Star.
London, England, 1820-12-06 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

~.-

COURT OF CHANCERY, DECEMBER S.
This being the first Seal after Michaelmas Term,
the LORD CHANCELLOR came into Court at an early
hour. SEROISSON R. BERGMAN.
Mr. HART addressed his Lurdshlp at considerable
length, stating various objections to the verdict given
in this case, which was sent by his Lordship to be
tried in the Court of King's Bench, to ascertain the
legitimacy of one of the parties. The Learned
Counsel wished the case to be reviewed by his Lord•
ship, and the verdict set aside.
The LORD CHANCELLOR considered it was an un-
usual application, but he would see the CHIEF Jus-
TICE to-morrow, when everything should be done
calculated to promote the ends of justice.
The Court was excessively crowded, particularly
With Ladies.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DECEMBER S.
CLEARY V. COBBETT.
This was an action
.brought by the plaintiff, Mr.
Cleary, to recover from the defendant, Mr. Cobbett,
a compensation in damages for a gross and malicious
libel, inserted by him...in several Numbers of The
Potilical Register, imputing to the plaintiff, that a
certain letter, read by him on the hustings at the
Westminster Election, purporting to be. a letter ad-
dressed by the defendant to Mr. J. Wright, and con-
taining certain strong reflections on Mr. Hunt, who
was described in it under the appellation of " the
Bristol man—a fellow riding about with another
man's wife, &c." was a forgery.
. The damages were laid at Three Thousand Pounds.
. The first witness called was,
Mr. J. Wright, who proved that the letter in quest
tion was written by Mr. Cebbett to him, and that he
delivered it to Mr. Brooks, with a desire that it should
be handed over to Mr. Cleary, for the purpose of its
being read on the hustings, in July, 1818.
Cross-examined by Mr. Cobbett.—The letter was
written to witness by Mr. Cobbett in 1808, and he
handed it over to what was called the Rump Corn:
mittee, at Mr. Brooks's, in the Strand. Witness be-
lieved the whole of the letter was read; he did not
deiire that' any part of it should be kept back ; he
never refused to permit the defendant's sons to see
the letter, for the purpose of ascertaining whether it
was their father's hand-writing. The letter was not
a private one.
Mr. Place was at the hustings on the 3d of July,
1818. Mr. Cleary was present and read the letter.
Cross-examined by Mr. Cobbett.—l read the let-
ter to Mr. Cleary, and gave directions that the whole
of the letter should be read. The publication called
a forgery, in The. Register, contained only part of
the. letter. Witness was desirous the whole should
be read; and did not tell Mr. Cleary to leave out
any part of it.
W. Adams heard the letter read at the Committee,
and afterwards by Mr. Cleary at the hustings. Wit-
ite,s recollected the terms of the letter, and had no
doubt it was the same letter.
Cross-examined.—Witness was one of the Rump
Committee, and advised the letter should be read, n
account of the attacks made by Mr. Hunt on Sir F.
Burdett; and to shew that Mr. Cobbett's sentiments
were changed. Witness advised the whole to be
read, and believed it was 41 read ; is not certain
whether the name of the person to whom the letter
was written was mentioned; don't know who handed
it over to the public Papers; won't swear be did not
see what appeared in the public Pape' s next day ;
nor can he say if the whole letter was published, nor
.Whether he had ever seen it all published. Witness
considered this as a public letter, at least intended
for the Committee ; don't know that it was intended
it should go to the world, but he believed it was in-
tended that the Committee-should act on it with the
Public, and was written far the purpose of guarding
them against Mr. Hunt. Witness- did not consider
the part containing private information, was intended
for publication ; but thought the part, that which re-
lated to the House of Commons and to Mr. Hunt,
was at least that which detendant had no objection to
being published, as be had frequently published such
sentiments himself. Did not consider whether de-
fendant would object to have published in 1818 that
which he wrote in 1803.. Had not seen the letter
published in the New Yolk Evening Post, and could
net say if the letter they called a forgery was the
same as was read at the hustings; don t know whe-
ther sending the letter to the Newspapers was the act
of an individual, or of the Rump Committee. It
did not strike the witness, that it was necessary to
publish this letter previous to 1818. It was then
published in consequence_ of the opinions promul-
gated by Mr. Hunt respecting Sir Francis Burdett.
Has never seen any other private letter of the defend-
ant's. Don't think he ever saw the whole of the let-
ter in print. Did not desire that Wright's name
should be suppressed.
W.Jackson.—Witness knew the defendant in 1817,
previous to his going to America, and received a
communication fium-him relative to the future pub-
lication of the Register. This communication was in
writing, and was read ; it proposed, that the u itness
should in future publish the Register, and receive half
the profits, which he estimated at forty pounds a
week. He promised to write carefully, and so that
no danger should result to the Publisher; but at the
same time observed, even should anything happen,
and the witness got into prison, still the publication
might go on. Witness, in consequence Of this ar-
rangement, did publish the Farewell Address; and
afterwards, at various times, received manuscripts
. from Mr. Cobbett, and published several numbers;
commencing in July with No. 15, vol. xxxii. This
was published on July 16, 1817, and continued pub;
lishing till Januai y, 1819, regularly accounting to
Nr. Cobbett for his part of the profits, which witness
paid to Mrs. Cobbett and her son. Witness published
No 10, vol. xxxiv. on the 19th of November, 1819,
containing a copy of a letter to the Editor of the
New York Evening Pest; also No. 11, in which was
a letter to Major Cartwright ; and N 0.12, containing
a letter to Henry Hunt, Esq. and No. 14, in which
was a letter to Major Cartwright. The passages
from these publications, containing the alleged libels,
were then read. In No. 10, the defendant accused
the plaintiff of-forging his name to the letter in ques-
t--lion, and having done so on several occasions for
-fiairdnlent purposes. No. 11 contained a charge of
a similar kind against the plaintiff, and a description,
in poetry, of a supposed conversation between the

. • •
plaintiff and Sir Francis Burdett. .Na. 12 contained
a letter to Mr. Hunt, speaking in similar terms of
the plaintiff. No. 14, containing a letter to Major
Cartwright, was also read, charging the plaintiff with
cowardice, &c.
The witness was cross-examined by the defendant.
—Cannot say when or where he lass sat down in a
room with the defendant, or who were in company
with them ; nor does witness recollect where he first
saw the defendant, but thinks it was with Lord
Cochrane; in the King's Bench Prison ; and after-
wards witness went to Botley, with a message from
his Lordship. Witness did not tell the defendant he
had advised Lord Cochrane to escape; he said just
the contrary. Lord Cochrane told witness that the
defendant was about to go to America; and his Lord-
ship said, he feared he would not find any man with
sufficient courage to undertake the charge of pub-
lishing The Register. His Lordship also said, he I,
had recommended the witness as trust-worthy. Wit-
ness sometimes made slight alterations in the manu-
script, by leaving out very strong expressions. He
bad done so in some of the passages now under con-1
sideration ; but the only alteration was omitting the
words miscreant and reptile, or expressions having
such a meaning ; but could not say he made the pub-
lication harnlless or proper for publication ; but he,
considered if these parts were improper, other parts
were interesting, and he was therefore desirous of
keeping it up. He did think he had a right to alter ,
or abridge, if 'he kept up the publication. Would
not swear he did not tell a friend that he would not
'publish a particular Number; but if he did, he was
certain he afterwards did publish'it. He did some-
times consult on the propriety of publishing parti-1
attar Registers, and particularly one containing an
attack on Sir Francis-Burdett. He consulted Major
Cartwright and Mr. Sheriff Parkins; but that Regis-
ter was afterwards published, or at least most of it.
Witness at times inserted whole articles; and on one
occasion published a whole Register, from manu-
script, not from America. Some of the American,
manuscripts were in the defendant's hand-writing,
and some in his son's. Could not swear that the New
York Paper was not copied from the Paper itself;
but he could positively swear he had no doubt he,
received the printed paper from the defendant.—
Witness had seen a pamphlet signed Thomas
Cleary ; but for himself, he could say, he never wrote
anything libellous or malignant. Mr. Cleary's pam-
phlet was published in July, 1819 ; all the a..ieged
libels were published before that time. Witness had
not the manuscripts of the libels, but he had no
doubt'some, if tot all, were in the defendant's hand-
writing. Witness don't recollect having written any
letter to the defendant in America, congratulating him
on having tickled the Rump.
Cross-examined.—Mr. Cobbett never objected to
any ci the articles inserted, nor did he ever complain
of any alteration made by witness.
Mr. Molineux, printer, delivered out the manu-
script to the compositors, and was inclined to believe
it was in the hand-writing of the defendant.
Mr. Cobbett then proceeded to address the Jury.
He was no, persuaded that he should be able to de-
fend himself with any ability. On tke contrary, he
was persuaded he should suffer by not having the
benefit of a regular Counsel ; but he was obliged to
defend himself, on account of the description of per-
sons he had to contend with. Mr. Brougham had
been selected on this occasion to conduct this cause,
and, he would say, to make an attack on him. Mr.
Brougham had described him as a man of extraordi-
' nal y talent, and bad gone on to describe him as a
man much to be dreaded. Vas that a compliment
to a man, to tell him he was much to be dreaded ?
Mr. Brougham hal also described him as a man,
without scruple, over zealous, and not caring how
he to :e a person to pieces. But he was used to be li-
belled. Yet he would shew that Mr. Brougham was
-the greatest libeller he had ever had the misfortune
to meet with. He had Leen a political and public
writer in England and America for twenty-eight
years; yet, doting all that time, he had never been
brought before a Jury but twice—once in England,
and once in *America. Could any Newspaper or MA-
gaZille say as much? No, not even the Evangelical
Magazine. The libel of which he was convicted in
America subjected him to pay a penalty of /500
dollars ; but this sum the people of America, on re-
flecting on the character of the- alleged libel, paid for
him by subscription ; whilst the libel which had sub-
jected him to judgment in England, he received from
a Judge, and had verified by a Marquis ; and whilst
he was convicted, imprisoned, and- bound over for
seven years, the Learned Judge had a place and a
pension. The libel, therefore, could not have been
of a very serious description. Yet Mr. Brougham
had described him as a libeller ready to tear persons
to pieces - and opinions uttered by Mr. Brougham
were, indeed, libels of consequence, though Mr.
Cleary's trash was of little importance.. Why, he
would ask, was not Major Cartwright called, who
would have told the Jury who and what Mr. Cleary
was? That he was a person who-came from Ireland,
some • way or other, and here had the good fortune
to be made a Sub-Secretary to the Hampden Club ;
but-it was said by Mr. Brougham that he was a Gen-
tleman born, and though connected with Reform,
was receiving no pay from the Club. Now, had Ma-
jor Cartwright been called, he would have proved
that Mr. Cleary did receive pay ; and more, that he
became a travelling apostle, and went about the coun-
try with a little cart and a bundle of papers, trying to
make converts to his opinion. Could Mr. Brougham,
or any other person, say, that he, Mr. Cobbett, had
ever been found trying to establish any Club or little
nest whatever? Mr. Brougham had talked of at-
tacking private families; but bow did it appear that']
he had ever been guilty of any such conduct? When
had he ever been seen prying into the concerns of
private families or private individuals? Was Mr.
Cleary a private individual? Was he not Secretary
to a public Political Club ? Was he not an Elector
of Westminster? And had he not in that character,
on the hustings at Covent-garden, published a pri-
vate letter of his, improperly obtained? And had
he not thus commenced the attack, for which he had
now no right to complain of retaliation? At this
Election a dispute originated between Cleary, Hunt,
and Major Cartwright. Cleary first brought forward
Major Cartwright as a candidate, but afterwards
turning, gave his support to Sir Francis Burdett.—
He at the same time desired Hunt should retire also,
but he would not ; upon this dispute and squabble it
was that they thought fit to introduce his name, and