The Sun.
London, England, 1827-12-19 00:00:00

'LEAS•

LAwsol,". for vi
the Jury
e, Messrs', o
bankerS
•riie
.eat slur
es new sPoti:
ter, on 6°
111EG. soyir
duty to tb
codify; the
ct of the
given 'at dill jilif
aquiry
deSCriV9:Oll/
far as aaoei
ch you 'B4'itls,°
trooges
s 1
of
ands
ustice at:l6ll*(7f
this mo_
iousness.;oo
atir '3l

In an Y just sense of the word, a debtor to any man. For
. ~a24ecommodating acceptance, fraudulently obtained from
rieven years ago, at the instigation of Haythorne End
1., 'Wright, of the Bristol City Bank, who knew of the fraud
uy which it vas obtained, as. they took it from notorious
swindlers, and never gave any value to rue or to any one
mae on its account, I have been arrested, and likely to're-
n here for three months, cut off froM the means of pro-
curing any subsistence, the detaining creditors well know-
;' that I had no hope of !mir to pay them, and remain-
-Ing inexorable to all intreaties for my diicharg, from' no
other inducement than the difference of their religious *en-
lioinents from mine, and the pious wish to throw all possible
scouragement in the way of my-defence from the two m-
Ictinents for blasphemy, -and one for conspiracy, now
Pending offer me. I am, Sir, Your obedient servant,
ROBERT TAYLOR,
Kin '
gs Bench Prison, July 20. • -
Ile would ask the Jury if there Could be any thing
• bitudter than the charge here made against- the Plain-
tiff,?. A,/ _ ...
. rierni t. 1,-v right was of the persuasion usually de-
. rictealited
treigspoterctyitY.:thi Quakere., and therefore to him 'par-
itehe libel.' applied. To both - of those
intolerance
gentlernen„ however, were attributed
• geiroitiw them.
malignity, and , dishonesty, persecution, and
with all this merely because he differed in
under
bTat:mo.ithhat the The writer of the letter was
1 ° Prosecutions for blasphemy, and. he inti-
t sto Plaintiffs were instigated against_ him.
plaintiffs
him of making an available s!e-
-• 'we- T,ihis was imputing to thern.baseness of the
• blackest
Rues ueseription, and he was totally at a loss to
'', Vi- at what sort of defence the editor of the
a d"_/eg could set up. Surely, he rir;-Tht have taken
a37'6 time to consider or to inquire who the per-
sons ‘,.
b ert to whom he attributed intolerance, and
w--°°' he held out as taking a bill from a set of
swindler r
was „o tnato'or the purpose of persecution. There
• Press 1. tection for private character, when the
Jury was thus abused, except by an appeal to a
concfhis country. What was.. the inevitable
'on th sequence when such an attack was placed
the "e breakfast . table before. the friends of
he Patty accused ? They could.not know whether
againstwasg"iltY or innocent of the matter alleged
him• In former times the Press confined
irteseelf to attacks on public men, and it was only -of
eat date that it took its range into private circles
and out
ea, 4. raged Private - feeling. '. To check this syes:
The °' unjustifiable .slansier, there was no other ri
„, "Y but by an appeal to a Jury, and to the gent e-
`"en then impaimelled the plaintiff's confidently ap-
-Pne„,l,4;id, to shield their' characters from the slander
7ished against them by the defendant.
.‘‘, The publication was admitted
1,111? E
j, for the defendant.
• at : John James Wear is cashier to the City Bank
n Bristol. Messrs. h • llayt oin and Wright are the
or."'Prietors,. and mr. Wright is a Quaker. It is
4o"eapeetable a bank as any one. From ISIS,
itios
. named it issued no_ notes. Knew two persons
was e-
May, schoolmasters ; in 182,0 Mr. Tayloriad
an a tutor in that school, Messrs. -i'!y :,ile.
kZieCOlllit there. It. was a considerable
a.cpted by
Ceuihers receiving a bill from
That
etorimaYlor, amongst other bills. bill was duly
s;" to the account of Messrs. May.
, .i.ur te
cief•• ' .""ergeant WILDS
that his
t eklant -L., - -.4 he was quite sure .
.esrds.b.--• ' sAe'sak. that .
addressed the Jury for the
-IP would
lot ti
~do
of his client in permitting
justice • to acquit him. of
atk ,Iteat!cting the initeirmestti:se
and such as could
11t b_nnziation wholly irregular,. •
wa, la received if he bad objected ~to it. The fact
1* '7:lle felt assured, that the editor of the 4/..nes
‘ri°ll-' feel angry with him if he took any teehnial
°o').viienction, whicli might prevent. the plaintiffs from
nai'g the f llest explanation they could wish to
.0e
r'Ulie' Itu was not the fault of the editor
tha
,; t their explanation had not been given long
Plve to 1110 public, but they had not thought
Pl°Per to .condescend to offer an
, y. • Their - eh,,-
'ktet stood . too high to suffer from delay,
bad indeed stood so high that they might have for-
'tlie altogether and suffered nothing, when it was
"nsidered that the accusation came from a debtor
of their own, and that debtcr Mr. Taylor. They
had However thought proper to bring. their action,
• he
having thus far set himself right with' the Jury,'
,e would proceed to the matter at issue. With re-
i,Peet to what his Learned Friend had said of the
Cr
s teeming with libel, he should admit the justice
ifs
J., I charge, but at the same time he would ask the
CrY, it they ought not to draw a line of distinction
13ewen, Papers which gained their circulation by the
tblieation: of • libels against private characters, and
ti;e 'times, which most likely was to be found upon
te,e 'tasks of the counting•houses of each of the gen-
restnee (4 the Jury every morning,
liii:siti /(tiow had gained its extensive circulation not by
and; which they
useeiiing private character, but by. giving early and
ism ' information, and discussing and dilating upon
NA7l,rl,"atit subjects with talent and sound judgment.
Frier-I'espect to wounded feelings, which his Learned
ja th" had adverted to, he had just to remark, that
• we, e Present action there were two persons who
there Partneis in' a banking house, and although
twee was undoubtedly a community of interests be-
Ltilereetottherti, there could be , none of feeling, and,
- "ere -I,e, all the usual topics of" aggravation were
tend w,
-°IIY out of place. His Learned Friend eon-
es. th
and therefore that
the di°4 and without inquiry,
Pretni,4llagts ought to be greater. Admitting the
diff ~-,,e,.8, he (Mr. Sergeant Wilde) should draw a
hasett', inference and from the very fact of the
Mtauel viltit which the letter was published, he
"erscif; 'fl'agine that it was done without con-
it, it °n' for if the editor bad seen or read
so
far f IV°41(1 appeared at all, and „_ No „ not have .
tuou h it libel •aggravated by this fact,
$ t it being
~.
With res-
pect to went very far mitigation.
in • •he
come
L fr t,he,attack itself, he would ask who did it
whom t°ll- Was it not the railing of a debtor,
moral ellerimes had described as a man of bad
Phen) , Teter,. under two indictments for bias-
ebilePeelYtedaltilitav r°4 for conspiracy? Was it not to be
Plaintiffs 81Mt a man would say he was ill used, and
. rememberiais ,t"e cheats and swindlers ? They all
Prison an
the
story of the .inan who went to the
Were 'lnd having . asked .the prisoners what they
...., Innocent except very; "'fined for, ,they all described themselves as
t-I_l4_'ilit wretch, and Lone who said that he was a very
.w.es immediately told hi
deseTved his punishment. The
m to quit the prison, for he
li.,l‘e not fit company for suelran honest set of gentle-
ma",----(A laugh.) Who would earefor what libels a
so
elh' rnight utter who was in Could
the pillory ?
Rue -._ Ina" do one shilling's
nr,,',„,•unau',,id -and if not, so neither could-the ravings of
worth of damage to
other ;,. two iridi t nts for blasphemy
c me emy, tinder an-
an.nuietment.
found out that ti-t r.
insole deb for conspiracy, and who was besides
ent
was not until he When the editor of the Times
.., et 0..
ating that they
r,' had been committed, which
thorn and co., received R letter from Messrs. Hay-
action, he the,„ ,
rote to the plaintiffs'
that it
regret should bring an
stating his
part of it had bad been published; that if the latter
published, andel seen, it should never have been
Plaintiffs vvished;ts at
they would, in any way the
statement of Ta lend forth a contradiction to the
then,. ~,,_ Tay lend
if the means were furnished
editn, ~'hose means were not furnished; but the
of ?_iotwithstanding took
Publisbirin.
.. ,an early opportunity
acquitting the u
_ .statement, in the fullest manner
out b, I,_ , plaintiffs of all the imutations thrown
some,ac.i,eyior,
and
expressinghis .regret that by
the letterlaent ,whichh could not be accounted for,
I_ , , of Tayr,which was thrown as un-
aside
TruittlY of insertion, found i
,t was clear that the plaintiffs,ts way into the paper.-
4,.'„.e suffered any damage froth therefore, could not
cert'LLl, canna as Taylor, wh(:-0111 the statements of
lfor crimes wh. 1 under
was labouring
emit . , le 1 more than all others dis-
thorn tt him to credit. ice beli ed Hay
than di" Co. had injured the,ne: Messrs.
not , ,e libel had injured them nein ~, much more
mild em .ewesindeed he could
were, he Tetting that, arid merciful as they
they shouled% no doubt, in 'all their transactions,
offended still, when a man had unintentionally Taylor, as the such a tincture to the charge of no apology, tlist
eleeluns might infer from the fact that
could
induce
then) tregret, that no offer of reparation
lie did not mean t 0 forego the present prosecution.
Ptelent'aetion • °as ego
they did wrong to bring the
'tut alp • 1....• a
se who Were anciiiitu to be
..,:

•
' malicious might say_ that their acceptance of no
apology m this case was some confirmation of the
•
charge made by Taylor, that they were of a perse-
cuting spirit. The Learned Sergeant then con-
tended that no damage had been sustained, and
therefore they could not claim more than merely
noriaal dainages at the bands of the Jury.
Wm. Sharpe Hutchinson proved the letter to be
in the handwriting of Robert Taylor.
Mr. Chater, of. tlk Times Office, believed that
the letter was received at the Times Office ; did
not open it; could not be positive, as a great num-
ber were received every day.
Mr.. Harrison, printer to the Times, received the
letter and furnished the compositors with it.
Several letters, which had passed between the
plaintiffs and defendant's attorney were then put.
in. They stated on the part of the defendant the
greatest willingness' to make any apology, or wine
in any. proper mode for the inadvertent injury sus-
tained by the plaintiffs. ,This, however, was not
satisfactory.
Mr. Sergeant TADDY contended the defence was a
considerable aggravation of the original injury. He
had said that the Times had a great circulation, and
was to be found in all the counting-houses in Lon-
don ; so much the greater then was the injury in-
flicted, and so much the more difficult for the plain-
tiffs to get rid of the effects of it.l He (Mr. Sergeant
T.) then argued the " mechanical inadvertence" stated
in the apology was impossible, •as the libel was in,
the hands of the compositor almost directly it was
received. Mr. Sergeant. Wilde had contended that
the plaintiffs could not recover damages, because
they bad sued conjointly. Were they to suppose
then that two men had no feeling, because they
were in partnership together ? If such were
the Lase, a man might go into any - bank-
ing-house, and tell all the inmates that they
were a gang of robbers, and no redress could be oh-
tamped. , The editor had stated Lin his apology that
no credit could be given to any statement of Taylor;
so much greater then was his carelessness, as he
was answerable. for, and ought to enquire into, every,
article which is to appear in his paper. He conclu-
ded by contending that no plea of mechanical inad-
vertence ought to excuse him.
Mr. Justice GAZELEE, in his charge, remarked,
that the plaintiffs could not recover for ally indi-
vidual feeling, but as they had sued conjointly, for
such injury alone as they might have received in'
trade by the 'libel. Nothing could have been more'
proper than the defendant's letter of the' 17th of
October, which offered to apologise.
One of the.Juryrnen wished to ask the witness
Harrison whether he received the letter sing o
ly, r
with other copy.--He replied, that be received it
%with other copy, which had been selected for publi‘
cation. It might have got into that copy by mis-
take, of which mistake lie related another instance
which occurred yesterday.
The Jury retired at half-past twelve, and at ten
minutes to three returned a- verdict for the plain-
tiffs, Damages 40S.