Star.
London, England, 1818-10-10 00:00:00

within the bounds of fair discussion, and on the other
to guard against licentiousness, there is great diffi-
culty in fixing the proper line. Had the defenders
refused to give •up the name of the author, the case ,
would have been different. It appears too there was'
no malice in the publication, and that no special in-
jury was sustained by the pursuer ; and, in point of
law, there is no ground for damages. In the case,.
Craig against Hunter and Co. decided in the Court
of Session in 1809, the pursuer lost his action for da-
mages. In that case the Editor of the Glasgow
Herald, in copying the names of Scotish Banlsrupts,
happened to say tames Craig, instead of John Craig.
The pursuer in this case alleged that his credit was
hurt, and he did actually become bankrupt ; but, as
it was proved chit there was no malice, and as he
failed in instructing the amount of his loss, the de-,
fenders were acquitted. The giving up the author
in this case proves that there was no malice ;and if
you consider the hurry in which Newspapers are con-
ducted, you will be inclined to excuse the faults of
an Editor. Mr. Moncrieff here read the opinion of
an English Judge, shewing that, although the matter
contained in law reports might reflect on individuals,
these reports ought to be published as articles of
public utility. Let as leave it to other countries who
know not the value of liberty, to carry on their courts
in secret; but, while we contend for this liberty of
publication, we do not assert that the rule must be
subject to qualification. It is not the law of Scot-
land that the proceedings of its Courts may he pub-
lished ; and this is the law of the whole empire.—
Wherever it can be shewn that the publication is
made from malevolent motives the case is very dif-
ferent. So far from it being considered improper to
publish the proceedings of Courts of law, riewspapers
are in the daily practice of publishing accounts of the
preliminary proceedings. It certainly never entered
the head of any man to prosecute these Editors for
publishing police intelligence. If they were prohibi-
ted from publishing law reports, the Courts would
be virtua)ly secret ; for those who gain admittance to
the Courts form but a very small proportion of the
public. If it is lawful to publish the report of cases,'
Newspaper Editors cannot help it although the pub-
lication proves injurious to the patties. In the pre-1
sent case the pursuer is not entitled to make booty:—
If it appear that the injury was occasioned by the'
publication and not by the process, then he is enti-
tled to damages, but not till then. Any person read-
ing the paragraph,' unless he knew of the process,
could not know that it alluded to the pursuer; and
if he knew of it, by inquiry, he would at once learn
t!:?. result. The paragraph spewed that it related to
a process in dependance. Those who knew before
-ev.• how the case stood ; those who asked could
L;:zwite learn. Ido not read the process for the pur-
p:,,,e of endeavouring to make you believe one word
of the allegations contained in it, but for the purpose
of letting you hear that the case was in dependance
• in the Borough Court of Glasgow. In the petition
it is averred that he refused to give up the docu-
anents, &c. connected with the money which it was
alleged he had received. The issue of this process
was that M'. Stewart made oath that /se had no such
papers, and Adams, the pursuer, lost his suit with
expenses. The paper containing the contradiction
was received in Glasgow on the 6th of February,
which Mr. Stewart must have seen before be was
assoilzied on the 1 1 th. A Newspaper report is not
to be criticized like a law pleading. It is enough if
it be substantially the same with the process. The
statethent here, in both newspaper and process was
substantially, that money belonging to a servant had
been received hy Mr. Stewart and kept up.
. Derr-Norris moor.

Andrew Wit co;.11 am a type-founder in Glasgow
I have seen Mr: Stewart. On the 22d of -February
I called on him, having been requested to do so by
Mr. Allan, and endeavoured to settle the business
privately ; I also called again ; I the first time said it
was Mr. Kilbee who had fuinisked the information
- contained in the paragraph ; Illad been told so ; I
read a strong apology sent by Mr. M'Kay for pub
lishing the paragraph.—(A letter dated 10th, froni.,
Mr. *Kaye, was then put in and read. It said that
he had got the info:mantic from Mr. Kilbee, on the
street .eßelfast. Another dated 20th was also read.
They expressed great contrition for the publication.
I.ilewise one dated 24th February, froM the father
of Mr. Allan, residing at Edinburgh, requesting Mr.
Wilson to use leis friendly endeavours). Mr. Stewart
said that his character had been. so much injured that
he would not lie under the imputation ; and by post
I let Mr. Allan know this, and that Mr. Stewart was
determined not to come to terms. The letter of Mr.
Allan contained one from Mr. M‘Kay. Mr. Stewart
seemed to disbelieve that it was Kilbec who had fur-
nished the information.
R. St. G. Kil,ee.—l am-son of Mr. Kilbee, of Bel-
fast. My brotl:er Edward was in Glasgow in January
1817. lie wrote a letter to our father. Edward is
now in Leghorn, and my father has sent me this let-
ter.--(The production of this letter was objected to
and sustained).—I had heard a report relating to
Mr. Stewart at that time, and it was substantially the
same as the paragraph. It was previous to the 21th
of January I had heard of the process in the Glas-
gow Cut:rt. Mr. Stewart called on me on the 2(itli
o- 27th of February. He thought it was „I who had
communicated the.information to Belfast. Ile said
that he would instruct an action against M'Kaye. At
the time .1 did not know who had written the letter ;
and I assured him of it., Edward was present. No-
thing was said to Mr. Stewart that would mats him
believe that Edward had furnished the information.
Mr. Stewart said that he bad been informed by Mr.
M'Kay that one Kilbee was the informant. Edward
was about 15 or 16 years of age.
am a cloth merchant. I know
Mr. Stewart. A report was current in clic Coffee-
room of Mr. Stewart having kept the money. I
Lard it for weeks before it was published in the raper.
Mr. COCKAURN replied for the pursuer. lie ob-
that of all the actions for calumny that he
had ever seen, the present was the most defenceless.
The accusation was the most horrible that could be
made. The libel was pr: into circulation, and its
extent was as great as the bounds of the wide spread
English language. The law of the land allows Edi-
tors of Newspapers great privileges ; but they enjoy
these privileges under high responsibility. The pro-
cess was carried on in an obscure Court, and the pro-
ceedings were carried on in writing, and therefore

could not be a matter of notoriety. There was never
a more pitiful, amore hypocritical, or a more shabby
recantation of any calumny. The author was never
given up ; the defenders only expressed their willing-
ness to do so. MeKny wrote the paragraph himself:
at the least such is the statement of Mr. Allan. Mr.
M,Kay says that he got the idle story from Mr. Kil-
bee on the street. The author is kept secret ; and, for
aught we know, may be panting in the audience. It
is a very odd doctrine, that because there is no ani-
mus infuriandi, there is no ground of damages. is Be-
cause we cannot shew in so many figures what the
amount of our loss, we are told that there is no spe-
cial damage. The case Craig against Hunter is not
applicable to the present case ; for no person had dis-
covered the error on which the action was founded.
The most pitiful defence that has been employed in
the forlorn hope of the defenders, is the plea that the
libel is a report of the proceedings of a Court of
Law. It is a degradation of our reason to call the
present libel a law report. It was a case pf all others
one that ought not to be piublished ; and it did not
tell that Mr. Stewart was assoilzied. None of the
witnesses have condescended on the, precise words of
the rumour, and it was therefore no repetition of a
common report ; but the publishing of any calumny
in a Newspaper staggers incredulity,, and gives a
confirmation to that which otherwise no man would
believe for a moment. So far from Mr. Stewart wish
ing to cow t an action, he wishes to GOD that it had
been unnecessary. Had he not brought the present'
action he would have acted improperly. Mr. Cock-
burn concluded by saying, that altlicasgh they were
bound to submit without a murmur** the verdict of
the Jury, he would not be very proud of the institu-
tion of a Jury Court it they allowed a single six.
pence less than what was claimed.
Lord GILLIES observed that no man could look at
the paragraph without seeing that it was a gross-li.
bel. This does not appe.tr to be a report of legal
proceedings; and it is therefore unnecessary to go
into the law with respect to the general question of
the right of Newspaper Editors to publish all the pro-
ceedings of the Courts of Law. A contradiction
cannot wholly obviate the effects of ar.y calumny.
Mr. Allan could not be actuated by any malicious
motives ; and it is improbable that Mr. M-Kay could
be so ; but it does not appear that he did on applica-
tion, at once give up the author ; for the letter sent
by that Gentleman to King and Campbell is no an-
swer to their demand. He is bound to she..; that the
name he gave up was that of the calumniator. It
was necessary, to make the defence complete, to shew
that Kilbee actually wrote the paragraph. Damages
arc due not only for actual loss bu: ;olotianr. The
defenders do nct stand in the place of publishers who
have given up their author. With respect to the con-
tradiction, although not so well expressed as it might
have been, it appeared to be meant bona fee. I think
that it was wholly owing to this paragraph that Mr.
Stewart was obliged greatly to diminish his lalsiness.
His Lordship then went over the evidence. The sum
claimed is large, and you arc not to give vindictive
damages.—The Jury, retiring for a short time, found
; damages £l5OO.

tUE JUTIV.
John Hamilton, merehant in Ilaasgose.
James M`lienzie, merchant in Glaagw.7,
mrrthant in Glasgow.
James 'M`Kie, merchant in Glasgor.-.
Ilugh Douglas, nu rehant in Part-Glasgow.
John Kirklans!, merchant in Glasgow.
James Kippen, merchant in Greenock.
John Todd, jun. in vehant in Glasgow.
John Wardrop, merchant in Glasgow.
John Muir, mar.ufacv.,rzr in Paisley.
John Brown, mers'amt in Glasgow.
Alexander :11'Donald, merchant in Glasgow.

Tuesday se'unight, at the Races of Caber,• in Ire-
land, an awkward fellow on horseback, with hie
wife behind him, rode across the Course while two
fine horses were running an incomparable race. The
consequence was, the rider of one of the horses (Nu-
bocka,h) was thrown, as was the wife of the man who
crossed the course; both of whom were killed.

Aa Inquisition was taken last night, at St. Olave's
workhouse, Southwark, on the remains of the bodies
of Cordelia Hubbard and Ann Millings, the former
16 mid the latter 18 years of age, the unfortunate
sufferers at the • fire in Tooley street—they slept to-
gether in the front attic. The Jury having been
sworn, viewed the bodies, which lay in the dead-
room at the worleionse; they were burnt to mere
cinders, and shockingly mutilated. Vordict—Acc:-
dentally burnt to delth.
Thursday morning C. flootsivta, about nine years
old, son of Mr.!Goonvax, of Crown-street, Soho, while
playiag with other boys, is Soho-square, climbed over'
the ratlines after a b:r1: on returning he slipped
off, and the point of one of the spikes penetrated his
thighs ; in that situation he remained till ore of his
companions extricated him. Ile died shortly after
in the mostcxcruciating pain. The day previous the
brother of the deceased, in attempting to climb over
an area railing, pitched head foremost on the pave-
ment, and was taken to the Middlesex Hospital with-
out hope of recovery.

The residence of Mr. Ot.tvnn, at Kenningtor.l
Causeway, wa,. yesterday beset by a crowd of boys!
from a school in that neighbourhood, who broke se-
veral of his windows, and by the help of some pass-
ing rabble, formed a mob. It appears that Mr. 0.,
having been lately annoyed by some young delir.-
quents playing before his premises, he had driver
them away with a horsewhip; in consequence of
which they returned en masse, and commenced an
attack on the house. Two of the ringleaders were
at length apprehended, and.the disturbance ceased.

Mr. GATES, a respectable tradesman, residing in I
Tooley-street, received on Thursday an anonymous
letter, informing him, that on the night of the 17th
inst. it was the intention of a gang of twelve persons
to break into his house and into that. of his next door'
neighbour, murder both families, and carry off every
portable article of property. The writer further states,
that he had been compelled by misfortunes to join
himself to the gang, but had then determined to quit
them and go to America :—he describes himself as
having been their chief, but as refusing to give his
consent to the plan of murder and robbery in con-
templation. Neither the poor nor the tradesman, he
observes, have ever been injured by the depredations
of his associates, while he exercised any controul
over them ; but having lost his influence, he has no
other means of counteracting their eche= but by
giving timely idurmation.

•