Star.
London, England, 1830-09-30 00:00:00

IMPORTANT TRIAL AT THE CAPE OF GOOD HOPE.

Dr. Philip, the able and enthusiastic advocate of the Hottentots, at
the Ca was, on hie return to that Colony, after the publication of his
in South Africa, prosecuted for one of the statements con-
tained in it, reflecting on the conduct of William Macdonald Mackay,
Esq. a Magistrate. The cause came on in the Supreme Court, in the
Sittings after Term, on the 16th of July last, and judgment was pro-
wanted the following day. These is a long report of the trial, ex-
tending through several :numbers of the South African Canasereial
Advertiser :

"JOLT 17.•-ii•CIICAT Peuz.to.—This day (Friday) their Lord-
ships met for the purpose of giving judgment in the above case..
"At half-past five the Court gave a unanimous judgment in favour
of the plalntif; with Two ifun-• Pounds Damages, and Costs."
The following extract keen the opinion of Mr. Justice Kakewklt win
show the feeling of the Court
If the paragraphs in the book entitled 'pwavzolaes in South Africa,'
as set forth In the declaration, and en which Me piiewit action is &landed,
by the utmost ingenuity of reasoning, could be interpreted so as to carry
to the mind an impreisias that the author did net mean to traduce the
character of the plaintiC but merely to point out the nature of the laws
to which the Hottentots were subject in the year 1825, it is possible
that he might be brought to concur in the Learned Advocate's position;
but, where it is impossible to mistake the individual, so distinctly pointed
out and alluded to, and where the writing does not east a genera! lama.
anon against the laws, but charges that individual in his official capdty,
(not obliquely and ambiguously, but directly,) with specific acts of
cruelty, oppression, and corruption, and holds him out to the world as a
'character debated by acts of moral turpitude, without a tittle of proof, the
words will not bear a double interpretation, and he could not but con-
sider the case as one of a flagrant and atrocious nature. He could not
for a moment suppose that the Superintendent of the Missions of the
London missionary Society, that a man of his high calling could de-
signedly, and with premeditation, publish and circulate a slanderous
libel against any human being ; but it appeared to him that the Rev.
defendant, in his enthusiastic zeal to espouse the cause and redress the
wrongs of what he conceived to be an injured and oppressed race of
people, has (through the misguidance of a friend, no less zealous and
enthusiastic than himself) defamed and traduced the character of the
plaintiff, for which injury the plaintiff is clearly entitled to demand
satisfaction, by an appeal to the laws of his country."
" The Learned Judge then concluded as follows:
"' Let me here when to a discrepancy which appears in the state-
ment made in the Preface of the Researches in South Africa,' and an
affidavit which has been filed by the author of that work, the defendant
in the present action. In page 12 of that Preface it is stated that—
" 'ln laying before the public the oppressions of the native tribe, to
obtain for them the protection of the British Government, for reasons
which roust be satisfactory to the friends of the different missionary so-
cieties in this country, and to their worthy agents in Africa, I have
found it necessary to confine the proofs of my allegations to facts and
documents in my own possession, and to what has come under my own
observation.'

" And yet, in the defendant's affidavit of 17th December last,he swears
that the statement contained in the book, particularly described in the
declaration, and complained of by the plaintiff; was communicated to
him (the defendant) by Thomas Pringle, Esq. That the defendant, at
the time he made this affidavit, was not acquainted with the names of
the Hottentots meant or alluded to in the said statement. I have only
to remark, that both these statements cannot be correct, and that Courts
do occasionally meet with persons who, unintentionally I am du.
ritably disposed to believe, can write one thing and swear another;
but I have no hesitation in saying that, unless the defendant
were ready to substantiate his charges at the time he published the al.
leged libel, he ought to have aeted with more prudence and caution than
he appears to have done, or at least with less indiscretion, and not have
made them at all. No doubt he confidently supposed his witnesses
would be able to fortify and confirm his case ; but, unfortunately for the
defendant, it broke down in the course of their examination, and he
must take the legal responsibility that may tallow (let it be what it may)
upon himself, in having published against the plaintiff charges as libel-
lous as can well be imagined. 1 need not wade through the evidence to
point out the.falschood of the passages sestovib and alleged to be libel-
lous in the declaration, because, offer the cogent observations that have
already been made on every part of that evidence, it must be obvious
to the meanest .understanding that the attempt to sustain the plea has
proved abortive, and has been sttended with as complete a failure of
justification, or legal excuse, as ever was exhibited in a Court of Justice.
'6 I am, therefore, of opinion, that throughout the mass of evi.
deuce that has been adduced by the defendant in this case, there is
a total absence of. any proofs-of cruelty, oppression, or corruption,
having been exercised by the plaintiff, as unjustly charged against
him In the paragraphs in question; and that the defendant having
failed to sustain his plea of justification, in which he offers to ye.
rify the libellous allegations, the charges !naught against the plain.
tiff contain slander. and falsehood, the two essential parts necessary
to constitute a libel, in which case the law implies an enistur
juriendi, and infos an evil intent ; and, without entering any fur-
ther into the =riot of the ease, I conceive that the defendants plea
has not been sustained ; that the several paragraphs, as set forth in
the declaration, must be pronounced a defamatory and malicious
libel ; and, tonsequently, that the plaintiff in this action is entitled
to a judgment in his favour, with damages, to such an amount as
the Court, in its discretion, shalt think tit to award, with costs.*
The costs are, we suppose, very large, for Mn, Justice Mentes ob.
served—" There cannot be two opinions on the propriety and justice of
the judgment—that damages should be given to the plaintiff, with
costs. Tbe amount of dumages will not be a subject of much discussion.
The principle Must be that such damages be giveias shall mark the sense
which the Court entertainrot the injurious nature of the libel, sod of the
want of any motive which could justify or excuse the the defendant
in publishing it, and as shall make ample reparation foe the in-
jury sustained by the plaintiff; and the anxiety of mind which
be must base laboured under, since the publication of the

ilesearches.' If it be true, the the defendant is not the au•
t/ or, but merely published the statement at the tupiest of a friend,
the damages will not fall heavily apt .0 hint. The friend who
misled him will aisuredly take care to remunerate him for the
loss he has sustained. The mutt of this trial will, I trust be a
warning to those who labour for the improvement of the con-
dition of any oppressed race of men, to be cautious in what they write,
and to ground their statements only on the basis of truth. If they fail
to do this, they will injure tha cause which they are anxious to sup-
port. The result of this trial must tend to shake the weight that any
statement in the Restarettes might otherwise have had, seeing it bas
been proved that the author inserted statements ou such evidence as he
acted es in this case; and if Mr. Pringle be really the author of the
libel against the plaintiff, and be the autbm or publisher of works of a
similar nature to the Researches, the result of this trial must shake the
credit of any statements he may make, when it is seen that the paw-
graph written by him, against the character of the plaintiff, is utterly
without foundation in every particular and respect iu which, if true, it
would have been injurious to the plaintiff's reputation. On Owe
grounds chiefly I concur in the judgment of the Chief Justice.
also concur la his observation as to the propriety of having the coats
taxed, in such a manner as to show the way in which the large bill or
casts in this case has been incurred; in order that what has been ucca
shined by the vexatious and improper pruceediogs of the defendant may
rot be attributed to the fault of the system at prssent is force in this
Colony."