Star.
London, England, 1824-04-22 00:00:00

GIBBON IN CARLTON AND OTHERS.

This was an action against John William Carlton, as
the printer, Henry Staniforth, as the publisher, and
Jonathan Duncan, as the proprietor of The British
Press, for a libel. The plaintiff was surviving owner of
the ship Minerva, which, in 1822, took out passengers
to Van Dieman's Land. On the 6th of August, 1823,
the article in question appeared in The British Press.
It purported to be an extr.fct of a letter from a person in
Van Dieman's Land, who had gonctiout in the Minerva,
and contained grievous complaints of circumstances
which were " a stigma on the character of the Captain
and the owners," but which the author professed to bring
forward" not from any motives of malice, but merely,that
by their publicity others might be deterred from acting
a similar part." The writer asserted " that the Minerva
was ill found in every comfort of life, considering the
length of the voyage ; that the stock of fresh meat was
exceedingly insufficient for the passengers ; that great
inconvenience was sustained by the Captain touching at
no port after St. Jago, which touching at Rio Janeiro,
or the Cape of Good Hope, would have prevented; that
the steward behaved extremely ill to the passengers, espe-
cially the ladies; that one young man, in an ill state of
health, was maltreated by the passengers, in the presence
of the Captain, and that water was poured on him when
he complained ; and that the Chief Mate, named Reid,
who was most competent to his duty, was dismissed."
The article, which did not name either the Captain or
the Owner, contained also many details respecting the
Colony, which had no relation to the matter of charge.
—The defendant, Carlton, pleaded merely the general
issue ; the other defendants, in addition to that plea, also
pleaded that the matters in the alleged libel were true.
Mr. SCARLET? stated the case on behalf of the plain.
tiff, expressing his confidence that the defendants, who
had justified, would be quite unable to establish their
pleas, and arguing that, by asserting the truth of the
libel, they had deprived themselves of that excuse which
they might otherwise have relied on—that they inad-
vertently inserted it in their journal.
The defendants were proved to be connected with The
British Press, as printer, publisher, and proprietor, by
the affidavit filed in the Stamp-office. The Captain of
the vessel, named Bell, was then called, who stated that
the ship had had proper store of provisions on board ;
that no complaint Was made by any of the passengers,
except one of the name of Brown, whom the Captain
had refused to allow to take out machinery, which
would have subjected the ship to forfeiture—that it
would have been expensive to touch at Rio Janeiro, and
also dangerous, on account of the unsettled state of the
country ; a.ld that it was not usual to call at the Cape
of Good Hope at that season—that he never heard the
steward use improper language to the passengers, nor
ever saw any act of cruelty committed. It was sug-
gested, in his cross-examination by Mr. Baotrott A m, that
an application had been made on the part of the defend.
ant to postpone the trial on account of the absence of
witnesses, and that the Judges before whom it was heard
refused to do so unless the plaintiff would consent,which
he declined; and, from the answer, this appeared to be
probably the case.
Mr. Thomas Motley, tide-surveyor of the Customs at
Plymouth, proved that he examined the ship, and found
iher laden with sufficient .salt provisions and water, and
that he received no complaints from the passengers.
Mr. Samuel ‘Vyatt Garrett, who supplied the provi-
sions, gave evidence to a similar effect.
Ml.l3nouctiam addressed the Jury for the defend-
ants. He complained that the plaintiff had, by his re-
fusal to consent to a postponement of the trial, deprived
them of the opportunity of proving the truth of the
charges, or bringing that which was the essence of the
cause fairly to issue. Here the Captain, who was far
more implicated in the accusations than the plaintiffs,
was really the only witness, although it appeared there
were two sailors who might have been called to con
firm him, and he had given his evidence in the most
cautious and general terms. The complaint was, not
that there was an insufficient quantity of salt provisions
on board, but too stnall a proportion of fresh meat, and,
therefore, it was not met by the es ideuce of ti:e two re-

cctable witnesses from Plymouth. Was it not mani-
fest, that by calling at St. Jago, which was not above
three weeks' voyage from home, the necessity of
touching at a port in the middle of the voyage was not
superseded.; and the omission to do so was a great
evil, of which the passengers had a right to complain?
If the Jury looked at the whole article, they would see
that it was destitute of anything like malice ; it was just
general enough to avoid wounding the feelings of any
individual, and specitic enough to allow opportunity tor
inquiry into its truth ; and was obviously written bona
Ale, to warn others disposed to emigrate, from ex osing
themselves to those- evils which the author had suffered.
If a man felt that he ought to make known an evil, as
an error in a chart, for example, by which nieii's lives
might be put in jeopardy, he could not he: torsi the duty
which he owed to otheis without having his witne-ws
ready for six years to establish the facts, and it die
party whom he accused had the power to bi his case
to trial in the absence of those witnesses, nu man could
venture to disclose the results of his own exi c ithice tor
die benefit of bthers.

The Lotto Chtice JUSTICE said, that before any man
published a libel on another, it behoved him to know •
that he had his evidence ready to prove its troth. In
his judgment the plaintiff was not boon l to consent to
a postponement of the trial, until the defendants had
procured some one or more witnesses from any part of
the world, whom they could not specify ; nor were
Judges justified in postponing trials, unless there was a
fair rea-,on to expect the. art ival of a witness whom the
defendant wished to examine.

'Flee Jury consulted for a few minutes, after which the
Furemaa said they found for the plaintiff, damages 1501.
lie was stopped by a Juror behind, who said they were
not agreed, and the consultation was resumed. He
turned soon again to give the verdict, and was a second
time corrected by the Jury as premature, on which there
was laughter. In a few minutes, however, he
announced that they had really agreed, and delivered
the same verdict as he had mentioned at hest—for the
plaintiff, damages 1501.