The Sun.
London, England, 1856-05-15 00:00:00

LA TV INTELLIGENCE—May 14.

COURT OF QUEENS BENCH.
LIBEL-- LEVITE V. LEDGER.
This was an action to recover compensation in da-
mages for a libel. .
Mr. Sergeant Thomas, Mr. Pearce, and Mr. Prowett
appeared for' the plaintiff ; Mr. Collier, Q.C., and Mr.
Hawkins conducted the case for the deence.
Mr. Pearce, in opening the pleadings, said that Mr.
L. Levite, a member of the theatrical profession, was the
plaintiff, and Mr. F. Ledger, the proprietor of the Era,
was the defendant. The declaration stated that the libel
complained of was published in the Era, and that it was
injurious to the plaintiff in his professional character,
and iu the opinion of his friends. To that the defendant
pleaded not guilty, and on that plea the plaintiff j riued
issue with him.
Mr. Sergeant Thomas stated the case, and said it was
an action for libel on the plaintiff, who was a ballet
dancer. The circumstances arose in this way. The plain-
tiff was engaged, and was about to take a benefit at the
Garrick Theatre, and had put himself in communication
with a printer named Till, about the printing of his bills
of performance and tickets. A question arose between
them as to whether Till was to receive the whole of the
amount of his claim, but that person however agreed to
take one.half the amount. Till, however, after matters
were so arranged, instead of carrying out the agreement,
went into the County Court, Sh.ireditcb, which was pre-
sided over by Mr. Sergeant Manning, and the case was
proceeded with in the absence of the defendant, against
whom the learned judge made an order for the amount
claimed, 1/. 19s. On the 23d March, the plaintiff's atten-
tion was drawn to the Era, a paper remarkable for re-
porting and noticing theatrical proceedings—and in that
paper the libel complained of appeared. It purported to be
a report ofa case in the Whitechapel County Court, and was
so full of absurdity that it turned the plaintiff into ridi-
cule, and caused him to be called after both in and out
of his profession. That was more than any man could
stand, whether poor or rich ; and it would be for the
jury to say, when he read the article complained of,
whether the man attacked was libelled or not. Than
he (Mr. Sergeant Thomas) no man could more rejoice
at the freedom of expression and opinion exercised by
the newspaper press. It was good and wholesome as
long as it was not licentious, and the harm which it did
was very little ; but, if it unjustly libel a man, and by
invention publish that which is calculated to injure him
in his professional pursuits, and turn hint into ridicule,
then it descends to licentiousness, and inflicts unwar-
rantable injury. Ile would read the libel to the jury,
purporting to be a report of the proceedings in the case
of "Till v. Levite," in the Whitechapel County Court.
and leave the jury to form their own opinion of it ; first,
however, observing that if any man made a speech in a
court of justice which was not supported by evidence it
would be very unfair in any party to publish a report of
it ; and if any man publish the invention, whether for
party purposes, or from motives of spleen, or otherwise,
and turn the assailed party into ridicule, then it was
right that such a proceeding should be checked, as of
the licentiousness and not the true liberty of the press.
The learned sergeant then read the libel complained of,
as he proceeded, commenting on the "laughter," "loud
laughter," "roars of laughter," and "shouts of laughter"
with which it was interlarded. It was headed "White-
chapel County Court," and ran as follows :--
"THE PRINTER'S DEVIL AND THE HARLEtIIIN.—TILL V.
LEVITE.
"This action was brought in the Whitechapel County
Court by a funny little printer, of 22, Commercial-road
East, to recover It. 194. for printing 3,200 theatrical
bills and admission tickets. Tne case caused consider-
able merriment. May it please your lordship—ha!
hem ! hem !—I am the plaintiff in this action, and, as a
theatrical printer of some experience, I ought to have
guarded mv,,eif against being here. The defendant, Lewis
Levite—inter nos, his right name is Levy, but, as there
never was a distinguished star of that vulgar name, he
has changed it, without royal licence, to Levite. lam
thus particular, as if, when John Gregory, your officer,
cells upon him, he should find it c ,nvenient to drop his
fashionable name and take up his old clothes. Now, this
distinguished man was the harlequin at that distinguished
theatre, the Royal Garrick. lie appeared in the Northern
Imp, an appropriate piece to his merits for cheating a
printer. Oil the 22.1 Jan. he had his benefit, and I printed
his bills and tickets,but first told him it was to he a ready-
money transaction. He asked me to wait until his benefit
was over, `Catch a printer marrying a columbine,' said I,
'no, no, my boy, it will be no benefit to me it I wait for
a harlequin ; so, if you cannot stump up on deli-
very, favour the Queen's printer with your patron-
age, or, perhaps, the Morning Advertiser will pull
you through.' Oh, for the matter of that,
Mr. Till,' he replied, ' see how law the funds
are'—he meant the Garrick al the time—' and it would
be a loss to sell out ; but if I pry you ready money, I
shall expect a discount.' This I agreed to; and when
the printing was done, I called Ginger—as wide-a etake a
printer's devil as ever stepped into an office. ' Ginger,'
I sail, " you've cut your eye teeth, and the expedition
you are now going on requires you to throw your bed
away. (Loud laughter.) The gentleman whom the
printing is for ais harlequin, and you kno w what slippery
customers toey can be if they like. Now, on no pre-
tence whatever do you let go one of these bills until you
get 1/. 9s. good coin of the rsalin." I will try them all
with my teeth first, sir, says Ginger.' (Laughter.) To
my alarm, the lad did not return ; and when I did get
sight of him, I found that 11Ir. Levite, assisted by souse
congenial sprits, had got the printing,- and Ginger had
no: the chance of testing the purity of the coin. It
seemed, from Ginger's tale, my lud, that Mr. Levite's
k heels eclipsed the honours of his head of the benefit
tickets made him more lithesome than usual, for at one
bound he jumped through the stage-door, and left
my ‘devil' in wonderment where he and my printing had
flown to. Mr. Levite's benefit proved a bumper, no
doubt through my printing—(laughter)—and upon my
calling the next day for my money he gave me a note of
hand, and his address-15, Fetter-lane. I find they
know nothing of him at Fetter-lane, arid I wish to my
1 heart's content I was as happy as 15, Fetter-lane.
(Loud laughter.) Noe, my iul, don't you think lam
to be pitied—done by a harlequin ; but it's all through
Ginger. (Roars of laughter.) The Judge—l shall make
an order for it to be paid in e week, with costs. The
printer and his devil then left the court to test the har-
lequin's coin with their teeth—when they get it."
Now, that was :the libel of which the plaintiff Cam-
' plained, and he (Mr. Sergeant Thomas) would show
that it was throughout an invention, and that nothing
of the kind occurred in the court. He would call
the learned judge who presided in the court to prove
that nothing of the sort occurred in his court, on the
occasion referred to ; and lie would show that a letter
had been written to the defendant by the plaintiff request-
ing an apology ; and had the defendant taken notice
of that letter, arid expressed his regret that the unfounded
report had by inadvertence been published in his paper,
the present proceedings would not have been instituted ;
but he took no notice of the plaintiff's letter. The learned
gentleman then called
Mr. T. Bennett, of Sornerset-House, who proved that
Mr. Ledger, the defendant, was the registered proprietor
of the Era.
Mr. Sergeant Manning examined—Deposed that he is
judge of the Whitechapel County Court, that he remem-
bered a plaint in which Levite was defendant, but that
he had no book containing notes of any such case as
that which was reported in the Era, arid was the sub-
ject of this action.
Thi'4 eloped the plaintiff's case.

Mr. Collier having declined to call witnesses,
Mr. Sergeant Thomas addressed the jury,' and sub-
mitted that he had proved his case, and expressed hopes
that the jury would award the plaintiff adequate com-
pensation in damages, for the injury he had sustained.'

Mr. Collier submitted that hi.; learned friend bad not
made out any case at all. He had not shown whether
the libel was published by the defecdant, and had not
called the plaintiff, and even Mr. Sergeant Manning hal
no recollection of the case.
Mr. Hawkins followed on the same side.

Mr. Justice Erie said the only evidence in support of
the case was that the man who wrote the article com-
plained of had used the surname Levite, and that the
defendant in the alleged cause had the same name.
Mr. Sergeant Thomas—lt was put in issue that Le-
vite appeared in court, and defended the case ; and the
defendant in this case was proved to be the proprietor of
the Era, in which the libel appeared. The learned ser-
geant then callad

Mr. Hudspeth, a comedian, who deposed that he had
read the article in the Lra, and that he knew it referred
to the plaintiff, who was a good ballet dancer and a good
harlequin,*with whom he-sympathised.
Cross-examined by Mr. Coil►er—Have you ever been
a harlequin ?
Mr. Hudspeth—l once played harlequin.
Mr. Collier—And that accounts for your sympathy I
Mr. Hudspeth—Yes. (Laughter.)
Mr. Collier--But the plaintiff will not suffer by this
article, rather it will, as a harlequin, raise him still
higher.

Mr, Hudspeth—l am very glad to hear it—l know
him, and he is a good dancer and a clover harlequin.
Mr. Collier—Would he jump through a deal board ?
(Laughter.)
Mr. Hudspeth—No, but he can go through a " trap."
(Laughter.)
Mr. Sergeant Thomas—Whether in a wainscot or side-
wing., or above or below ?

Ni;. Hudspeth—Whether up or down, or above, or
below. (Laughter.)
Mr. Collier then addressed the jury on the evidence in
support of the plaintiff's case, and he sail he could not
see how this calumniated harlequin, as his learned friend
called him, was injured by the article in question. Why
did not his learned friend call his injured harlequin ?
Because he knew he could not stand moss-examination.
"There was but one step from the sublime to the ridicu-
ehae stthtba
had
through
be could
ecln ound ld
"trap,"
jump,igr anpa t
P," and his learned friend's speech showed that. His
learned friend said that the plaintiff had been libelled as
tsrl rapobpuoegvr hye ao,
.da
bale
board,
low ; r
that
d!
aohalqulin ;
eat
that be was so injured in his profession that he could
not get an engagement. Nov, he (Mr. Collier) must
e'
dif
whetan s t o
gay that be had looked through the article, ,and that a.,
far from its being calculated to injure the plaintiff Ps a
harlequin, it was of a character to herve him ; and as to
the term that he was a'. slippery harlequin," that was
the highest recommendation, and no libel. A harlequin
ought to be "slippery," and an "eel" was "slippery ;"
but it was no libel to say so. He, therefure, submitte
that there was no case—no injury done—and that the
jury ought to find their verdict for the defendant.
Mr. Justice Erle, in summing up, said that any writ-
ing which was of a nature and tendency to lower a man in
the opinion of his acquaintances, or that tended to bring
him into ridicule or contempt, must be, and ought to be,
a libel. One of the plaintiff's witnesses said that the plait.
tiff; after the article appeared, had been " badgered' by
hie acquaintances. A letter had been written to the do•
feadaut, alai probably if the editor of the paper bad said,

" he regretted that the article had been admitted through
want of care," the action would not have been brought.
If the jury were of opinion that the plaintiff had good
ground of complaint, they would give him a verdict
which would enable him to say that hi 3 rights had been
a&cied, and that the verdict of a jury recognised the in-
jury.
The jury conferred together in the box, and returned
a verdict for the plaintiff, datnageg,lo/.