the day on which t, :e :irtiela was published,
Mr. Flight, the solicitor, and Mr. H tssall, the sa er -
tary to the institution, calle i it the (Alice of the
S'pectttor newspaper, and expresse l a wish to see tie
editor. They were iminaliately introduced to Mr. Rin-
total, the editor and crap. ietor or the paper, who, on
bearing the statement that the article was d.
void of truth, informed them that he should
take the earliest Opportunity of retracting the
expressions contained in the article of which they com.
P •'
laini-0• He inserted a retractation in the following
number, which stated that they (the Spectator) were
bound to admit that the statement in the article was
devoid of truth, and that as it was contrary to the
P°iior of the Spectator to publish statements
which were untrue, they took the earliest opportunity
of retracting the statement, and expressed their regret
for its inserti.on. But after the interview with Mr.Rin-
toul, and before the publication of the retractation, and
when it was fully understood that the matter would be i

thus settled, the plaintiff intimated through his solicitor,
Mr. Flight, that it would be absolutely necessary to
bring the matter before a jury. He referred to a case
tried before the late Lord Ellenborough, which was an
action brought by a Baronet named Carr against a bar-
rister named Wood, for publishing a humorous
parody on the works of the Baronet, but the jury gave
an adverse verdict. In that case Lord Ellenboroughg
held that a person publishing a blok, or exhibiting
picture, laid himself fairly out for criticism, and
that aa
critic had perfect right to express himself according
to his opinion. In this case nothing more had been
done, and what ;was incorrect had been amply atoned
for. Here the defendant had been invited wi'h others
to criticise the exhibition, and it was criticised according
to the opinion of the writer. Two editions of the Spectator
were published, one on Saturday morning, and another
in the evening, which contained the markets and the
principal news of the day. A portion of the matter in
the previous edition had to be withdrawn to
snake room for the later intelligence, and in
this way the parrgraph complained of in the
article in question was withdrawn. Lloking at
the whole of the facts, he apprehended that
the defendant was entitled to a verdict; but if they con-
sidered he was not, he thought they would be of opinion
that the injury which the plaintiff had sustained would
be met by mere nominal damages.

Mr. f larford, a compositor employed in the printing-
office of the newspaper, proved that the paragraph and
S Dne-line paragraph from the fashionable intelligence
were omitted to make room for the late news.

Mr. Brimble, a clerk at the publishing office, cor-
roborated the interview referred to, and added tha., as
'soon as Mr. Rintoul discovered that the statement was er-
roneous, he directed him not to dispose of any more of
stbe early editions.
.Sir F. TRESIGER replied. Ile said the plaintiff con-
sidered the apology, as it was called, had aggravated,
instead of destroyed the sting which the libel had in-
flicted. The defendant could hardy plead carelessness,
as he had pursued the same style of criticism for many
years; besides, he had not taken the earliest opportunity
of retracting the libel, as he might have done so in the
late edition of his pap r or in the daily papers.
Lord DENMAN summed up, and left it to the jury to
,say the amount of dcmages which the plaintiff was en..
;titled to. It was true the defendant had made an
ap.ulogy, but he thought it would have been more satis-
l'acturY, if, instead of saying he was bound to admit the
incorrizetriess of the statement, he had stated that he
was satisfied of its inaccuracy.
j,he jury, after a short deliberation, found a verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages, 100/.
ZZ314.,
NT BAOTEMBS, V. THE GREAT 'WESTERN RAILwAT
COMPANY.
Tbia w, V -
an action brought by Messrs. Leman, Bro-