The Sun.
London, England, 1828-05-21 00:00:00

deemed to be characterized as a daub, fit only for the signs
post of an inn. . _ _

The Learned Sergeant then called evidence, which
showed that his Majesty had sat fur the plaintiff, who was
to have painted a picture of his itlajesty'a departure from
Ireland ; that a military uniform had been sent for on that
occasion (the picture represented his Majesty as dressed hr
a frock coat) ; and that since then the canvass had been
enlarged, and the Bishop's length had been altered to a
full-length portrait. It was also proved that his Majesty
had sat only for almot a quitter of an hour, and that in
been a n
that time the sketch of the face only was taken. This closed
the case' for the plaintiff.
Ai
rs.usustained
ngCed eo4natbteynld:het t WILDS
De
phEl
aaaitndntdiolff.tel.: addressed
like
he 0 et
Jury
damage:itrfoa rt
could
theoutlhde
d ehfaetvte
n
dt, and
pro-
duction of his genius-*the picture of our revered Sore-
„ign, was produced in a Court of Justice, in London, as a
specimen of his talent. Where could he have ex-
hibited this with so much advairtage •as in Lon-
don, a place of no inoonsiderahle taste, and
where with so much effect as Ati a public Court of
Justice, the proceedings of Which *era to the farthest et-
tremities of the kingdom. Ile lid been benefited rather
than injured, and could not therefore have pleaded any
special . damage. Criticism 'should not be too closely
confined, and in • the case of Carr V. Hood, Lord Ellen-
borough decided that the greatest latitude should be allowed
to the critic, who was as useful to the public as the author,
The defendant accused Mr. Thompson of having painted
a bad picture, little better than it daub, and further.
charged him with having been careless in having painted
portrait of his Majesty with only a single sitting. lie.
further .accused him of having appropriated a picture,
painted for one purpose to another—in having changed
the object, and sent to Somerset Rouse as a mere Por-
trait, that which was to have represented his Majesty on
the occasion of .his visit to lrelan& The picture
of the King was of more consequence to the world than
that of an ordinary person. It wks an historical painting,
and the artist owed it to the world not to send forth such
a picture with all the charseteristici of being,?,bastY pro-
duction. The plaintiff had not proved having obtained
the permission of hie Majesty to change the object of the
picture. The libel also put a certain number of let-
ters after the name of the artist, and Lint inimediately
after those letters a note of interrogation. ' The !notice
of such a thing as this chewed the straits to which his
Learned Friend was driven to make out his case ; but
surely it was too much to say, that the readers could at-
tend to the punctuation of every thing they read, or that
such a trifling matter us punctuation could at all affect the
merits of the artist. Why might not a critic 'say
that a picture was a daub, ;And unlit for any, 0,01.
purpose thau a sign-post ? He might say so if
he chose, and no one could say that' malice was to
be inferred, for all pictures were plier:d iri the exhi-
bition at .Somerset House, expressly. to -challenge
The defendant Was allowed .to exercise 'a judginent,- and that
judgment might be erroneous, but that would not warrant
an action for libel, or there would be an end to all.criticism
whatever. Malice must be proved, but here it was admit-
ted that there could be no personal motive, and
therefore his Learned Friend had no ground to
stand upon. The libel stated that his Majesty never
sat for that portrait, and this was the fact. - lie sat for the
face to be painted for another picture; arid the other parts
had been subsequently added, for which parts his Majesty
did not sit.

The Cirtnr.lusricr.said, that it appeared • to him tube
necessary that it should be in evidence for the plaintiff
that his Majesty had sat for the portrait, or he ninst fail in
his action ; and with the permission of Mr. Sergeant
Wilde, he would then allow 111 r. Sergeant 'Faddy to supply
such evidence, in order that he might not be taken by sur-
prise. It was necessary to do so . beimuse every count- in
the declaration stated; that the portrait was painted with
the perinission of his Majesty.
Mr. Sergeant WILE had no objection to allow such
evidence if:it could be addticed. _ _

Mr. Sergeant TAnDY deelised advancing such evidence.

The CHIEr JUSTICE said, as the objection came-so
late,' the' better way would be, to let the .case go on
with liberty to" Mr. Sergeant Wilde to move for
a nonanit, in case the Jury gave a verdict for tife pletintiff.
He thought however that the face could not be consideced
as the portrait. .

Mr. Sergeant WILDE then proceeded to argue at anuse
length, that the criticism was perf.way wr.andinttifiable ;
or if not, that there be an end to all criticism what-
e,c•-; fa if a man had not a right to say that a pic-
ture was a daub, so neither had he a right to
n
say that a book was not worth reading. Thu
question for the Jury was, not whether the defendant had
formed a just opinion upon the picture, when he stated that
it was badly painted, but whether in such judgment as he
did form he acted bona fide or maliciously.
The Caner' JustrcE then charged the Jury. The ques-
tion for their consideration was, first, whether that part et
the criticism which commented upon the merits of the pie-
ture,was fair; and next,whcther the defendant was warrant-
ed in imputing to the plaintiff a fraud upon his Sovereign.
With respect to the first part, an erroneous judgment
would not warrant a verdict for the plaintiff. The case of
Carr r. Hood had been alluded to, and he was disposed to
go the full length of Lord Ellenborough's charge in that.
case, excepting that, in his opinion, ridicule should not be
resorted to beyond what might be directed towards the
book itself. With respect to the second part, he must
say, that the evidence negatived the assertion that his
Majesty sat fur the portrait in question. lie had sat for
a picture, but not for that, and his Majesty had therefore
beets imposed upon, if a portrait which be was asked to
sit for for one purpose was to he devoted to another with-
out his consent. If the Jury thought that the John Bull
had made a true statement of the history of the portrait,
and if they thought the criticism was not dictated by ma-
lice, the defendant was entitled to their verdict.
The Jury almost immediately returned a verdict for the
defendant.

The Marquii of Conyngharn, Sir W. Knighton, and
Sir Thomas Lawrence, were on the bench during the trial.

THE MARKETS.—(THIS DAY.)
CORN EXCHANGE.
The supplies reported to-day of all kinds of Grain arc
small, and of Flour not considerable. The Wheat trade
for good qualities maintains the terms last quoted, other
kinds continue very dull in sale. Barley meets very few
buyers at Monday's terms. Beans fully support their re-
, cent value. Pease of both kinds are extremely heavy in
sale. The buyers of Oats this morning are not numerous,
ted for the few that have
bebuetn3lsootildd.ay's feriae; pyppot
A It ra VA Ls.
Wheat. Barley, Oafs. Flour.
English 1,950 qrs. 650 qrs. 1,1:30 qrs. 3,9504‘.."
Irish -- '4550
Foreign