The Sun.
London, England, 1826-10-21 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, GUILDHALL—Ocr. 20.
- JAMES V. RICHARDS. •
Mr. bitouonast opened the pleadings. .
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, the Rev.
John Angel James; to:recover a compensation in damages
from the defendant, Richard Downing Richards, .the pro-
prietor. of the Age, Sunday newspaper, for having publish-
ed therein a false and Malicious libel of and concerning-the
plaintiff. •
Mi;SCARLETT said the plaintiff in this case is a man of
high education and respectability ; he is the author of a
distinguished work—a clergyman; though not a member
of the Church of England, that to which lie was attached
was distinguished for its virtues. He was surrounded by
friends of the highest reapectability; who were at any time
ready to testify their opinion of his unblemished character :
he was also the preacher to a congregation that bad erect-
ed for him a chapel known in Birmingham, where he re-
sided, as the " House of Prayer." On the 2d of Sept.
1826, he had attended a meeting called for the purpose of
taking into consideration the propriety of erecting an infant
school. At the meeting Lord Calthorpe presided, and the
plaintiff had seconded one of the resolutions. A report of
these proceedings had been published in the Birmingham
Chronicle, and immediately after the following libel, for
Which the plaintiff now sought reparation, appeared in the
defendant's paper of the 2dof October, 1825: after noticing
the report of the meeting, it proceeded thus
A man by the name of James, styling himself Reverend, by a
display of uuparalled assurance, has so fur ingratiated himself into
the opinions of some deluded persons of this town, as to induce
them to build him a splendid conventicle, where he preaches the
commandinente, which be goes home and breaks, and then has the
audacity to attend a public meeting for forming an infant school
on the. principle that a Metropolitan college has just been projected;
the thing is. too barefaced, and such humbug attempts to delude
the minds of the people must and shall he exposed : the idea of
such Ranters as this fellow, James, talking about religion and mo-
rality, when be has trampled on the first duties of both : he has
not only ' coveted his neighbour's goods,' but actually got pos-
session of them ; for the circumstances of his second marriage,
which was obtained by a violation on his part of every social and
manly virtue, were merely hushed up by a large pecuniery don:
cenr, out of his wife's jointure, to his injured friend ; and yet filch
people as these are suffered to talk to us about religion,. morality,
And the blessings of education."
Thus is the paintiff accused, not only of coveting his
neighbour's goods, but Of possessing them. What does
this transaction mean ? Mr. James cannot tell—he can-
not answer—he can only suppose he has some secret enemy
in Birmingham ; -persons must Suppose something more is
meant in it than meets the eye, and yet, with this, Mr.
James, as minister of peace, after this' severe attack upon
his integrity, anxious only to discover the author of this
foul calumny, and not to bring an action against the de-
fendant, merely applies to him, and requires the author to
be given up ; and to this his attorney recoives the folloW-
ing answer, dated Oct. 19, 1825 :
" Sir,-1 understand ..from your clerk that you wish to ,-hear
from me respecting something inserted about Mr. James in the
Aye. lam requested by the proprietors of the Age to inform
you, that if Mr. James, or yourself, think proper to address a
letter to sue on the circumstances animadverted on, accompanied
with evideses, end to show it is incorrect, it shall have insertion,
with comments, b 7 the editor, sufficient to exonerate him from
the imputation of whit",!l he complains. If this arrangement does
not meet your approbation, I shall be ready to furnish you with
the name of my solicitor, who will receive a letter, and arrange
as the, matter may require. cSigned) " It. D. It."
" Please to send the answer In writing."
He (Mr. Scarlett) declared, that he had no conception of
suet' impertinenee as was contained ha this letter. A fellow
pits into this paper a libel of the most false description,
and when he is asked to give up his author, replies by
saying, address to me a letter on the subject; send me
proof that I may decide if I have been torrect, and if I
am satisfied, I will then publish it with my remarks. He
(Mr. Scarlett) was at a loss to express his indignation
slit
such impudence, and was almost ready to subscribe to. the
opipion or is friend of his, who proposed so far to alter the
law of libel art to give the party who had been injured, the
liberty. of :eveaging himself by giving the libeller a good
thrashing. Auch a punishment might have the effect
of curbing the ini„lefrolent dispositions of such gentlemen
he had no doubt, btsf. not more so than the severest
damages they could give, The damages laid in the deela-
ration were laid only at 500/...atl the jury being now in
and the subseqthey
uent
possession of the case of the 11,12u1P,
aggravation by the defendant', ietto:, he trusted
would evince their abhorrence by er." farthing ofV
that sum. '
Mr. Miasma, from the • Stamp-office, prO7ed the
fendant to be sole proprietor of the Age Newspato.-
1"
Robert Stevens, Esq. knew the plaintiff,. Mr. John 4.
gel James; lie is a Dissenting Clergyman of an Indepen-
dent congregation. lie preaches and resides at,Birming-
ham ; is now married for the second time, and witness
Is
trustee to the marriage-settlement.. Mrs. James was a
widow before he married her—a lady of property. The
plaintiff is also a man of property.
Mr. Hanson, clerk to Mr. Wilke, attorney for the plain-
, tiff, saw Mr. Richards two or three times respecting this
publication et Mr, WilsSn's office. This letter .(defen-
dant's) afterwards came, and he said he had left a letter
from Me. Wilson; he wished to know if Mr. Wilks had
left any letter for him ; two or three other letters came
afterwards; he did not perionally offer to me to insert in
his Paper en apology, and express his regret at having
published any thing so unfounded.
Mr. Da!:ismaisi, for the defendant, stated that he could
not hut feel that his Learned Friend had made an impres-
sion on their minds unfavourable to the defendant at the
moment; but be trusted they. would not, by any thing
they had thus heard, be induced to visit with undue seve-
rity his client. The Jury had heard that nothing is to,be
accepted except the damages that the, special pleader had
thought proper to insert in the declaration. He is not
satisfied with the declaration from the defendant,• which I
tow repeat, that he deplores most deeply that he has been
imposed upon by a Use statement. Why was not
this action -tried at Birmingham, where the plaintiff
was known,• Where the injury, if any he had sustained,
might best be explained and atoned for 1 Why' were
they brought here this day, except - that it was to a
better market than they could otherwise find ? A verdict,
he (Mr. Denman) would :admit, must be found for the
plaintiff; but were they,(the jury) prepared to say on their
oath that the plaintiff 'ii character would not be sufficiently
vindicated by the slightest damages 9 They. must look to
the effect of their. vetduit:ltz, twhiteynastUseiareimenifber the words
of Lord Chesterfield,
said, if you will have liberty,P yonagnoms 'tftoayasifeaenrctaihiinf
theatres,
degree have lie6ntiousuess. So
would enjoy those blessings which presser;
their country might
Justly be so proud, they must in some cases submit to such
evils as were Incident to its nature, and not visit too heavily
the errors of another on a man who acknowledged he had
been imposed upon.
The LORD Clllkl JCSTICH, after recapitulating the evi-
dence, and reading the libel, stated, that as it had been ad-
witted thataverdict must be found forthe plaintiff, the only
question for the, consideration of the Jury was the amount
of damages to which the plaintiff Wag entitled. Let their
verdict b result of temperate ddiberation.
The Jury after a few minutes' iconsderation, found a
verdict for the plaintiff—damages 300/.
On its announcement, Mr. GURNIN rose, and stated
that the plaintiff did not intend to :appropriate any part of
the damages to himself.

A short tune since a country curate, while reacting
the second lesson, espied a dog of his in fierce combat
with another at the west end of the church—out
rushed the enraged priest from his desk to part the
unruly (111,4, which haring"aecomplisbed, he returned
when being in doubt where he left off, he inquired of
clerk---" Roger, where was I just now ?" " why,
(lown in the aisle, parting the dogs, Maister," said
Rogere—Both /fend(/'