Star.
London, England, 1802-06-11 00:00:00

INTILLIGINCL

COURT 019CINC'S BENCH, ItiNE to.
sisss.••••IeCLELLAN V lIILD.
Mt. Osseo* !fated the cafe for the Plaintiff:
be oblerved, that a libel more mi.lignant in its mo.
fives, or aggravated iu itscircumilances, perhaps
:lever cant littire a Jury for their reptchenfion :
the Plaintif hatl long been employed as furgeon
in tht tt •yal 'Sas y ; lie was, at the time the libel
pnblithed, infpeetor of feamen, to report
alto were :old who were tint in a fit fiate of health
to he .eceived into his Majelly's Navy, and has
been.tcr mans. )(tars, ilationed at Plymouth Dock.
The '....cienkinnt was a man of huge fortune there,
:old a on.mitli.iner tor the Management of the
Ore. in Work•houtes, and, from malicious
rio.t:s, thought proper tOpublint the l bcl. which
-..(• ;he cubing of the prelim aaion, fendit.g it
Ihppe r fan anonymous letter to Mr. Pitt,
t time :,fter his retignatinn. This letter,
a:med at the ruin, perhaps at the life, of
the PI tint iff, by im pu ing to him the crime of High
rte:/s, was to thin effect
" TO THS RIONT MOM. WILLIAM PITT.
" Plymouth-MA.
v Hotmoralsle air The purport of eds letter is to warn the
(4,rerentmut againll Mr. M•Clellin, a &in:lerouset.nny to his
K!r: end country, a great men in fuwicg the I; ids of Mien-
tiim aril Sed,tion in his Makfty's Navy. As Surgeon, he makes
it his:ill:iris to ak gni:Riots of all the (cameo he .whit.. about
their 4.9.:nr., and Oster-vv. to t!,cm, that Coq arc a great body
of nun mid, re pclfsilid of the means a making thenifelves
r.rriii &Ate whenever thy ebeo:e, and a.: having the fame Nita-
li:v as in Frarer ; that for his pan h- wither' Bonaparte would
lend in ibis co..otry. Sir, he is a very artful and cunning, as
!if..friet.e. Iron, mut many folkwers. Many
C ~.ticanen in Plyntuath hooky tMt, but are afraid a Mtn. As
rr4n. royfelf bound by my duty to make
t:46 I. now it ; :,t.t .4.4! no: brow who to difdr.fc it to, till I thought',
o: son, a tin .1 riirna to your King and cannery; the difcloting
o: it relieves try mimi from a rcry heavy burden." " N. B.
in writer har no rcrfonal aeslu Moaner with Mr. M. and sets
oak from a fence of rtiblic (h.q. The man, who, receiving
h:s daily hreail from taint-manta, alts in this manner, is the
m it of Trartors."

p Rr wl4 he
him, :1 f. y tfhh It' it
jh
e burroass* his
is laft
. h ocould
make fa lira-.•y a^ acritittion without foundation,
was the , Nlr. Pitt, immediately
on the rec. Ipt of t;:i. I:t ter (midi great propriety),
feet it to tic Adroit alt y ; the Admiralty, as was
their ditty, in iiitut ed an inquiry. the reit& of which
was highly honourable to his client. lithe Defen-
eantcould pretend to fupport the truth of his alfer-
ti.ms, he might have pleaded ajrAfearioa ; but, coa-
-1 ions of the falftliood, as well as the atrocity of his
charge, he pleads that he is not guilty; and refs
hit defence folely, on his endeavour to prove that
he was not the writer of that letter : whether he
was, or nut, was the quellion the Jury had to de-
cide. The evidence which the Plaintiff hae to iiro.
dime, was colleaed in the following manner : The
Admiralty, when fatisfied of the Plaintiff's inno-
cence, and the atrocity of this charge, handed him
over the letter, in or ;,,:r that he-might endeavour
tl find out this atrocious libeller, and bring him
to juitice ; the Plaintiff, partly furpeaing the quar-
ter it came from, ffiewed the letter to feveral per-
fons well acquainted with Mr. Field's hand writ-.
- ing ; they declared, without liefitation, that it was
his writing; force of them who were tenants to
Mr. Field, produced receipts in his writing, agree-
ing perfealy in charaaers with this letter.
-The Learned Counfel here obferved, that he
hardly ever knew a wicked cafe that was not accom-
panied with aid& and lordlier which defrayed
it, or with a einuriag which over-reached itfelf ;
among the number of witneffes he was to produce
was one, whom Mr. Field vifited very lately, and
requited to keep her hulband from attending as
an evidence agsinft him, but above all things, not
to let any of his receipts be Rims. Whether a
folicitude of this kind belonged to innocence, the
Jury would judge; from all the eircumftances
which Thould appear in evidence, they would give
their verdia ; the only point that remained to fpeak
on, was the quadmis of damages, in cafe they
lhould beFeee that thelibellousletterwaswritten by
the Defendant. On this point he mutt obferve
that the D:fendant was an opulent man, and that
the charaaer of the libel was filch, that had it pro-
dam, on the mindof Mr. Pitt, and the Admiralty,
the impreffion which the writer, in his malignity,
intended, the prefent Plaintiff would have been
ignominionfly turned from his fitnation and his
livelihood, and left tolarve in infamy and difgrace,
if even the evidence againft him Ihould not be fuf-
ficient to bring him to that filament death the
crimes imputed deferred.
Mr. Maul proved that the Plaintiff had been a
fu eon in the navy for thirty years.
Mr. Reynolds, of the Admiralty, proved the
letter, as the letter received from Mr. Pitt, and de-
livered by the Admiralty to the Plaintiff.
A letter from Mr. Pitt (who is .now indifpofed
at Lis feat cf Walmer Caftle), dated June 4, 31104,
was then received (by admiffion of Counfel on both
fides) as evidence : it Rated, that he perfealy re-
eoliated receiving an anonymous letter foon after
he quitted office, which in ftibilance was the fame
as above; that he got it among his poit letters;
he trarlinitted the letter, as he confidered he was
in duty bound to do, to Mr. Nepean, of the Ad-
-11;v,

!.1:17llaff, now gunner of the Spartiate,
ill I r 17., he was clerk of the work-houfe
; that the Defeneant was, at that
,!•atk,..:e.r, and afterwards a commiffioner;
i.e i J, item t 767 to 1790, alnaolt daily op-
f:cititr the Detendant write ; was
Icq.;;;iiited with his hand-writing ; that
ittn remarked a peculiarity in his
; ulld an o in:lead of an a. This
,iiiarity v:.,s to be. lecn in this letter, in which
tht Upon the whole,
tn. tit,: ing,lndt doplit of the letter having
to:r valt:cit by the Defendant.
Oa his crofs,tsanitnivion he declared, that the
Plu:n; 41 was ten utter to him, at the time
c fretted him this le:t.:r ; but that being Aced
iting he t.t.l it to bc, he anfwered im-
rnctl;atchi, Mr. Field',: he denied that he had
Ev: difiniffed from- his fituation as Governor of
Plymouth Woik-houle; he had reigned it. He
Lad bad dillfgreements with Capt. Field, who was
CommilTioner ; it was becaufe be had charged
v die accouut of Capt. Livid fume &hilts which

the lattei Contended ought net to be fo &Arch
but that at the fame time, in fuch a cafe as the
prefent, he thouNl come fnrwatd as readily in fup-
port of Mr. Reid (had he been fo attacked) as he
did now for the prefent
J. Ellis' a Taylor, formerly of Brian!, now of
Plymouth, was next called. He faid the letter was
of the hand-writing of the Defendant; he often raw
him write,and was in the habit of frequently feting
his writing down to the prefent period.
William Keno was by trade a waterman ; had
feen the defendant write feveral times, and had
received feveral notes from him about paying
workmen ; has no doubt but that the letter is the
defendant's hand writing; had not the flightell
maion, when the plaintiff RA Chewed him the
letter, that his evidence would have been called
for to-day: he told the plaintiff at once it was
defendant's hand writing.
Mrs. Kttto, wife to the lall winters, alfo (wore
that the believed the letter to be the hand writing
of the defendant the was obliged to examine the
defendant's land wriiing, as the frequently paid
money to workmen on his order. Her hufband was
a tenant to the defendant ; they had been always
on the belt terms; the defendant paid her a vifit
very lately, and laid he undt:rtlood her huthand
was going up from Plymouth to London, as a
witncfs againtt him, and requefted her to dilfuade
him ; adding, many of tie P.:;lP!..ri nr;!ncp
not come tad; I will mai& t.rear for pajrhy. He
then alked, had they thews: the plaintiff any of
his receipts ? the anfwercd, that her hufband had
done fo rbouski:fif; ; then, lays the defendant, be
lure you do hot produce arly of t:sofe receipts.—
This was :he cafe on the part of the plaintiff.
Mr. /Antal, on the part of the defendant,
would not pectend to jnility, in any manner, the
libel which was the ruble& of confideration at pre-.
fent ; he mull allow, that nothing could be more
atrocious, or more malignant ; is was calculated
to deflroy the plaintiffs charaact and reputation,
to deprive him of his means of livelihood, and
even to endanger his life, it the libeller could pre-
vail on the proper tribunals to believe his foul and
abominable calumnies; but the more fcaudalous
and abominable the anion was, the more fhould
the Jury bellow their attention to the evidence,
befqre they could pronounces man,in a rapectable
tituation of life, and of refpeaable charader,l
guilty of fo bare and infamous a crime.
The witnefies who had been produced on the
part of the plain, iff (although they had all of
them fern the defendant write), yet Rated that
their knowledge of his handwriting had been ac-
quired a great number of years ago ; it was then
poffible they might be miftaken; and yet. on their
frail judgment and opinion, no lets a Rake depen-
ded, than the honour and fortune of the defen-
dant, his three tons, who had ferved with honour
as Lieutenants sn the Royal Navy, and his daugh-
ter, the wife of Captain Somerville, who had to
gallantly dißinguithed himfelf this war : he nutted
that the improbability of the defendant's having
committed this anion would be more than con-
firmed, when .the Jury thould hear the witneffes
for the defendant.

James Wall, who had been a Lieutenant in the
Navy, and intimately acquainted with the defen-
dant about twenty years agn, (wore that he was
acquainted with the defendant's hand writing,
and did not bdlieve the letter in quellion to be his
hand writing. In his croft;-examination, he Paid,
be had not ken the defendant's writing fusee the
year e 781. He taw him making up the accounts
of a chip that was 1011. He admitted that the de-
fendant was in the habit of making his a's very
much like o's. He came forward as evidence, from
having accidentally met the defendant in the
fireetlaft Friday. He raid WClellan was Itnown
pretty well in Plymouth, by In the courfe
of his evidence, he (wore fo many profane oaths,
that Lord Ellenborough, after different warnings,
was obliged to tell him he fhould commit him to
Newgate, if he dared again to infult that Court by.
fuch indecent conduß. He pertiiled in laying
that the letter was no more like the defendant's
hand than it was like his own.

Mrs. Sharpe, perfumer, Ludgate-hill, fwore
that the letter in quellion was not the defendant's
hand writing, or at all refiltiblistx is. She had re-
ceived orders from him, and would not have ailed
upon this.
Mr. Gotrip, a German, a mathematical infiru-
ment-maker, (wore the fame thing; but allowed
that the little g's were fomewhat like the defen-
dant's.

William Field, the defendant's fon, faid he was
a Lieutenant in the Royal Navy, and in the con-
Rant habit of correfponding with his father. He
allowed that the letter was like his father's hand.
Still it did not follow that it was his, as one day
lately, at his agent's, he had Peen a letter with the
fuperfcriptiou fo like his, that he was going to
open it as coming from his father, though it had
a different fignature. From what he knew ahis
father, and had beard him fay, he did not believe
the letter had been wrote by him. The inGde was
very like his, and, if he had teen it lying on the
table, he fhould have taken it for his. He would
have alted upon it. His father gad not received
fo good an education as he had been able to give
his ions, and did not fpell very correelly. There
had been lonic differences between M'Clellan and
his father about the management of the poor-
horde.

John Morris was then called to prove, that the
firte wieners, Langft4lF, had been dirmiffcd from
his office, of Governor of Plymouth Workhoufe,
for enifcondudt; but all his knowledge arofe from
hearfay.
The defendant's Coned having replied at fome
length—
Lot d ELLENSOROUGH obferved, that if the plain-
tiff had been guilty of the prodlices imputed to
him no man could be more heinoufly criminal.—
He was charged with having abufed the truft con-
fided in him to poifon the minds of the feamen,
and, at a time of great anxiety and danger, of
having leagued with the enemies of his country.
The letter was a libel of enormous malignity, and
the grand queftion for the Jury to try was, whe-
ther the defendant was the writer of it? The Jury
certainly ought to be more than ufuaUy fcruptdous

eanklering evidesee or kind &there
evitnefres were produced who fwore that they had
feen the aft committed, and the proof here relied
folely on limilarity of hand writing. Howeveri,
there was no doubt that this might be fofficici t
both in law and in reafon. The Jury would thzi.-
fore fay, whether, upon the whole evidence, tl e
charge had been eitablilhed? If tae Jury were of tl, a
opinion, the only remaining queflion was thc am ,e;t:t
of the damages. The property of the plairailf had
been proved to be great,and, whether it was or nbz,
they were chiefly to confider the magnitude of the
injury the plaintiff had fuflained. He was at any
rate entitled to an adequate compenfation. He
enjoyed a refpelahle fituation as furgeon to the
hofpital, from which he would have been ignomi-
nioudy difrniffed, had the libel produced t1..1 de
shred effea. The objea of the writer evidently was
to confign him to poverty and infamy. If a man
had aftually betrayed hir coun•ry at its uttnolt
peril, what fate could have been too fevere for
him? Had this communication been well founded,
though anonymous, it would have been laudable.
But the writer fhould have been fo fur.+•.of the
truth of what he alerted as to be able, when called
upon, to eflablith it to the fatisfadion of a Jury.
He might have reafons to jullify him for with-
drawing from public notice for a time ; but
fliould at all times have been ready to thew that
he had proceeded with caution ; that his motives
were pure; and that his only objea was the public
good. The Jury, after retiring for a fcw minutes.
brought in a verdia for the plaintiff—Damages 5 Dol.