The Sun.
London, England, 1802-07-26 00:00:00

,
dente, or .to have brought an .a6lion against the
Author of the Report ; but. the Defendant himself
must upon this record be deemed,the Anthor'Of the
rumour, since he did not give up the name of any
body else; and therefore he should not be at -li-
berty to-give any evidence of a general rumour to
justify his own miscondud.
Mier hearing. Mr. ERSKINE at some jength in
support of the question, .
Lord ELLENBOROUGH held that it might be
given in evidence, not to justify The 'aft of the De..
fendant ; but the prevalence of the rumour might
be given it evidence to repel the idea of malice in
the Defendant in uttering it.
Mr,:=ErtaKlNE. then asked, " Whether, before this
time, and a considerable while, there was not a re,
port ihe was glad to say he believed it to'be wholly
without foundation) prevalent in the City, of the
kind alluded to by Mr. L.-Merle ?"
-Mr. Fellowes, said, there certainly was such a' re-
port, and he heard it in several places. .
Lord ELLENBOROUH said, that this was no juS-
_ tification, nor indeed could the words beiustifi-d,
unless there- had beert.a justification on. the Re-
cord, but the effect of it was to repel the idea of
malice ; and his Lordship added, .it was really too
much to call it malice---4ustice -and common -sense
.repudiated the idea of malice in any man who ut-
tered what was a prevalent rumour.
The Witness then said, that he had heard ,reports-
of the then supposed Insolvency of -,the Plaintiffs'
Ho-use three weeks, •or a month, before the aime he
heard this from Mr. Merle. The first time he
mentioned what the Defendant said to him upon
this subjea was on the zoth of April ; and he
was certain that lie did not mention it to any body
between the 20th and the z9rh.
An objeCtion was then taken, and supported by
Mr. ERSKINE and Mr.,MA'tYAT, on the part of
the Defendant, to the Declaration of the Plaintiffs
upon the Record—the substance of which was, that
it was not,stated, with sufficient distinctness, what
this Bill of 20001. was ; fur that it might, con-
sistently with the. Record and the proof, be a Bill
drawn on the Mayor of York, as well as the Mayor
of London, it being stated "-the' Lord Mayor,"
without s,tating, after it, "-thereby meaning Sir
John Earner, Knight ;" 'and alsts that, consistently
I. with this Record, the Bill in question- might ,be
drawn ,in favour of Sir John Earner instead of be-
ing -on -Sir John Eamer.;,, for which reasons. the
Learned Gentleman submitted they were entitled,to
nonsuit the Plaintiffs in this case. .
But, however, Mr. ERSK INE took another course,
and addressed the Jury, and spoke very handsomely -
of Sir John Earner. He observed, amongst other'
thing's, such was the constitution of the him-an
charader, that we were often attraaed to each
other, and became muted in friendship, by the
mere observance. of civility .and courtesy, when it is
unexpeded—when we might, at the same time, be
too indifferent to the'most solid and essential obli-
gation ; the former of these was his case with regard
to Sir John Earner; the latter, he hoped, never would
be his case with any body. He remembered-when,
after indescribable fatigue,-upon the State Trials at'
the Old Bailey, and when he . was retiring, 'or ra-
ther unable to retire, Sir John. Earner, then a straw:
ger to him personally, sheaved him much personal
civility, and which laid the foundation of an esteem
for that- Gentleman which made him glad of the
present opportunity of avowing it. He was glad
this adion was brought, glad that the purposes of it
.were answered,. for the ()hie& was to do away in
the Guildhall of this mighty City all idea' of there
being any foundation, for the rumour which had once
prevailed against the 'Plaintiffs' House ; the opu--
knee and perfect respedability of which was beyond
all question, of which no-man was better convinced,'
than Mr. Merle the Defendant, with whom,- how-
ever, it was now manifest this false rumour did' not
• originate. He had it now
rin his power, from the
imperfedion of this Record, to nonsuit the Plaintiffs,
but he was not dispos•aal .to do so ; he wished Sir
John Earner and Mr. Merle to renew their friendship,
and the only way by which they could shake hands
in public was to withdraw a Juror, and discharge
the Jury from giving' a verdict in this cause, which-
he now offered to.do on the part of Mr. Merle, and
which lie
.hoped would be accepted by his, Learned
Friends on the part of Sir John Earner.
'Mr. GARROW said, that Sir John Earner bad no
wishes that were hostile to Mr. MerlesLall he
wanted was to vindicate his charader and credit as
a' Merchant' ; than purpose was now 'completely
answered. The report originated 'in malice from
somebody, but it now appeared .not frdm Mr;
-Merle, and therefore on the .pait'of Sir John Earner,
he accepted' the offer of Mr.-Merle, made by his
Counsel- Mr. ERSKINE-, 414.,contented that a jurbr.
should be, 'withdrawn.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, it appeared, to hiM
proper to say,,alew words. upon
.this yery,importat2J
Cause, Considering the Record and the -proof
together,. ,it would have been his duty, if calleAtm,
to have-non-suited the Plaintiffs ; but he-kzeW he.
could :safely -trust the Learned Advocate for the De-
fendant when he rose, last to address the Jufy, arid
therefore he did not interpose.. It was proper, his
Lordship said, for „him now- to observe that„ from
the manner .in which this Cause was *tight
before-, the Jury, Sir John Earner had put it in
the power of any individual' to come forward
to prove
,-any thing he ‘knew (if -there was
any individual who knew) of any circlinitanCeuf_
• felling the credit of: the PlaintiffS' house .; and as
nothing in the world was more 'den than fame, .
especially.comMercial fame, his Lordship thought it
his-duty to say that front the manner in. which this
matter now terminated, tihe credit of the house.of
Sir John Earner and Co: stands as`bigh,,and irpos-
sible,higher than it ever did before.
Juror, withdrawn. , ' •