The Sun.
London, England, 1850-12-10 00:00:00

the schooner when she began the chase, and when they
boarded us ten or twelve men came with the pirate
captain. There were 13 of the crew of the Victoria,
and 12 of the Industry. I suppose there were 60 or
70 men on board the pirate-vessel.

George Lewis examined—Was at the Old Bailey
trial. In August, 1822, I was carpenter in the brig
Victoria. I remember her being taken by a piratical
schooner. A boat from the schooner boarded the
Victoria. The boat's crew were armed with pistols,
cutlasses, and knives. She was commanded by Aaron
Smith. He first came on board, and he then ordered
the captain, the chief mate, the second mate, and three
sailors, to go into his boat. When Smith came on
board he fired a musket off. The captain asked Smith
what he and his crew were. Smith told him to go on
board the schooner, and they would tell him what they
were. The captain complied, and took his ship's
papers with him, at the request of Smith. Smith
stayed on board the Victoria from one or two until
eight o'clock, and gave orders to everyone on board.
We did the work, and the pirates walked the deck, to
take care of us. He told Deane, the man at the
wheel, to steer the ship " well." He struck the man
with a cutlass on his head, and made a wound three
inches long. The last witness was then called to the
helm. Smith asked me where my captain belonged
to ? I told him his name was Hearne, and he belonged
to the North. He asked where he lived. I said,
17, Lucas-street, Commercial-road, London. Smith
said " What do I know about London ?" I remember
an American vessel coming in sight. When we lost
her it was quite dark, and the wind blowing hard.
He ordered me to put four oars in the jolly-boat, and
I did so. When the American was twenty minutes'
sail off, the schooner was about two miles off. The
brig might then have been saved if Smith had done
what he ought. Smith came back with a Spaniard,
whom they called their captain. He ordered me to
break open the trunk, and made me take down the
lining at the ship's side and the lining over the deck,
to see if there was any property. The pirate captain
said, if he found any money stowed away be would
blow my brains out. Smith and the captain were
down below carousing together. When Smith went
away he took the mate's boat cloak. The next day
we were sent on board the Industry. We heard a
quarrel on board the pirate schooner in the night, and
heard screaming. It was rumoured that the pirate
captain was murdered that night. I last saw the pi-
rate captain on the 7th of August, when he left the
Victoria. When I went on board the Industry I saw
Captain Cook. I noticed his arm, and observed
marks of blood on it. Capt. Cook dressed Deane's
wound, I do not know what private property of Capt.
Hearne's was taken, nor have I ever heard what
Smith got from this transaction. Lugas and I are
the only two seamen alive belonging to the English
ship. I was first found out to be a witness by
placard. When Smith was on board the Victoria he
said I was to sound the well as usual, and consider
him as captain.
Cross-examined by Mr. JAMES—I do not know
who was steward then. Ido not remember his name.

Mr. Henry limn Cohen—My father and uncle
were the owners of the Victoria, and I was in their
office at the time. I was present at the trial of Aaron
Smith, in December' 1823. I heard Captain Cook
examined on the trial of the indictment for piratically
boarding the Victoria. I have heard his deposition
read here today. I did not hear him state anything
respecting the Industry. Captain Cook never said
at the trial that Captain Smith had saved his life ; he
said that Smith had not the power to save his life.
It was stated that Smith had knocked a pistol out of
the hand of some one who was going to fire at Cook's
head. Captain Cook denied the ,assertion. I have
known Captain Cook for many years.
Mr. Dobie, the solicitor to the Times, produced
letters of the plaintiff of the 15th and 24th of June,
1850, to Mr. Cobden, which were put in in evidence.
The plaintiff, in the last of those letters, called Mr.
Cobden a " poltroon" and a " slanderer " for refusing
to retract what he had said of him in Parliament,
which he had asked him to do in the first letter, and
said he sheltered his pocket from the consequence of
an action, by the " privilege" of Parliament, and his
cowardly back from a flogging by protection of his
purse.
Mr. Barton, from the office of the Morning Post,
produced a letter, signed by " E. Garbett," published
in the Morning Post.
This closed the defendant's case.
Mr. E. JAMES replied on the defendant's case,
commenting on the evidence and circumstances as he
proceeded. The jury were now again impanelled to
try Captain Smith on two distinct charges on which
he had before been placed upon his t rial and honour-
ably acquitted. He (Mr. James) contended that the
charges against Captain Smith were malicious, and
without any foundation, inasmuch *as nothing could,
be more clear than that he had not only not been
guilty of murder, as stated, but had never stained
his hands in human blood, and was also guiltless of
the charge of boarding and plundering the Pre-
voyant. The Learned Gentleman concluded by
hoping that the jury would award Captain Smith
competent damages for the injury of which he so un-
justly complained.
Lord CAMPBELL asked the counsel on both sides
whether they would divest the case of all the merely
technical points on the pleadings, and would take the
verdict on the second plea only, which raised the
substantial question of the truth of the libel ?
Both the counsel answered that in this matter
they would be guided by the Lord, Chief Justice's
wishes.
Lord CAMPBELL then said, that in. consequence of
this very proper course taken by the counsel on both
sides, the case had become one for the jury alone.
He should merely assist the jury by making a few
observations. He thought that there was not the
slightest reason to complain of the plaintiff for having
brought this action against the defendant instead of
broinstging it against the Times. It would have been
improper to bring the action against that paper.
m
When the paper had taken the precaution to know who
was the author of the letter, and to get an undertak-
ing from him that he would be answerable for the
publication of it, and gave up that author to the person
complaining of it, the author of the letter was the
proper, and the only proper person to be made a
defendant. Likewise he must say that the plaintiff
was in a situation of great hardship, to be thus
called on to go into an occurrence which happened
between twenty and thirty years ago. As soon after
as it was possible he had been called on to answer
this charge. In 1823 he was accused, and the Crown
properly took up the prosecution, the King's Attorney-
General conducting it. The charge was for piracy
in the cases of the Vittoria and the Industry. On
the first of these cases he was tried. All the evidence
that could be adduced was heard, and he had no
doubt that all proper evidence was brought forward
that could be considered capable of strengthening the
case against the prisoner. The then Attorney-
General (Sir R. Gifford) was a most able and honour-
able man, and no doubt conducted the case with great
propriety. Two of the witnesses who had been in
the box to-day were then examined. The case went
to the jury with apparently the most excellent obser-
vations, for the Court remarked that the act without
the mind did not constitute guilt ; and the jury, act-
ing on that rule, and believing that the plaintiff
acted on compulsion, pronounced a verdict of ac-
quittal. It must be assumed that that was a fair and
honourable verdict, and Sir R. Gifford thought it so
conclusive that, no doubt having presented the
strongest case in the first instance to the jury, he
declined to present any evidence on the case of the
Industry. In the year 1829 the plaintiff was again
tried on another charge, before other judges and
under other circumstances. The case was brought
to trial before one of the most enlightened, learned,
and able men that had ever sat on the bench—he
meant Lord Chief Justice Tindal; and on that occa-
sion another jury was so satisfied that the case against
the plaintiff was insufficient, and that the voluntary
joining of the pirates was not proved, that the jurors
interposed, and, stopping the case, returned a verdict
of not guilty. On the part of the plaintiff it was
wished to lay before the jury this day the evidence
which had then been given; but it was objected to
because this defendant was not then present, and it
was necessarily rejected. At this distance of time it
was an extreme hardship that the charge should thus
be revived. It was beautifully said by Lord Plunkett
that Time was represented with a scythe in one hand
and an hour-glass in the other, that with his scythe
he cut down the evidence of a transaction, but with
the hour-glass he limited the time within which the
charge might be brought the evidence of which his
scythe had destroyed. It was true that the law
did not recognise limitation to charges of crimes ;
but men would not fail to see that after a certain
period a charge could not be brought without
pressing with undue hardship on the accused, and
especially in a case like this, when the party had
already three times successfully answered it. As it
was, the jury here must now consider this charge,
and say whether the plaintiff was guilty or not
guilty. By this libel the defendant charged him with
being a pirate and a murderer, and undertook by the
plea to prove him to be so. The jury would look to
see whether there was any evidence whatever of his
having committed murder ; and with respect to his
having committed piracy, the jury would consider
whether he had committed it voluntarily or not. As
to that, he seemed to have been a man in a respect-
able situation of life, and about to be married. He
was returning to England for that purpose in the Ze-
phyr, when that vessel was attacked, and he became
a victim to the pirates. He was left among them.
He at last escaped, and there was no evidence to dis-
prove what he alleged in his book with respect to the
manner in which he escaped. Neither was there a
tittle of evidence to prove that the pirate captain was
dead, and that he supplied the place of the
captain. The statements in his book having been
made evidence, were to be taken as much in his
favour as against him. The defendant said that the
book proved his case. The jury would say whether