The Sun.
London, England, 1802-07-13 00:00:00

TEN GUINEAS REWARD.

" Whereas, by d Letter lately received from the
West Indies, an event is stated to be announced by
a Newspaper, that can only be investigated by
these means —This is to :request, that if any
Printer, or any other Person, can assert, that: J.
Delancy,-Esq. of St. Kitt's, since residing at Cork,
and late Lieutenant of the North Lincoln Militia,
was married previous to nine o'clock on the loth
of August, 1799, they wi7l give notice
rto Messrs.
Yarreli and Jones, No. I+, Duke-street, St. James's-
square."

Now, Mr. ERSKiNE said, - the Plaintiff waslan
Officer; and a Man of Honour; he was justly jea-_
lous of it ;1 and finding, that this Libel was likely
to have a great effeCton the opinion of those with
whom he was accustomed to live in happiness, he
published another, to do 'away the effect f of this
publication, by 'offering himself a reward of 5001.
to any one • that would prove it, &c. He might
have brought his Action against the Printer and
Publisher of . this Paper, but for thaF he had no de-
sire—for he/ discovered that the Author, or the
person who brought the Advertisement to the Pa-
per, was the Defendant, Mr. Jones. The Plainti ff
was Only desirous that the Defendant would put
an end to the calumny, by stating how he came to
be employed to publish it by the desire of Mrs.
Delaney, and by retratling it, and wrote to the
Defendant a letter to that effeet, upon which the
Plaintiff declared he would be satisfied; to which
the Defendant thought fit to return no answer, and
so here the Parties came to settle this matter, the
Defendant not so much as admitting the Plaintiff's
'marriage, but putting him to the trouble and ex.
peace of bringing a Witness all the way from Liver_
'pool to prove that fad. It would be wasting time
before the Jury to enter farther into this business.
This was,an imputation of a crime to this Gentle-
man, and the Defendant could have no excuse for
it; he could not be justified by saying that this
was a publication which came from' the anxiety of
Mrs. Delaney, and he did it to oblige her—he
might say, perhaps, " I really did not know any
thing of the tendency of this Paragraph, although
it appears to . be so singular as that of offering a
reward for discovering whether a man had been
married or not before nine o'clock on the loth of
August 1799,this would be no answer to the law
in this Case, for every man was hound to know
what the tendency was of all his aaions; and if it
were otherwise, we Should find that men might'
be ruined by those who pleaded ignorance of what
they did as an excuse for doing it.". Having illus-
trated this proposition by familiar instances, he
observed that the Plaintiff in this Case, did not
seek large damages, but he brought' it for the vin-
dication of his charaeter, to skew that there was no
foundation whatever for this calumny.

The marriage was then proved to have taken
place in the Parish of St. Nicholas, at Liverpool, on
the zoth of August 1799, between nine acid. ten in
the morning. It was. between James Delaney., Esq.
and Eliz. Weston, widow. • ,

Mr. Charles Foreman produced the Paper , of
the-Morning Post of the 221 of January 1802.-
Fie said he , was Clerk at the Office of the Morning
Posts—He stated, that the.. Advertisement in ques-
tion came from the house of Mr. Jonas: he had

some, cl:fficulty about inserting it, apprehending
that the, tendency of it night be he had
a converiation with the D4endant, Mr. Jones upon
the subjt, Who asked 'him why he did not insert
the Advertisement ? The \Vitne;s told him, he ap-
pre:iended it might be deemed libellts. He said,
that he did not see ally reason it should not be in-.
Serted, pa.rticUlarly as the Morning Herald had in_
. serted it—upon which the 'Witness consented to
.insert it. Mr. Jones Was what was called a News_
man,, and as such, frequently brought advertise-
ments from persons whorl) he 'served with News-
papers; to save them trOdble„ (ec. ' ,
Mr. William Fletcher said, he was a friend of the
Plaintiff. He saw the AdVertisemenvin the Paper,
and he conceived it to allude to the.Piaintiff from
his knowledge of the Plaintiff and his concerns
before=-,he thought, when he saw this-Advertise-
ment, that it imputed to the Plaintiff the crime of
Bigamy, •
Lord ELLLENBOROUGH said, "'There can be no
doubt that thiS Paragraph shows an anxiety in the
mind of Mrs. Delaney to know whether shewas a
legal wife or a coneubine,- and that if this was a
bona fide proceeding in her behaif, it can be no
Libel."
v ,
Mr. ERSKINE said, that if it was a false Para_.
graph, whatever, might be the intention of the
wife, that would be no defence foi this Defendant
against this Affirm; (4 that, whatever might be the
purpose of the' wife, the injury was, the same to the
Plaintiff. . •

Lord ELLENBOROUGII; " I am quite of ,ano:
chef opinion.—The wife had a right to learn whe-
ther she was
.legally married, or whether she was-a
mete sttumpet ;" and on such an occasion, he said,
he shotild think that i.gi.eat deal of allowance
ought to be made' in the prosecution of such an
inquiry, before a- publicatibn-by way of Advertise-
ment should be deemed a Libel.

The Witness► then proceeded to say, he did, not
precisely, know the date of Mr: .Delaney'4 mar-
riage.—He never heard of his being formally mar-
ried : he knew that Mr. and Mrs. Delaney were
then under articles of separation. These articles
of separation were in the possession,of the Witness,
therefore he had means bf particular information
upon this subjeet.
Mr: -Chesterman said, he saw the Advertisement
in question in 'the Newspaper. He said, he knew
Mr. Fletcher perfectly well. On reading the Ad-
vertisement in the company of Mr: Fletcher, the
Witness said, « Here is a man advertised and de-
scribed who has married two wives ; why don't
they hang the rascal ?'"fhis he understood to
apply to the case of the Plaintiff: _ _

Mr. PARK addressed the Jury on behalf of the
Defendant. -le said, that when he came into
Court, he had really no idea that this 'Cause would
have been tried ;. and he contended, that it was-one
of the clearest cases in favour of the Defendant,
that ever, carne before a Court of Justice.—,lndeed,
he was not Sure, in point of sttitf.thess, whether he
ciught not to a<k my Lord to nonsuit the Plaintiff,
but 'which he should not, since his, Lordship .might
tell him, it should go to the Jury to say " whether
the intention in• this case; was such as it was stated
in the Declaration." Now, Mr. PARK said, 'that
he, on the part of the Defendant maintained this
proposition, ".That this Advettiseinent, of itself,
was not a Libel en any human being. That if it
contained any Libel whatever, that tittality must be
borrowed from the Inuendas that were attached to
it by the. Declaration.H-He maintained alsO, that
if ,a Publication was of itself no Libel, it could
never be made a Libel by the inucndo puts upon it
by a Plaintiff in his Declaration. That it was
not enough that one or two individUals thought it
imputed Bigamy. to the 'Plaintiff. These 'indivi,
duals might be induced to apply it to die case of
the Plaintiff, fromtheir previous knowledge of his
circumstances, but that 'meaning must 'appear to
attach to it by the jury, judging on the Case be-
fore them.' Now, lie contended, it was impossible
.that the Jury could put this meaning on this Ad-
vertisement. It imputed nothing to
.the Plaintiff
that was not consistent with the most perfed inno-
cence.—lt inquired, whether any body knewrof
his marriage before 9 o'clock on the lath of Au-
gust 1799.—How did this impute -Bigamy to the
Plaintiff? ?'light it not happen that something
should depend upon the birth of a child before or
after that hour ? Might not a legacy be made to
depend upon that fad., as it should be ase!rtained
one way or the other I—ln a word, there were a
thousand points to which this 'Advertisement might
be made to apply, without necessarily imputing
Bigamy or any other crime to the Plaintiff, the
consequence of which must be that the Defendant
should have aNerdiCi. Fld really thought it un-
necessary for him to .call any Witnesses, ;for that
his Client was entitled to a Verdid.upon the evi-
dence given on behalf of the Plaintiff; bu't as he,
was not :entitled, in this stage of the Case,
,to ask
the Jury what they thought of it, he should call a
Witness to shew that the Defendant carried this
Advertisement to the Office of this Newspaper
by the desire of Mrs. Delaney, who informed him
that she was advertising this matter to ascertain
the fad which was s 9 interesting to her, and
that she employed an agent 9f thename of Altnot
for this purpose. Upon all these grounds he main-
tained that 'the Defendant would be entitled to a
Verdia.

It then appeared, by, the evidencoof Mr., Almot,
that he was employed by Mrs. Delaney for the purr.
pose of getting this. Advertisement, inserted in the
Newspapers, and that he employed Mr. Jones,, the
Defendant-, to take it to the Office; and to pay for
its publication, but that the Defendant was not at
all informed by him of the objed of that adver-
tisement.

Mr. ERSKINE contended in reply, that in this
case the Defendant was answerable for this publi.
cation as a libel, upon all the rules which h4d
hitherto governed the administration of the law
upon that subjet, and upon 'which Prisons had been
filled from time to time, with offenders of that
class; ,Ste. &c.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH—" Gentlemen of the
jury, this is an anion for ,a- Libel, in which the
'Plaintiff, Mr. Delaney, complains, and calls for
damages against a, Stationer of the name or Jonas ;
a Stationer, or a Vender of Newspapers, as he has
been described on either side in the course of thi,

cause ; for the publication of an advertisement
‘nich appeared in the Morning Po.r of the zzi nt
January lase, which is as follows:—there his Lord.'
ship read the advertisement-J.—Now it is contended
ort the part of the Plaintiff, that this advertisement,
necessarily applies to him, and you must be of that
opinion before you 'can find a veillia for the Plain-
stiff, and that from the information which you have
• from the Witnesses, as well as from what appears
upon the.face of the Llveraisement Before
you can say that the Plaintiff is entitled to your,
verdict; you must be satisfied that this advertise-,
ment imputes to him a crime in this case, theCritne
of bigamy, that is, that he was married to another
woman,, whO was living at the time this marriage
took place, on the zoth of August, 5799. There
are different meanings given to this paper, but tirt
less you see it imputes to'rhc Plaintiff, necessarily,.
the Crime of Bigamy, your verdiet will be, be;
cause it ought to be, for the Defentiant ; buf if
you - think it• wars ' meant, and does mean, to in,.
.sinuate that fat to the prejudice of the Plaintiff,
-then it would be necessary for you to .see, vacther
'any, and if any, what excuse can 11;-e received fer
him in point of law, for his having been instru:nental
in this publication. You have heard the way in
which the Learned Counsel for.the Defendant draws -
inferences from it. He says it doesnot.nec,,..ssari6r
imply bigamy in the Platintiff, but that it is, an i
may be tiken in rtiaa7 eases to he, consistent .with
innocence - in the -Plaintq, and therefore nn libel
upon him. That it mi,gbt,be an important inquiry
with'a view to ascertain ,the legitimacy --of a child,
or thai a legacy might have depended upon (tam;
fact; and that many other cases might have hap.
,pened in which the ascertainment of that Ed might ;
become important. It will 1.),e For you to say,
whether in the termsi of this advertisearnt, and
under all the circumstances which attended it, the
publication necessar4 imputes bigamy to the Plain;
tiff, and was published for the put pose- of iasteinng
upon him that imputation ; or whether, it was pub.;,
Billed in pursuit of a lawful purpose, na!nely, that
jf ascertaining whether this Lady was legally mar-
ried or not. Now, upon this, subject, 1 411illi lay
down the law as it appears to me to have a bear- '
ing upon tt.

" If, in the course of a necessary inquiry. into any
subjetf, things appear, whiclt pu'.lished by-them-
selves detachedly and without cause, would be: a
libel upon .any individual who is the objcft of that
inquiry—if any thing shou'd appear to trench on
the charader of the person principally interested in
that inquiry, yet it shall not be a libel, provided it
arises out of such inquiry ; and if this comes out;
in this pursuit of necessary information, it will
make no difference whetheh it be by words spoken
or' in writing, provided the inquiry be boNa. fidei
and instituted for a. legitimate purpose—in all such"':
pursuits Parties ':shall be proteded by the Law. If I
go to ask the character of an servant, and in- receiv-
ing that chara.Vr words occur which trench upon
that, charader, I might ask either of you, whether
• you think a person would be guilty of a libel who
-should say what he knew of that servant, although,
that Might communicate a fnct which might destroy,the charter of- that servant, Suppose he had
robbed you, or that he was guilty of a fraud, and
that yOu say so—or that you shouhi that which
you believe to be consistent with truth, and upon
further inquiry it .should, turn out that there was
some .mistake In the-case, but that: you aded bai;:z
'fide, -is it for the convenience of neinkinel you
•should be deemed a slanderer ? 'This ma v apply to
the case of Merchants in their dealings abroad as :veil
,as at home.. 11, therefore, this was an ingniry set on
foot-by a wife anxious to know whether ;he was a
legal wife, or was to be considered as a concubine,
I am of opinion that such wife, and all agents cm-
ploYed by sech wife for that purpose,, pursuing it
bona Ale, are proteded in that pursuit, in noint of
Law, but then it is incumbent on the party to shew
that he aded fairly in
,the pursuit of that objed. It
is therefore necessary that it appear to you, Jones
acted in furtherance of that objed, and that is a
subjea on which you will use your own judgment
upon the Case, for all he knew you know by the,
evidence which has been laid before you, acid the
whole question " Whether, he meant to pursue a,
fair inquiry, or insinuate a ;time against the Plain-
tiff?" It will be for you to say, Whether:the inquiry
proposed by this Advertisement, was or was not in_
tended to be a legitimate Inquiry ? If you find it
was, you will not fix a man with a Libel for pursuing
it, merely, because it may torn out that the snspicion
was ill-founded. • But suppose you think this Ad-
vertisement strong, you will then have to say,whet her •
you think the Defendant Jones, has the protettion of a
per Son proceeding bona
fide in a necessary Inquiry.
Nov, upon that, it is observable, that Jones did
[Tot know Mr. Delaney. He did not know that
this was an Inquiry set on foot to satisfy the anxiety
of a Wife. He knew nothing of her, but. carried
the Advertisement to theollice. And it appears,
that Jones is cautioned by the Clerk., sit the Office
of the Morning Post, for the Clerk told him, -the
reason why it was not inserted, was, that he thought •
it libellous; andl certainly. the Advertisement is
capable of a double meaning at:least._ There is no-
thing of malice, in die thing itself, but if wrong,
and Hbelleus, the Law will imply malice from the
At, for whenever any< thing is done, which the
Law forbids, the implies malice -in- the doing •
of it—You' will therefore consider 'whether it was
meant to impute the crime of Bigamy ; if so, you
willsfind,your Verdiil for the Plaintiff, ;Ind in that
cast you will consider what ciecumsrauces there are
in tnitigation of Damages. If you think it was not
intended to impute „Bigamy to the Plaint if, in that
case, the Defendant will he entijled to a Verdid.—
If, I say, yoti think it was _intended to impute
Bigamy to the Plaintiff, and that the object was
not a fair inquiry, you will, in that, case,' find a
Verdid. for the Plaintiff, and will also proportion.
the DaMages to the Injury--nut, unless you think
it is to be fairly concluded, by any indifferent
person reading -the Paper,. that the Piaintiff was
;here accu,ed of Bigamy, and the it was equal to
an assertion that the Plaintiff, at .rzne o'clock on'
the loth of August I 799,'had a 'Aviie iiving, when,
he married this ,Lady ; and that this Advertisement
was not published, for the. purpose of inquiring
whether the caw, was, so or riot, the Defendant will
be entitled to your verdid..—Verdid for the De.
fondant."

Church and King—Queen and Family—the Right
Hon. Chatles'Bragge—,Evan &link, Esq.—Duke,
of York and Army—Duke of Beaufort—Marquis_
of 'Worcester—Lord dc aiford—Lord Edivard
-Sotnerset—Mr. Pitt--Mr. Addington—Sheriff
Vaughan—Mayor ' and Corporation—Alderman
Daubey---Alderman Daniel—Bishop of Bristol—
True Blue—Lord St. Vincent and the Navy—Sir
Sidney Smith—Sir. James Saumarez —Lord Nelson—
Lord Hutchinson—William Dickinson, Esq. and
Success to him in the County of Sojnerset—General
1200ke, and Success to him in the County of Mon—
mouth—Absent Members of the Stedfast Society
Prosperity to the City of Bristol—The 11/lanufac

Lt)isi DON : Printed by IM CHI\ NAN MiMILLAN, (of Bow-Street, Covcut-Carden); and Published by Vi Lti :64 AHNIIGFR SCR IFI' (OI 17./1
At the SUN.OF FIC E, No. it 2, Strand •; where Adverthements, ()uteri toe the Tape'', Letters fur tiLe EaritGr; Ocst