The Sun.
London, England, 1811-06-28 00:00:00

THE 1.,1NC4 V. GIZOitC;II AtANNERS.

This & fend int :was brought up for judgment,' for
t • .
the libel in the &Jurist, against Air. Haiku. nu
persooally.addressed the Court in Mitigation of pu-
niShnieut. If the lib, I were to be considered by it.
self, nnconneeted with the general nature of the
'publication in which it aPpearedi, he should admit
that it would merit the severest punishment ; but he
disclaimer) all personal 'motives; and had' nut Mr.
Ilalleit'become the patron of Miss Taylor, and the
.abettor of one of the, toolest libellers that ever lived,
no condo .t of itis shoidd, have been noticed by the
defendant. I Lie did um urge Mr. Hallea'i ill con.
dot its . justificatiori of his o.vit t but the Court
woutd consider the qu corinto with which the libel
Cilit)ll ; and to form • A judgment of this, what
le had stated would be material.
Lord Lt. Le:,iutittouoit cautioned the defendant
ttelbre bawl .!Aetost enhancing the iocrems.
tag tie goAttiiy of slander' of which he had bc,en
found guilty.
The 14elendant WAS anxious to assure the Cotirt,'
that hisconnettion whit the peliodical, press of the
country was net fai great us htd been supposed,
He was etrtainly the, Editor of the. Satirist; bill at
the sarrie time ninnerous attliles appear, d in that
publication with Out his knowledge, His superin.
tendance of the'publicatiou was very limitedi and
he did not visit the Utike here it Haag printed above
two or three times in the month,lt had been proved
at his trial., that of the first libel, only the head,
Hale,' Humanity,'' ,wak, in the hand-writing of
the defendant .; and the lac; was, that the [Wide
u, as recteived by tlw poblisber, by the General Post.
Before he. publishe'd it, the delei,ditot used every eX-
AertOn to ascertain the milli of it ; Ito, dent to the
King's Bench, where lie found a worilan in the state
Which the libel described, Wit() assured him that every
word of it was true.

tor. TARK, fur the prosecutor, ,ohle6ed to this, it
not, being Sworn by ailidatt.
The defendant meant merely to sna!e, that though
his feelings' were interested for the suffering. feautlei
be was actuated by no malice towaids Haiku,
Thejlelendnut then wished to refer to An authority,
which"he observed Mr. H. ought to be the last (1130
to question ; but
The Court objected to his reading it, unless it
really tended to mitigate the defendant's put:ish.
ment. It was ill Vain for film to endeavour to shew
there was no malice in the publications , defamation
it sported. malice.; and be. admitted he published the
libels adiiiiedly and bleu ityptiry.
Titer dcltithiant theft confided himself to an At-
tempt to do away Ett idea, that t he latter part of his
libel n); lit be cooitrued into a ridicule of Mr. Hal.
lett for not hotaking the peace.

• Lard ELLttitsuli,..tiou—lf Riairl that Mr. Hallett
bad protnised to give bi 4 brothet.to.law sat %%faction ;
but had cowardly declined to.give him a ntecring;
where he would have 'received he summary chap.
Aise,Lent be merited. I k ' t ..!;oincnettd your. dia.
cretion in drawing our attentiun to that part of the
#

_ . .
, The defendant said the libels %Ire on Mr. Hal-
letes public conduct.
Lard ELLl.touuOttouGH—But shill that is part of
hies conduct and you tiave,no right to drag his pri.:
vats conduct to ilitistrate his poi,lfc.
P..rttc sopported the prosecution. 'be
defendant relied upon the jorticiotrueoltdda .01 his
Learned Counsel (Mr. Gstrow) •at the; tilal, he
should not have pres.ed this case. But now he felt
it his duty to oil' the attention of the Court to the
eircrunstaPco ilia the firit libel was published in
IVtly, 1809, and that it was not till the appearance
of thesecond, in*ptetnber,- tat°, that the prciat,-.
&lawn s instituted. It was true, that the &kn.
&tut did not v. rite the first libel, but le; adopted it )
and he eetiettly primed the second, from the corn-
potiition of which Mr. Park st'ould not gather that
iris wa, that man of education Mr. Garrow-described
hirn to be;. tot it,descendet 0...) downright rib,ddry,
calling the prosecutor a tl..g,..trunt her, and trumping
up a story about hie wantonly, ktiling a lady's.dog.
Mr. l'ark knew nothing about-she lady in the King's
Worth of whom the defendant talked.
Mr, Justice Gitosr, in pas Sing the sentence of
thu CoOrt,- told the defendant, that the law was
Open t 'Mr. lea's total ion, if she' was aggneved3
trid th it the defetulant,liad tio right to de.ll justice
nctweeft the parties. This Ming a private libel, the
Court 6cntenced hint tn. 3 months' imprisopitkni in
the Marsludsea; and to find security for 3 years after.
wards, himse!l in. 5001. and two sureties in2s a
cich,

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, luNt 27.

OPERA TICK h TS.

11RONTRACK V. TAYLOR,

INlr. Taylor, Of the Opera-i-fonse, in the year
)798, buriopied of the. plsiintiti t tle ;;um of 6001.
and a.ctpted !Ails tor the payn)ent, anti H a furite'et

LONDON

. .
• -
• •
itteiirity rtiif'the pifflutirt2;everal silver tickets of ad
mihsiou to the Opera, It was also covenarittd that
in:c.:se the products of these t-clters amounted In
more than the money borrowed with interest, :the
surplus should be paid to, Mr. T4y-tor. The present
anion was brought. by Mr. Hill, the 'real plaintiff,
fur cool. the amount of one of these bills. Mr.
Taylor pleaded first, nun esi betunt to the deed—
nem, that the bill had been paid----and lastly, that
this was an usurious trarisgtion, as the produce,of
the silver tickets w auiil ernoent to more thin firin=
cipal and legal interest.
Mr. Serjrant Sti!to cap,: for the elaintil3, stated,
that in 1795, Mr. Taylor wished .to raise the sum
Of 40,0001. wind) he at.tuthy did by small sums
Dom simple peopl. As to tot non est luau m, Ire
would prove the execution of the deed—And as to
the allegation, that the bill had been paid, many
would be obliged to Mr. Taylor if he could stars-
faetorily prove the payment of his bilk—and ttrith
regard to the ple-t:ot usury, it would be rather dit-
ficu4 to mal:e.that out, when the agreettleot was,
that the surplus produce, of the 'lckes should be
pail to Mr. TA). tor. The Learned Serjs:ant further
taxed, that Mr. Taylor had at the tune nd authority
issue those tickets, the, concern having been pre-
viouOy assigned to trustees, sg that the answer to
those who presented them prtibably was, " you may
walk back again."
The execution of the deed be'ng proved, the
rodterial piri's were read, from which it appeared.
that the tickets were to adinit to an the perform-
ances, except the Concert of Ancient Metee.—
UponeXaMillitig the record, it was bound that the
words there were " except the Gincert or Ancient

Mr. Serjeant Brts'r and Mr. RaAnett contended'
that this was a matetiat variation, and the Judge saki
he would save the point. '
Mr. Masterson, the Secretarr to the Opera-
House, was then called; the tickets, he sa,d, were
presented last season, to w hich alone he could
speak, and he applied to Mr.-Taylor. to know w
lie-
i! they were to be consideted as niw?---
Mc. Taylor answered,, that be 'must lo4)1c at his pi-
as he I)72lieved he bad paid a great part ot 'the
debt. In point of faa, he got no orders to register
these tickets, and without this they .glve no ad-.
mission.

Another witreis proved that hO'had gone to the
Opera4lotute with the tickets; but lard nut been ad.

Mr. Serjeant BEST confessed that he 'ettnid make
notl,ing'of the plea of usury, as the surplus produce
of the tickets was to be pa:4 to Mr.iTiylor. But
he would wove that ilwse tickets ILA given adnuis-
sibn for a sutlident length of tune to pay the debt.
Mr. Hill waS Geutleman Of exquisite taste, and
had plentifu)ly regaled his eyes And.' ears with
scenery and music ; so that he must account (tsr his
half guineas, and like.ci,e (Or the 'urns he received

'foul those A4lio had been edanitted under then
icke►s.

the JUDGE observed, tint though the plaintiff
Inuit account with Cite defendant for the produce
ti the ticket 4, yet the prout that persons bad been
admitted unda iltvin, would not support the pre-
Sent p!ear
Vetditt far the p 1 iota.