The Sun.
London, England, 1827-02-22 00:00:00

LAW INITT:LtGitNM

• COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Faa. U.
YHILLITS V. ACICRILL AND ANOTHER.
Mr. Currry opened the pleadings.
Mr. GLTILNET stated the case. This was an action by the
plaintiff to recover from the defendants, Messrs. Ackrill and Berry,
printers, in Holland-street, Blackfriars-road, a compensation in
damages, for the publication of a libel on him in the shape of a
hand-bill. Shortly after the late election, a meeting of the free-
men 'of the city of Worcester took place at the White Hart public-
house in Chancery-lane, at which the plaintiff and the defendant,
Mr. Ackrill, were present. The plaintiff having claimed the
right to deliver his opinion on some question that was agitated in
tae eourse a the evening, it was objected that I.a. was an intruder,
and had no right to speak, as he was not a freeman. A show of
hands decided in his favour, and shortly after the hand-bill in
question was printed and circulated by the defendants. It pur-
ported to be " Pry's interview with the Electors of the City of
W—r—s—r, or a new song to an old tune ;" which, after intro-
ducing some remarks respecting the election, with " I hope I
don't intrude," concluded with a song, in which was the following
stanza, which it was alleged alluded to the plaintiff :
Huzza, Gents., buzza! shout away for the clerk,
Whose actions and libels are known ;
Some few years ago, it was said of this shark,
The boys hung many miles from home.
The Learned Counsel concluded by expressing his confident
hope that the Jury would, by their verdict, give the plaintiff such
a compensation in damages as would effectually repress the mis-
chievous activity of the defendants from such proceedings in future.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICI2 observed, that if the Jury were of
opinion that the placard had been published by the defendants,
they were then to decide whether it was a libel or not.—\ erdiet
for the defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—FEU. 21.
LEVY V. ZiII.NES AND ANOTHER.
Mr. Cntrrr opened the pleadings. The declaration Mated
that this Was an action brought by the plaintiff against the de-
fendants, for a libel contained in a periodical of which they were
the printers. The libel was represented in a picture as well as
words.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN addressed the Jury for the plaintiff.
The plaintiff was a Sheriff's officer, and, in his profession, a very
respectable man, residing in Oxford-street, and, in the course of
his duty, executed, or rather attempted an execution against a
person, who had for some time evaded his search ; he at length,
however, received information that this person was up stairs
in his own house. He accordingly went there, and inquired for
him, and, on being told he was not at home, proceeded up stairs,
hut was unsuccessful in finding him. In consequence of his
thus having gone into the house, an action of trespass was
brought against him by that person; in which 1001. damages
were given against him. A short time after this the poetry com-
plained of was produced, which appeared to have received
its birth in some garret in Grub-street, and was published in
a periodical publication, called The Spirit of the Times The
publication in question was embellished with a frontispiece, and a
pretty sort of one it was ; in-heed, it seemed to account for the
eagerness with which his Learned Fi iend had hurried on the
trial of this cause (it was now late in the evening) when it was
:ihnost dark. This frontispiece was, indeed, sufficient to shock
any person, and appeared to be grossly indecent. At the first
glance it conveyed the idea of two persons about to murder a
third, who was represented as in bed ; and unfortunately in one
of these two was discovered a formidable likeness of his client;
fur though it appeared in the shape of a caricature, yet it was
well known that very excellent likenesses were frequently contained
in prints of that description ; and so it was in the present, for no
one who knew the plaintiff could look at that print and not im-
mediately recognise it as a representation of him, although
he was drawn in such a figure as no mortal before had ever
seen. He was represented in the act of pulling off the clothes
of a bed, in which was a lady, or what was perhaps intended as
the figure of a lady; but in his (Mr. Sergeant Vaughan's)
opinion it was much more like his brother Wilde.—(Laughter.)
—The plaintiff and his assistant appeared to be engaged
like two assassins ; but were their " intents wicked or
charitable," he would leave the jury to say. They were re-
presented pulling the clothes below, and the lady above.—(A
iatigb.)—Beneath this print was written—" L—y, the Bum,"
which was without doubt intended to apply to his client. Now,
ts this latter word might be attached two different interpretations ;
hut he would not in this instance take what he believed to be the
general one, but would apply it to the situation in life which the
plaintiff filled—who was, as he had stated, a sheriff's officer, or as
they were generally called, " a bum bailiff." As he had before
stated, the portrait could not be mistaken, and at the back was
published a description of the plate, in which he was held up as a
man misconducting himself in a gross manner in a lady's bed-
room. The consequences of this publication were calculated to
prove extremely injurious to him and distressing to his feelings,
es he would now be invariably met at the comets of the street
with the salutation of " There goes Levy the Bum." Ho would
now come to the poetical part of the publication, of which the
plaintiff might well say, " that some enemy had done this." It
was dated the Ist of July, 1826, and was headed, " The Spirit
of the Times, or Essence of the Periodicals, concentrating every
week all that is worthy (strictly regarding the times) of being
preserved from the whole of our newspapers, magazines, &e." It
then commenced as follows--
L---Y, THE BUM.
" ' Come, follower, come,'
" Says L—y,•the Bum,
We've rather a shy bird to nab to-day.'
s' So their shandry dan,
" Mounted master and man,
" And o'er Oxford-street stones rolled away."
Now the plaintiff resided in Oxford-street ; his domicile was
situated there, so that there could be no doubt that the words were
meant to apply to him. But the poetry continued—
" Is the master at home ?'
" Says L—y, the Bum.
" No master lives here—mine's the house you sec.'
" Nay, Ma'am, that's a hum,'
" Says L—y the Bum,
• " So upstairs he march'd right merrily.
" The chamber-door
" Was locked, but no more
" Cared L—y the Burn, for Lock and Key.,
" Than wine-bibbers for the cork .
" They can draw with a fork,
So smash went the door, and in walked be.
Was this a libel, or was it not ? Could-any thing be mere se
to an officer filling his situation ? But to proceed—
" Then beneath the bed-clothes
" A bead sunk and rose,
" And then came a squall and a pitiful souk,
" '-Fee, fo, fum,'
" Says L—y the Bum,
" ' I smell the blood of the man I seek.'"
What could be more offensive to the feelings of an officer than
this, in which he was represented as having broken into the room
of a lady ? But the next atanza was still worse, as he is described
as pulling off the clothes from a bed in which was a lady. Now,
this must be particularly injurious to his client, who, in his capa-
city, was remarkable for the softness of his approaches to the
ladies, and was never known to behave in any manner at all in-
decorously. This stanza was as follows :
" Then off they pull'd neat,
" Quilt, blanket, and sheet;
" But instead of the bird they would seize in the nest,
" They saw, with surprise,
" A white neck and black eyes,
" Ripe lips, rosy cheeks, and a heaving breast.
" Not Moses, the cunning—
This lie supposed alluded to Moses in the Vicar of Wakefield.
" Not Moses, the cunning, •
" When he found they'd been funning
" Hint off with green spectacles not worth a toy ;
" Not poor Doctor Caius,
" Who could blister or slay us,
" When he found he had married a lubberly boy,'
" Were struck half as dumb
" As L..—y, the Bum,
" When he found himself balk'd of his destin'd prey,
" And no dog of true mettle,
" Tied to a tin kettle,
" E'er bolted so swiftly and madly away."
Now, this really appeared to him (Mr. Sergeant Vaughan) as
one of the most injurious parts of the publication. Here was •
his client compared to a dog ; and to a dog, too, represented in
of all situations the most humiliating in which he could be placed
—a situation which was calculated to excite pity in the minds of
the whole world. He had said that the figure represented in the
bed was exceedingly like his Learned Friend; but he felt.convinced
that the next verse must positively allude to him. It read thus
" But the worst job of all,
" Was at Westminster-hall ;
" Counsel's speech, Judge's charge, Jury's verdict—a sum
" Most dismally lost,
" For damage and cost ;
" And thus ends the story of L—y, the Bum."
and the description The scene being laid in Westminster-hall,

.
-of Conasers Beech could allude to no , other than his Learned
Friend. At this late hour he would not detaiO the Jury by making
any comments on this publication, of the malicious tendenCy of
which no one could doubt, consequently it must be considered a
libel, and being such, he trusted the Jury would give some small
damages to the plaintiff for the injury it was calculated to do him.
During the delivery of this speech, the Court was .in a conti •
nued roar of laughter.
Mr. Sergeant Winne addressed the Jury for the defendants.—
His Learned Friend had stated that the likeness in the plate was so
much the resemblance of the plaintiff, that it could not be mis-
taken, and that it could refer to no one else. Ile had also said,
that he should have taken the lady who was represented in bed for
him (Mr. Sergeant W.) Now this was certainly very unfortunate,
as, aecoraing to Ilia Learned Friend's account, he allould nut be
to walk through Oxford-street without becoming the object of some
unpleasant remark ; because, of course, if that argument could relate
to the plaintiff, it would to him. But he (Mr. Sergeant Wilde)
really did not observe that there was any thing that could be called
offensive in this likeness to a sheriff's officer.- The plate repre-
sented two figures, who were pulling the clothes from off a bed.
At the bottom were the words " L—y, the Bum ;" and the reader
was referred to the other side for a description of the plate. The
print contained two figures ; but which was meant to apply to the
plaintiff did not in any way appear. The Learned Scrjeant would
venture to say, that any sheriff's officer, even supposing him to
have the most delicate feelings possible, could not find any thing
in this pamphlet which could at all reflect on him or his cha-
racter. He admitted, that if it had been stated that the plaintiff
had pulled the clothes off a bed, which bed contained a woman,
he would have been entitled to recover a farthing damages. As it
was, he submitted it was no libel at all ; and again, there appeared
to him to be an objection ; the plaintiff complained that he had
been described in the plate as pulling the clothes off a woman who
was lying in bed, whereas, it was obvious to those who had eyes,
that the woman was represented as sitting in the bed.—(A laugh.)
He again repeated, that he was of opinion that the pamphlet con-
tained nothing that could be called a libel, and he trusted the jury
would think the same, in which case they should give a verdict for
his client.

While the Learned Sergeant was making his defence, Mr.
Hutchinson, who was engaged with him, employed himself in
comparing the record with the pamphlet, and ho discovered se-
veral material errors. After some discussion, the LORD CHIEF
JUSTICE decided, that the two first counts of the declaration must
be thrown aside relating to the poetical part of the alleged libel-
ous publication. Therefore, the only remaining question would
be, as to the nature of the annexed frontispiece.
The LOAD CHIEF Jesricz, in charging the jury, observed,
that they must now confine themselves to the picture, which he
had no hesitation in was a libel, inasmuch as the plaintiff
was represented in a ridiculous light. Ridicule, in some in-
stances, was good, where it confined itself to attacks on absurdity
alone ; but when a man was held up to public ridicule it was a
libel, and in many instances might be the means of doing much
injury to the individual, and of rendering wretched a whole fa-
mily. His Lordship concluded by saying, that this picture ap-
peared to him to be a libel on the plaintiff, who was therefore
entitled to recover damages, to what amount it would be for the
jury to say.
The Jury consulted a short time, when the Foreman inquired
of his Lordship what sum would carry costs. His Lordship re-
plied, that any sum would carry casts. The Jury continued to
deliberate a short time, and then returned a verdict for the de-
fendants, expressing it as their opinion that the pamphlet did not
contain any libel on the plaintiff.

His Lonnstur expressed much surprise, and inquired if they
were unanimous. They replied, they were perfectly so. His
Lordship then said he would take their,verdict, observing that they
had done no kind act for the plaintiff, and he was sorry they had
so tampered with their consciences.
While leaving the Court, his Lordship remarked to Mr. Ser-
geant Wilde that Sheriff's officers did not appear to be popular in
Westminster.

After the trial of this cause, end
.after his Lordship had left
the Court, a Reporter for a Morning Paper obtained from the de-
fendant's attorney one of the pamphlets, in which the alleged
libel was contained, and was proceeding to copy it, when the
plaintiff 's attorney, Mr. Charles Lewis, came to him and insisted
on his immediately giving it to him. The Reporter replied that
he .had received it from the defendant's attorney, to whom he con-
sidered himself bound to return it, and who had given him his
address for that purpose. Mr. Lewis, however, said that the
pamphlet was his, and persisted in his demand of its being given
up. This was of course refused, when Mr. Lewis snatched up
the note-book belonging to the Reporter, and which contained the
notes he bad taken of the trial; and surrounded by a party of
other Jews, fell upon him and wrested the pamphlet out of his
hands by main strength, not thinking proper however to return
the notes which they had taken.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, FEB. 21.

LIBEL.-PRICE v. CH,P3IAII.

Mr. WaLrox, in the absence of Mr. Starkie, who was along
with him, opened the pleadings, and stated the case.—This was
an action brought by Mr. Price, a barrster, to recover compensa-
tion in damages for the injury which he had sustained in his re-
putation, in consequence of a false and scandalous libel having
been published respecting him, in a weekly newspaper, called
The Sunday Times, of which the defendant was proprietor and
publisher. The learned counsel then read the libel as follows,
from a number of The Sunday Times, of March 12, under the
head of " Odds and Ends."

" Mr. Price, the barrister, was charged at Bow-street, on
Friday last, with indecent behaviour towards two females in Mai-
den-lane. He was discharged with a hint at the vagrant act, and
a caution."

The learned counsel commented on the enormity of this libel,
and called on the jury to make ample reparation to the plaintiff,
for such a wanton attack on his character.
LeartrinredßFarieundf,Ah3el
answer to this action ; if he thought so, he ought to have de-
baddressedserved
, te
stated Jury
that
rnurred, but having neglected to do so, this was not the stage for
such an objection. If Mr. Price had suffered in his reputation
from the publication complained of, he (Mr. Brougham) was sorry
for it ; but the defendant was not to blame if be gave a fair ac-
count of what took place. If, on the contrary, it was an exagge-
rated or perverted account, ,he would admit that the plaintiff was
entitled to a verdict. He could not, however, pass over in silence
that the publication took place in March—that this action was
not instituted until November—and that Mr. Price bad already
recovered ample damages from the proprietor of another paper, for
any injury whi,•!, rTutatlon !”;:;1.4. hp.re
The LORD Ciller BARON briefly summed up. That the pub- ,
licat..on in question, he observed, was a libel there could be no
doubt; but with this they had nothing to do,. on account of the
point on which issue was joined. 'The only point for their consi-
deration was, whether or not this was a fair account of what took
plain at a police office. His Lordship here commented on the evi-
dence, and on the publication, and told the Jury, that if they be-
lieved it a fair report, they should give their verdict fur the de-
fendants.

The Jury retired for half au hour, and brought in a verdict for
the plaintiff—Damages, Is.

SALE OF HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUKE

OF YORK'S PROPERTY.

The first day's sale of the late Duke of York's property, by
order of his executors, yesterday took place at Mr. Christie's
Rams, King-street, St. James's-square. The articles submitted
to auction consisted of exceedingly fine Saxon damask linen, of
beautiful and rich patterns; also a quantity of Irish and Scotch
damask, of very fine quality and exquisite patterns. The whole
of the property contained in the catalogue, which will occupy
until Saturday in selling, Mr. Christie assured the company was
eilidOi gahy 'l''ie
yards's a .1
e l
on "—g
. . . .8
98. d.O
the genuine property of his late Royal
g
Lots. .Ae selreeacltstaxheofnoldfoasinviasn: Itaotbslfre-oemlothth,
2. Ditto 8 16 0
5. Two dozen and a half of napkins 10 10 0
26. Three table-cloths, five wards 10ng... Q 0 9 6
27. Two dozen of large napkins l4 lii 0
30. A most beautiful Irish damask table-cloth, with the
royal arms and orders in the pattern, and cipher
at the corners (new), nine yards long 14 8 0
I. Two dozen and nine napkins, to correspond, with
the crest and enliar of the garter in the pattern 19 8 0
(These last two-' - -..-ere purchased by a Mr. Moor )
45. -Three large Dutch diaper cloths (new)
46. Two ditto (new) 9 0 0
The rooms were filled with genteel company, and a good deal of
opposition was manifested occasionally, to possess some of the
an excellent price, compared with its intrinsic value.
most valuable lots, and even linen .that had been much worn made

The landlady of ail inti, in a village in Gloucester-
shire, had mixed np some arsenic with lard, for the purpose of
poisoning rats, and placed the same in a pot,.which..she: put into
the cupboard. On Sunday morning last, haying„occasjon for
some lard to fry potatoes, she took the wrong pot, by which
means four men who partook of the repast were taken violently ill ;
medical aid being, however, promptly called in, their lives were
saved, but they remain in a very languid state.