The Sun.
London, England, 1866-01-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Before Mr. Baron Bramwell.)

EMERY T. JEWETT,

Mr. Mayhew, the prompter, said he recollected well the
first performance of the " Watch Cry." The plaintiff
went through his part without the slightest assistance
from him during the entire representation. Had he been
prompted he must have heard him. Never beard the
under prompter (Mr. Craven) assisting Mr. Emory while
•

the piece was going ou. He never knew a first piece go
off so perfectly as the " Watch Cry."
Mr. Horatian said he was an actor, and performed
in the "Watch Cry." The character ho represented was
that of the cousin to that sustained by Mr. Emery. He was
continually on the stage with Mr. Emery during the per-
formance of the piece, and he never heard him prompted.
Mr. Widdicombe said ho was a member of the Lyceum
company. Ho perfectly recollected the first representation
of the " Watch Cry." He played a part in it. Ho never
heard Mr. Emery prompted during the performance. His
part was called by the critic a well-dressed scoundrel.
(Laughter.)

Sergeant Parry—Such a part as B.njamin Bowbells, in
the "Illustrious Stranger," suits you much better?
Mr.Widdicome—Oh, yes ; very much better. (Laughter.)
Mergeaut Parry then handed in a letter written to the
defendant after the criticism had been published, which
was read as follows

" Sir,—l have been consulted by Mr. S. A. Emery with
reference to a paragraph concerning him in your notice of
the new piece at the Lyceum, produoed on the 7th inst.,
to which his attention has just been called. It is there
stated, that the part of Mr. Emery was effectively spoken
by the prompter'. The meaning of this is quite clear,
and as it conveys to the public and theatrical profession,'
the false impression that Mr. Emery was incapable of
playing the part assigned him, it is calculated to do him
considerable injury in his profession. I have, there-
fore, on his behalf, to call upon you to publicly
withdraw this false statement, and publish in your
columns of your next journal an apology for misrepre-
senting the fact.—l am, sir, yours

" EDWARD JoussoN."
The letter was published in the newspaper with a foot-
note attached to the following effect :--" Our publication
of the above letter is its best answer. Wo may add that
intimidation will never cause us to forget the duty we
owe to our readers."

This closed the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Powell, for the defendant in his opening address,
blamed Mr. Emery very much for bringing the action.
Ho contended that it did not pass the limit of fair criti-
cism, especially as it was true in every particular. The
writer of the article was a gentleman named Gilbert
A'Beckott, and so far from their being any malicious feel-
ing in the matter, that gentleman had not the acquaintance
of Mr. Emery, and had never spoken to him in his life.
Ho said the plaintiff had omitted to call the second
prompter ; and that fact would certainly be a matter
of very groat importance, in enabling the jury to
come to a just conclusion. He should call before them the
author of the piece, Mr. Palgrave Simpson, who was pre-
sent during the first performance, and ho presumed ho
might be taken to know something of the part. He had
had almost to drag that gentleman into court, but ho
would tell them that Mr. Emery was imperfect in his part
to a very great extent. If he proved that, the jury he felt
would come to the conclusion that the critique had but
done his duty in stating facts, and that their verdict would
be for the defendants.

Mr. Arthur A'Beckott said ho was the writer of the
critique complained of. Mr. Emery was decidedly not
perfect iu his part on the first night of the representation
of " The Watch Cry" at the Lyceum. Ho heard the
prompter distinctly more than once.

Cross.examiucd by Sergoant Parry— Mr. Ruery was
very imperfect, so much so that no ono could fail to no-

Lice it. He was sitting on the seven row in tho
The prompter's box is in fro nt of the orchestra, but he
could not say ho heard the voice from that box. Ho
heard the person prompt. It was in a " stage whisper."
He could not say that every person heard the prompter.
lie knew ho heard him very distinctly. Mr. Emery was
incapable of acting his part ; ho was so imperfect.
By the Judge—He did not recollect whether Mr. Hors-
man and Mr. Widdicombe were inconvenienced by Mr.
Emery being imperfect.
Mr. Palgravo Simpson said he was the author of the
piece in question. Ire was present on its first representa-
tion. Mr. Emery was decidedly imperfect in his part.
He was confused throughout.
The learned judge having summed up,
The jury retired to consider their verdict, and after an
absence of three-quarters of an hour, returned into court
with the following verdict:—" That the words complained
of were libellous ; that it was untrue that Mr. Emery was
prompted ; that the language used was not fair criticism;
and that they gave the plaintiff £5 ss. as damages."

This was au action brought by Mr. Samuel Emory, the
for a falso and malicious libel published on the 7th of

November.
The defendants pleaded justification.
The libel complained of was, that the gentleman, in
writing the notice of the " Watch Cry" had passed beyond
the pale of fair criticism in stating that " the part of Mr.
Emery was effectively spoken by the prompter."
Mr. Emory was called, and said—On the evening of the
Gth of November, he appeared at the Lyceum Theatre in a
new drama called the " Watch Cry." Ho wont through
the part without the slightest assistance from the prompter.
He was continually on the stage throughout the per-
formance. The part was an exceedingly difficult ono
He attended every rehearsal, and at night ho went
through the piece in a perfect 'manner. He should have
been liable to fine had he gone on the stage imperfect in
his part.