The Sun.
London, England, 1827-02-20 00:00:00

RAIKES V. RICHARDS.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a merchant, re-
siding in the city of London, against the defendant, who is
printer .and publisher of the Age newspaper, for some alleged
libels inserted in that newspaper, reflecting on the character of the
plaintiff.
Mr. ScA RLErr stated the case for the plaintiff. The Learned
Gentleman commenced by expressing his regret that the con-
ductors of any journal should resort to the practices which bad
obtained for the journal in question such notoriety. His client
bad to complain, that for a length of zilae he had been libelled
and abused in a manner which drove him at last for protector
into that Court. It would not, the Learned Gentleman said, be ad-
mitted as an excuse on the part of the defendant, that these attacks
taken singly were mere trifles, and not such as to injure any man.
Nothing could be more fallacious than an assertion of that sort,
for the Jury must be well aware that the constant dripping of
water made in the end an impression as deep, as if one violent
rush had taken place. A man might perhaps have the
forbearance to overlook one or two attacks of the nature
complained of he might bear to see kis name stuck up
as •an object of ridicule once or twice, but if that oc-
curred week after week, if a man is to be held up to ri-
dicule, can it be wondered that be should come into this Court
and seek relief at the hands of a Jury. When we see no-
tices posted up that Dicky Glengall, Hughes Ball, and Tommy
Raikes, are to be showed in the next Age, can it he supposed
otherwise than as a deliberate intention to do all in the
power of the conductors of that Journal to exhibit individuals
in a ludicrous and contempttible point of view. The learned
gentle Man teat free to admit that it perhaps would be beneath the
notice of a sensible man to take notice of any remarks respecting
the peculiarity of his person or countenance ; but if these remarks
proceeded to such a length as to wake bins the subject of
laughter and observation at every tea-table, can he fee
otherwise than uneasy, whilst smarting under the
consciousness that he is 6w:A and joked about. The libels which
were the subject of the presaat action were four ; one was con-
tained in an article headed " Obituary," and stated, among other
things, Mr. Raikes had lost a great deal of money in a spe-
culation in tallow during the Russian war. It went on to
say, that Mr. Raikes had late in life got into good society
and that previously to his death, which was gravely annouueed in
the libellous paragraph, he was ashamed to carry about his claugh-
tors, lest their appearance might betray his age. Another of the
libels was contained in the critique on the first performance of
" Woodstock," at one of the theatres. After saying that the play
in question had deservedly gone` to the place from whence it came,
it stated that the only thing worthy of remark was the conduct of
a " pert sit," who had poked his face, which was the ugliest in
the kingdom, into the Duke of 'York's box ; and, whilst Mrs.
Chatterly was reciting the prologue, threw on- the stage the frag-
ments of a play-bill. This conduct on the part of the plaintiff
was, in the opinion of the writer in 7'he Age, calculated to excite
the indignation of any journalist; and he expressed his earnest
hope that his Royal Highness, when made acquainted with the
ill-behaviour of the plaintiff, would take measures to exalude him
for the future from his box. The plaintiff was also declared to
have been unfit for the high. society which he thus outraged, and
which his birth did not entitle him to move in. The Learned
Gentleman read the other two libels, one of which styled Mr.
Raikes the most uncommon monkey of the age. The other libel
attributed to the plaintiff a predilection for the farce of " The
Liar," and was intended to impute to that gentleman habits which
would entitle him to the name of the entertainment in question.
The Learned Gentleman, after remarking at some length on the
irritating nature of these attacks, expressed his hope that the Jury,
which he had then the honour of addressing, would not declare,
as their predecessors had done, that it was not libellous to tall a
man a liar, It wag, perhaps, a matter of regret that the defendant
(Richards) was the only person to he got at in the present instance,
for ne was the mere stalking-horse of others, who were the authors
of these libels. Here, then, was a body of men behind the curt-
tain, who were associated fur the purpose of vilifying
and abusing every gentleman who was obnoxious to them,
the law as regarded libels of this nature, the learned gentlemen
thought required alteration ; an injured man had now no means
of ascertaining the real authors of them, for if he filed a bill of
discovery isCa Court of Equity for that purpose, the defendant
,would have had it iri his power to demur to it. The Learned
Counsel then proceeded to call Mr. Joseph Tims, who produced
the affidavit and the hand-writing from the. Stamp Office. The
affidavit set forth, that the defendant was the sole proprietor and
publisher of the Age.
Mr. Mallison, from the same office, produced the copiee of the
Age, which contained the alleged libels. 4
A Gentleman was- then tailed for the purpose of proving that
he was in the frequent habit of walking up and down Bond-street,
and that he saw placards; posted up, announcing, that inthe Age
newspaper, would be found some articles relative to. Mr. Raikes.
Mr. BROUGIIiM, for the defendant, objected to this evidence.
Mr. Solos-LETT—What does my Learned Friend mean to say
that lie defends this action?
Mr. BROUGHAM—Indeed I do. .
Mr. ScsaLETT—Surely my Learned Friend ought to have in-
timated the fact to me. The last case was undefended, and my
Learned Friend was then in Court, and made not a single remark.
Mr. BUOUGHAAL-I had no brief in the last case, and until the
h fhe Learned
from the
defendant,
could n
not newspaper
be given
,en whichin
v
Gentleman stated, that the posting up of the placards could not
proper
ea timeary forfor s n
me e t o
to takesays an-ypatrhtin in this, not.) of:
itcourse think
ro n
affect his client. Any thing done by a third party, with a copy
of a
a ipnus purchased cthhe as edd e
fefnr
[The examination continued—The witness saw placards exhi-
bited, detailing the nature of the articles that were to appear ou
eidheence hadag
the following Sunday.
Mr. Buovianaas again objected to the reception of this evi-
dence. .

-Mr. SCARLETT contended that it was for the Jury to say
whether this information could be procured otherwise than from
the defendant. It was admissible as evidentia rei.
Bitouctuor, in reply, argued that if the Court sanctioned
the doctrine contended for by his Learned Friend, it would have
the effect of opening the widest door to evidence of an improper
nature. The fact of the placards containing the name of Mr.
Raikes was merely a proof that the newsvender intended to puff
off the paper, by exciting the curiosity of the public.
The LORD CHIEV JUSTICE was of o:nnion that there was as yet
no evidence to connect the defendant with the placards.
Mr. BROUGHAM then addressed the Jury for the defendant.
He said that his Learned Friend (Mr. Scarlett),' felt some mis-
givings when he adverted to the trifling character.of the libels,
which were now the subject of prosecution, and he, (Mr. R.),
(lid not wonder at his Learned Friend's feelings. It was quite
absurd to say, that Mr. Raike's character was likely to suffer, or

his feelings to be rudely torn by those nonsensical paragsaiste.
The topics on which his Learned Friend usually insisted in wan
of libel were, that they affected the fair fame, blighted the
reputation, and wounded the feelings of the party, against
whom they were directed. But in the present case .no
such topics were applicable. Whether Mr. Raikes was
a little more or less ill-favoured in his countenance or person,
.could
be of very littlecorisequenee. It had nothing to do with his cha-
racter, nothing to do with his reputation, nothing to do with his
happiness, and very little to do with his feelings. The charges
contained in those libel.% if libels they could be called, were frivo-
lous and trumpery charges, and were frittered down to nothing by
his Learned Friend's own admission. His Learned Friend ad-
mitted, iu substance, that no person in a dignified situation
would think it worth his while to bring' an action for
such trifling charges. A man whci was well known or filled
a public situation, would depend upon his own respecta-
bility, without considering what others thought or said of his
person. 'This his learned friend acknowledged, but then be said
that- hen a person filled no public situation, but was only known
in private life,'and amongst those circles in which he moved, it
was not pleasant to have his person a subject of conversation or
ridicule in the little coteries in which he moved, or at the dinner
parties which he frequented. This was the. ground taken up by
his learned friend, and what could be more curious ? Mr. Raikes'
person must be known in the coteries in which hi moved. Those
persons. could not be ignorant of that gentleman's person, when
they had the advantage of viewing it, which the jury had -not.
His learned friend's position was, that the libels now prosecuted,
were to make-the plaintiff's persori a subject of ridicule in thi.
circles in which he moved. Yet was it possible that the indivi- ,
duals who composed those circles, were not able to judge whether
Mr. Raikes was well or ill-favoured in his person, until they sent
next Sunday for the Newspaper. Then, and not till then, ac-
cording to his learned friend, they would see whether Mr. Raikes
was an Adonis, or whether they should laugh at him, or treat him
as a very handsome man. If Mr. Raikes was not a very hand-
s some man, it was not the newspaper was in fault ; it was nature
was in fault : and if Mr. Raikes was a very handsome man,
nothing could be more harmless than the paragraph in the News-
paper. His learned friend said the libel must apply to Mr. Raikes.
He (Mr. B.) did not know that it did apply to Mr. R., but if it
did, it must have its foundation in nature ; and if it had not
its foundation in nature, there was nothing in it. Mr.
Raikes had only to show himself, and there was an end of the
squibs.—He had heard of ladies being offended at any imputation
upon their personal loveliness—such observations might mar.s.
woman's prospects; hut it was really too absurd for a gentleman
of Mr. Raikes' age, who had two daughters old enough to be
brought out in the world, to trouble himself with such ridiculous
! squibs. Of all the cases of libel he had ever heard this was-by
far the slightest, and. the one which tended the lealt.- to
affect a man's fair fame, his reputation, or his happiness._
But, then, his Learned Friend said that the Editor of this News-
' paper was not contented with ridiculing his client, but he had
actually placed him in the obituary, and killed hint whilst living. •
But this was a misfortune which others besides clients were iti4.
ject to.—(A laugh.)--Lawyers, as well as laymen, had been kill-
ed before their time ; and it really was very annoying,' for,
the first .intimation the person thus dispatched had of
his death was, if in Parliament, to find, that his letters
had been stopped at the Post-office, and next day to see a
long paragraph containing his life and character, in a news-
paper. The advantage of this practice was, that the person. thus
prematurely killed, heard all that good of himself during his life •
time, which under other circumstances would have been kept for
his executors and administrators.---(Continued laughter.) On
this ground, therefore, Mr. Raikes had little reason to complain,
as he was no worse off, lie would say, than his bettere,but certainly
than his fairers. Well, then there was another chargs, Mr. Raikes
was termed a cockney. Mr. Raikes, it heemed,,was& respectable
merchant, and lie was called a cockney. Well,- what was a
cockney ? ,By a• cockney was meant a person who hadheen born
within the sound of Bow bells, or was connected with the City
of London. Now, what imputation was this on any man? Is
assuredly could not be considered a matter of disgrace--At least,
he hoped not ; fin. he (Mr. Brougham) was himself subject to an
imputation,' being a member of the Corporation of that great and
wealthy metropolis—a connection which he always looked to as
conferring very' great honour on him. He•knevi many respectable
gentlemen having business in the City, and living in the West End
of the town who treated the imputation sought to be it'd on Mr.
Raikee in the highest contempt. Yet such was the charge upon
which Mr. Raikes thought it necessary to have a Special Jury int-
pannel:ed in Westminster—he could not go a little to the East
when he knew that to be called a citizen would be accounted an
honour, but lie came to Westminster to persuade a Special Jury
to find a verdict for a libel. Another charge was, that
it was said Mr. Raikes was not fit for genteel so-
ciety. Really a man. of Mr. Raikes' age should not thinit
himself hurt by such an observation, for what was tq
be unfit for genteel society in the opinion of all others but those
regular idiots, who have the phrase for ever in their mouths? to
he unfit for genteel society in the minds of rational men, was to
be regular, punctual, industrious, and above fashionable vices.
Every man, he repeated, hut vulgar fools,- thought a matt the
better for being frugal, honest, and industrious,- and this it was
be unfit for genteel society. -Now there remained another
libel to which his Learned, Friend thought proper to .
a ,number of characters—domestic characters, were placed oppo.
site to gentlemen's names—and that appended to Mr. Raike's
name, was " the Liar." Opposite, a noble friend of his, Lord
Nugent, was " the Minor." Now; hit noble friend Lord Nugent,
he knew was two or three end •thirty, if he was a day, so that the
name of the " minor" could not apply to him, any more than that
of " the liar" to Mr. Raikes, and he could only account for their
names being appended to those characters, by supposing•
that his, Noble Fricnd Lord, Nugent patronised the farce of the
Minor at some private Theatre, and Mr. Raikes patronised the
farce of the Liar. This he protested was the only way he bad of
accounting for the ci:cumstances. He, therefore, called upon the
Jury to look at the matter as men of sense, and not to inflict heavy
damages on a poor man, whole condition was pretty well din"' -
strated by his allowing another case to goundeiended. His Learned
Friend said that by pleading the general issue, the falsehood of time •
libels had admitted, but how could a special pleader have justified
the libels if they were true. It would be too ridiculous to set forth
in the declaration, that Mr. Raikes was a very ugly man. Un-
der all the circumstances, he thought the Jury would best con-
sult their duty, by returning a verdict of not guilty.
The Learned Judge, in summing up, observed that wh&teter
others might think of it, in his view calling a man a liar was tss
greatest imputation which could be thrown on his moral character.
After a few minutes' consultation the Jury returned a
of guilty.—Damages 40s.