Star.
London, England, 1802-07-14 00:00:00

ARRIVED.

Off Dover—Carnlina. Hayes, from St. Kitts; Sampfon,
Tibbetts, from bavann.M; Diana, —, front Baltimore ;
Trajina' Davis, from l'atrafs; Lady Afackworth, Erick;
Cslar, Fowler; and Caerwent Rob:rtfon, front JarrLiea.
. .

Off Portfmouth—Auguftus Uttar, Kirby, frets
At Ilriftol—Emerald, from kia,badoes ; 'rrufly,
Whit.'. from Tobago • and Hercules, —, from ditm.
In Yarmouth-Road,.—Charlotte, Eemwtt, tro:n limburv,ll.
At Liverpool—Occan, !froths:, from
New York.

or-
I 11

L4II/ Di TEL 1,./GZNCE.

CAFIZMARTIWN SUMMLA CIRCUIT.
—11....t1nt May, .%tif.litt. l'aermart:An.
3...•rn:,rot,tt It, Way, Atiull ;.1, at :l vcr(oidwct2
Ctrtlizanlihin:—Monday, Strt:MINS 6, at CAr.lit.tn.

COURT OF KlNG's BENCH. JI11.1" 12.
DELANEY, ESQ, T. JONES.
This was an action for a Libel, and is very im-
portant to the public, on various accounts, as ap-
peared from feveral parts of it, as they apply to
the conthia of individuals towards each other; the
right they have to make inquiries, &c. and parti-
cularly on account of the opinion deliverett by my
Lord Chiet Ju:licc.
Mr. Fats KIS r. opened the cafe on the part of the
plaintiff. The defendant was a Ilariorer, living in
D-k•_-fireet, St. James's-square. Mr. Delaney was
a Gentleman of fortune, a man of him our and of
liation, being the fon of a Gentleman of large pro-
perty in the WeR Indies, and altli an officer in the
North Lincoln Militia, and as inch, jealous of his
character, and hound to repel any attack that was
made upon it, or the honourable perfons with whom
he was conneaed would decline his future ac-
quaintance. He, therefore, complained ola Libel,
which the defendant Mr. Jones had publilhed, re-
fleaing upon that character. This Gentleman was
married to his prefent wife on the mth of Atigufl,
1799, from whom he had been Come time feparat•
cd, in en; f. of a difference which fublified
between them : they feparated upon terms that
wete perfealy honourable to Mr. Del..ney, for he
gave up to this Lady the whole of her fortune, re-
ferving to hirofell no advantage whatever. He
went to the Well Indies to fettle his affairs there
with his father, who was a planter. He camehome
and it was then the feparation took place. Some
time alter this, application, by means of Mrs. De-
laney, was made to the defendant, IVIr. Jones, who
had a painter of the name of Yarrel, to publish an
advertifenient,u hich was now complained of, intr.
port:og to he an inquiry, on the part of the wife,
concerning her hufband. He did not complain of
this as an inquiry on the part of the wife, merely
as fah, the had a right to make an inquiry. She
had even a right to counsel with others on affairs
that were interelling to her and her hufband ; but
neither her, nor her Agent, had any right to flan-
der the raintiff, under pretence of making an in-
quiry. This lady reprefented that her hufband
was married before, to a perfon who was living at
the time of his fecund marriage with her—for which
reprelentation there was not the leaft colour or
foundation. She, however, for what reafon was
ben known to herfelf, did make that reprefentation,
and expreffed a delve to effahlifh that fitet, and to
profccute her hufband for a felony—which bigamy
is now declared by law to be. In confequence of
which, the Defendant took upon himfelf, without
any knowledge of the fail, and with perfea know-
ledge of the tendency of the Advertifement—al.
though ignorance of it would be no excufe, to pub-
lifh this Libel in the Morning Poff, with a view of
procering Evidence of Mr. Delaney's former mar-
riage. 'The Advcrtifement was this :
« TEN GUINEAS REWARD.
" Whereas, by a letter lately received from the
Well Indies, an event is Rated to be announced by
a NewfPaper, that can only be invelligated by thelc
means :—This is to requeff, that if any Printer, or
any other Perfon, can affert, that J. Delaney, FRI.
of St. Kitt's, fince raiding at Cork, and bite Lieu-
tenant of the North Lincoln Militia, was married
previous to nine o'clock on the toth of Augufl,
1799, they will give notice to Mclfrs. Yarrell and
Jones, No. 14, Duke-Itreet, St. James'aquare."
Now, Mr. ERSKINE fait!, the Plaintiff was an
Officer, and a Man of Honour ; he was jullly jea-
lous of it ; and finding that this libel was likely to
have a great effect on the opinion of thole with
whom he was accultomed to live in happinef, lie
publiflied another, to do away the circa of this
publication, by offering hiniftif a reward of goof.
to any one that would prove it, &c. He might
have brought his Action agaiiilt the Printer and
Publither of this Paper, but for that he had no de-
Ere—for he difeovered that die Author, or the
perfon who brought the Advertifemeat to the Pa-
per, was the Defendant, Mr. Jones. The Plaintiff
was only dcfirous that the Defendant would put
an end to the calumny, by Rating how he came to
be employed to publilh it by the defile of Mrs.
Delaney, and by retry ling it, and wrote to the
Defendant a letter to that ace., upon which the
Pia:ntitideclared he would be fatisfied ; to which
Cie Defendant thought fit to return no anfwer, and
ft here the parties came to hale this matter, the
Defendant not fo much as admitting the Plaintiff's
marriage, but putting him to she trouble and ex-
pence of bringing a Witnefs all the way from Li-
verpool to prove that fad. It would be wafting
time before the Jury to enter farther into this bu.
tines. This was an imputa,tion of a crime to this
Gentleman, and the Defendant could have no ex.
cure for it ; he could not be jußified by Lying that
this was a publication which came from the anxi-
ety of Mrs. Delaney, and he did it to oblige her
—he might fay, perhaps, " I really did not know
any thing of the tendency of this Paragraph, al.
though it appears to be lo fingular as that of offer- '
ing a reward for difcovering whether a man had
been married or not before nine o'clock on the Loth
of Augulf t 799—this would be no anfwer to the
law in this Cafe, for every man was bound to
know what the tendency was of all his anions ;
and if it were otherwife, we fhould find that men
might be ruined by thole who pleaded ignorance
of what they did as an excufe for doing h."—
Having illuftrated this propofition by familiar in-
fiances, he obterved that the Plaintiff in this cafe,
did not reek large damages, but lie brought it for
the vindication of his character, to thew that there
was no foundation whatever for this calumny.
The marriage was then pi •-ved to have taken
place in the parifh of St. Nicholas, at Liverpool, on
the loth of Auguil 1799, between nine and ten in
the morning. It was between JamcsDclaney, Efq.
and Eiiz. Welton, widow.
Mr. Charles Foreman produced the Paper of
the Morning Poft of the rad of January 11302.-He
•. - e ......... ~ . ..,91ec.—..--c-uk.- lisgi. •
it

came from the bottle of Mr. Jones : he had Tome
dilliculty about infertin?, it, apprehending that the
tendency of it might bc ; he had a con-
ye, ion with the Defendant, Mr. Jones, upon the
lubjea, who aiked him why he did not int-en the
Advertifement ? The witnefs told him, he appre-
hended it might be deemed libellous. He
that he did not fee any realon it thcnild not be in-
ferted, particularly as the 'Morning Herald had in-
serted it—upon which thc witnels contented to in-
fen it. Mr. Jones was what was called a Newfman,
and as foci, frequently brought Advertifements
from pet lons whom he ferved with Newfpapers, to
lave them trouble, &c.
Mr. William Fletcher (hid, he was a friend of
the Plaintiff. He law the Advei ticement in the
paper, and he conceived it to allude to the Plain-
tiff from his knowledge of the Plaintiff and his
concerns before—he thought, when he faw this
Advertifement, that it imputed to the Plaintiff the
crime of Bigamy.
Lord ELLENBOROCCH laid, " there can be no
doubt that this Paragraph (hews an anxiety in the
mind of Mrs. Delaney to know whether the was a
legal wife or a conctibine, and that if this was a
bona fide proceeding in her behalf, it can be no libel."
Mr. ERSKINE fail, that if it was a falfe Para.
gral It, whatever might be the intention of the wife,
that would be no defence for this Defendant againft
this action, for that, whatever might be the purpofe
of the svil; the injury was the fame to the Plaintiff.
Lord ELLENROKOLIGH. I am quite of ano-
ther opinion.—The wife had a tight to learn whe-
ther the was legally married, or whether (he was
a mere flrumpct ?" and on fuels an occallon, he
Paid, he thould think that a great deal of allow-
ance ought to be made in the profecution of fuch
an inquiry, before a publication by way of Adver-
tifement thould be deemed a libel.

The witnefs then proceeded to fay, he did not
precifely know the date of Mr. Delaney's mar-
riage. He never heard of his being formally mar-
ried : he knew that Mr. and Mrs. Delaney were
then under articles of feparation. Thefe at titles
of fepanaion wire in the polleffion of the witnefs,
therefore he had means of particular information
upon this fubjeft.
Mr. Chellerman Paid, be faw the advertifement
in queltion in the newfpaper. He laid, he knew
Mr. Fletcher perfealy well. On reading the ad-
vertilement in the company of Mr. Fletcher, the
witnefs laid, " Here is a man advertifed and de-
ferihed who has married two wives ; why don't
they hang the rafcal i" This he mulct-flood to
apply to the cafe of the Plaintiff.
Mr. PARK addretfed the Jury on behalf of the
Defendant. He Itid, that when he came into
Court, he had really no idea that this cattle would
have been tried ; and he contended that it was one
of the cleareß cafes in favour of the Defendant,
that ever came before a Court of Jußice. Indeed,
he was not lure, in point of Ilrielnefs, whether he
ought not to afk my Lord to nonluit the Plaintiff,
but which he fhould not, fince his Lordfhip might
tell him, it fhould go to the Jury to fay," whether
the intention in this cafe was Inch as it was Rated
in the Declaration i" Now, Mr. Park laid, that
he, on the part of the Defendant, maintained this
' propofition, " That this Advertifement, of itfelf,
was not a Libel on any human being. That if it
I contained any libel whatever, that quality mull be
borrowed from the inuendos that were attached to
it by the Declaration.—He maintained alfo, that
if a Publication was of itfelf no Libel, it could
never be made a Libel by the inuendo put upon it
by a Plaintiff in his Declaration. That it was
not enough that one or two individuals thought it
imputed Bigamy to the Plaintiff. Thefe indivi-
duals might be induced to apply it to the cafe of
the Plaintiff, from their previous knowledge of his
eircumflances, but that meaning mull appear to
attach to it by the Jury, judging on the Cafe be•
fore them. Now, be contended, it was impoffible
that the Jury could put this meaning on this Ad-
vertilement. It imputed nothing to the Plaintiff
that was not eonfitlent with the moll pet fed inno-
cence. It inquired, whether any body knew of
1. his marriage before nine o'clock on the Loth of Au-
? Tilt 1799? How did this impute Bigamy to the
' Plaintiff ? Might it not happen that fomething
Mould depend upon the birth of a child before or
after that hour ? Might not a legacy be made to
depend upon that fad, as it fhould be afcertained
one way or the other ? In a wort: there were a
thouland points to which this Advertifement might
be made to apply, without need:46ly imputing
Bigamy or any other crime to the Plaintiff, the
confequcnce of which mull be, that the Defendant
fhould hay& a verdid. He really thought it un-
neceffary for him to call any Witneffes, for that
his Client was entitled to a Verdid upon the evi-
dence given on behalf of the Plaintiff ; but as he
was not entitled, in this Rage of the Cafe, to afic
the Jury what they thought of it, he fhould call a
Withers to flew that the Defendant carried this
Adveitiftment to the Office of this Newfpaper
by the &fire of Mrs. Delaney, who informed him
that fhe was advertifing this matter to afcertain
the fad which was lo interelling to her, and that
! the employed an agent of the name of A/mot for this
pm-pole. Upon all thefe grounds he maintained
that the Defendant would be entitled to a Verdict.

It then appeared, by the evidence of Mr.Almot,
that he was employed by Mrs. Delaney for the pur-
pofe of getting this Advertifement inferted in the
Newfpapers, and that he employed Mr. Jones, the
Defendant, to take it to the Office, and to pay for
its publication, but that the Defendant was not at
all informed by him of the objea of that adver.
tifement.

Mr. EASICINE contended in reply, that in this
cafe the defendant was anfwerable for this publi-
cation as a libel, upon all the rules which had hi.
thcrto governed the adminiftration of the law
upon that fubje&, and upon which prifons had
been filled from time to time, with offenders of that
clafs, &c. &c.
Lord ELLENIOROUGH—,g Gentlemen of the
Jury, this is an aaion for a libel, in which the
plaintiff, Mr. Delaney, complains, and calls for
damages againa a fiationer of the name of Jones ;
a flattener, or a vender of Newfrapers, as he has

which appeared in the Morning Poll of the 22d of
January lea, which is as follows—[Here his Lore.-
flip read the advertikment].—Now it is contended
on the part of the elaintiff, that this advertifement
'neceilluily applies to him, and you muit be of that
opinion hetore you can find a verdid for the plain.
tiff, and that from the information which you have
from the witneffes, as well as from what appears
upon the face of the advertifement Melt*. Before
you can fay that the plaintiff is entitled to your
verdict, you muff be fatisficd that this advertife-
ment imputes to him a crime in this cafe, the crime
of bigamy, that is, that he was married to another
, woman, who was living at the time this marriage
took place, on the loth of Augult 1;99. There
are different meanings given to this paper, but
unlefs you fee it imputes to the plaintiff; neceffa-
oily, the crime of bigamy, your verdid will be,
becaufe it ought to be, for the defendant ; but it
you think it was meant, and does mean, to infi-
nuate that fad to the prejudice of the plaintiff,
then it would be neceffary for you to lee, whether
any, and if any, what exude can be received for
him in point of law, for his having been intlru-
,
mental in this publication ? You have heard the
way in which the Learned Counfel for the defen-
dant draws inferences from it. He fags it does
not neceffarily imply bigamy in the plaintiff, but
that it is, and may be taken in many cafes to be,
confiffent with innocence in the plaintiff, and,
therefore, no libel upon him. That it might he
an important inquiry, with a view to afcertain the
legitimacy of a child, or that a legacy might have
depended upon that fact; and that many other
cafes might have happened in which the afcertain.
ment of that fad might become important. It
will be for you to fay, whether in the terms of this
advertifement, and under all the circumflances
which attended it, the publication neceffarily im-
putes bigamy to the plaintiff, and was publilhed
for the purpofe of fattening upon him that impu-
tation ; or whether it was publiffied in purfuit of
a lawful purpofe, namely, that of afcertaining
whether this lady was legally married or not ?
Now, upon this fubjcit, I than lay down the law
as it appears to me to have a bearing upon it.—
" If, in the courfe of a necelfary inquiry into any
fubjed, things appear, which publifhed by them-
fdves detachedly and without caufe, would be a
libel upon any individual who is the object of that
inquiry—if any thing Mould appear to trench on
the charader of the perfon principally interefted
in that inquiry, yet it (hall not be a libel, provided
it arifes out of filch inquiry; and if this comes
out, in this purfuit of neceffary information, it will
make no difference whether it be by wordsfpoken or
in writing, provided the inquiry be bona fide, and
innituted for a legitimate purpofe—in all fuch
purfuits panics (hall be proteded by the law. If
ire) to elk the character of a fervant, and in receiv-
mg that charader words occur which trench upon
that charader, I might a& either of you, whether
you think a perfon would he guilty of a libel who
fhould fay what he knew of that fervant, although
'that might communicate a fad which might de-
(troy the character of that fervant ? Suppofe he
had I ebbed you, or that he was guilty of a fraud,
and that you fay fo—or that you fhould fay that
which you believe to be confiltent with truth, and
upon further inquiry it fhould turn out that there
was fome millake in the cafe, but that you acted
bona
.fide, is it for the convenience of mankind ycu
fhould be deemed a flanderer ? This may apply
to the cafe of merchants in their dealings abroad as
wellias at home. If, therefore, this was an inquiry
fet on foot by a wife anxious to know whether the
was a legal wife, or was to be coafidered as a con-
cubine, I am of opinion that fuch wife, and all
agents employed by fuch wife for that purpole,
purfuing it bona Pe, arc proteded in that purfuit,
in point of law, but then is iacumbent on the
party to thew that he acted fairly in the purfuit of
that object. It is therefore neceffary that it appear
to you, Jones acted in furtherance of that object,
and that is a fubjcet on which you will ufe yourown
judgment upon the cafe, for all he knew you know
by the evidence which has been laid before you,
and the whole quellion is, Whether he meant to
purfite a fair inquiry, or infinuate a crime againft
the plaintiff? It will be for you to fay, whether the
inquiry propofed by this advertifement, was or
was not intended to be a legitimate inquiry ? If
you find it was, you will not fix a man with a libel
for purfuing it, merely becaufe it may turn out that
the fufpicion was ill founded. But fuppofe you
think this advertifement Itrong, you will then have
to fay, whether you think the defendant Jones has
the protedion of a perfon proceeding lona pe in a
necelfary inquiry ? Now, upon that, it is obferva-
ble' that Jones did not know Mr. Delaney. He did
not know that this seas an inquiry fet on foot to
Ii ttisfy the anxiety c•fa wife. He knew nothing of
her, but carried the advertifement to the office.—
And it appears, that Jones is cautioned by the
clerk, at the office of that morning paper, for the
clerk told him, the reafon why it was not inferted
was, that he thought it libellous ; and certainly
the advertifement is capable of a double meaning
at lealt. There is nothing of malice in the thing
itfelf, but if wrong, and libellous, the law will
imply malice fror • the aft, for whenever any thing
is done which the law forbids, the law implies
malice in the doing of it. You will therefore con•
fider whether it was meant to impute the crime of
bigamy ? if fit, you will find your verdid for the
plaintiff, and in that cafe you will confider what
circumltances there are in mitigation of damages.
If you think it was not intended to impute bigamy
to the plaintiff, in that cafe, the defendant will he
entitled to a verdict. If, I fay, you think it was
intended to impute bigamy to the plaintiff, and
that the objed was not a fair inquiry, you will, in
that cafe, find a verdid for the plaintiff, and will
alfo proportion the damages to the injury. But,
unlefs you think it is to be fairly concluded, by
any indifferent perfon reading the paper, that the
plaintiff was there accufed of bigamy, and that it
was equal to an affertion that the plaintiff, at nine
o'clock on the loth of Auguft, 1799, had a wite
living, when •he married this lady; and that this
advertifement was not publifhed for the purpofe
of enquiring whether the cafe was fo or not, the
'--• will be entitled to your verdid."—Vet-