Star.
London, England, 1826-12-07 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, DICEMBER 6.

mus IfEtVIPA111:1111111 V. 11110 DIE arra OTHIMII.
Mr. TALFORD opened the pleadings. The declaration
charged the defendants, who were the proprietors of
the Times newspaper, with the publication of two seve-
ral libels, of and concerning the plaintiff, in the Times
of the 10th of February, and 3d of March last, im-
puting various acts of cruelty on the part of the plain.
tiff towards a younger brother who was an idiot. The
defendants had pleaded that they were not Guilty.
Mr. CASMELL—Gentlemen of the Jury—lf my
Learned Friend had thought proper to read to you the
libels in this case, you would have found that they were'
of the most atrocious description—they impute to the
plaintiff such misconduct, that, if he were guilty of it,
he ought to be excluded from all society, for he would
be no longer fit so hold up his head in the world. The
plaintiff, however, is happy to know, that, while the
charges contained in these libels are foul, they are alto-
gether false—there is not the slightest foundation for
them.—Mr. William Smith, the plaintiff, is a respect-
able farmer, residing in the county of Stafford. He
has been injured in this metropolis, and in this metropo-
lis he comes to seek redress. He is the son of Mr. Isaac
Smith, who was a farmer before him. His father had
a numerous family, one of whom (George Smith) it
had pleased PROVIDENCI should be an idiot from his
birth ; he had never been able to distinguish right from
wrong; he was deaf and dumb from his birth, and had
been subject to violent fiu, which had reduced him to a
state of imbecility both of body and mind. About
seventeen years ago, his father removed to a place
I called Muccleston Wood, in Staffordshire, to which
place the idiot was also removed. His father, who was
remarkably fond of him, fitted up a comfortable room
for him in this new residence, and did everything for
him which an affectionate father could do for an unfor-
tunate son. About three years after hi. removal, the
father died. His last words to his son William (the
plaintiff), were to treat the unhappy idiot with kindness,
and never to send him to a lunatic asylum. The dying
injuction of the father was most rigorously observed.—
Everything was done to alleviate the misery of the un-
happy lunatic. His sister, Miss Smith,was particularly at-
tentive to him—she washed him by day—she washed him
by night, and did everything in her power to render him
as comfortable as his unhappy situation would admit of.
It so happened, that, on the 15th of January last, a secret
communication was made by some enemy of the family,
to Mr. Broughton, a Magistrate of the neighbourhood,
stating, that George Smith, the lunatic, was ill used, by
the plaintiff and his family. On receiving this com-
munication, Mr. Broughton, with two other persons,
went to the plaintiff's house, and asked so be allowed
to see the lunatic. The plaintiff was from home at the
time, and Miss Smith, and another brother, were em-
ployed in washing and dressing the lunatic. The
moment they were disengaged, they came down to the
Magistrates, who, after seeing the lunatic, thought it
would be prudent that he should be removed to a ,
Lunatic Asylum. He was accordingly removed, and
the Magistrates, he (Mr. Campbell) believed, were now
most heartily sorry for their interference. The plaintiff
(continued Mr. Campbell) bad preferred proceedings in
this case, by action, in order to give the defendants an
opportunity of proving, if they could, the truth of the
charges contained in the libels. He, however, dared
them to justify the libels. He knew that they could
not prove the truth of the charges, and they had not
attempted to do it. The Learned Counsel, alter making
a few other observations, concluded by calling on the
Jury to give such damages to the plaintiff, as a com-
pensation for the injury he had sustained, by the pub-
lication of the libels in question, as they thought the
justice of the case required.
The Proprietorship of The Tines being vested in the defendants,
and the publication of the alleged libels, were admitted. The libels
were read, and evidence was gisen to chew that the statements con-
tained lb them applied to the plaintiff.
Mr. SCARIATT, for the defendants, cross-examined

the witness, who was called for this purpose, at great
length. He stated that the plaintiff never told him that
he (the plaintiff) had recovered damages- in actions
which had been tried at Gloucester, against the Bir-
mingham and Salopian Journals—and that he had got
40W. against one, and INN. against the other. Witness
lived nine Miles from the plaintiff's house, and was in
the habit of visiting the plaintiff and his family. Saw
The limes paper, in which the libels appeared, yester-
day. Never bad any particular conversation with the
plaintiff on the subject of the libels, or of the two actions
tried at Gloucester.
Mr. SCARLITT addressed the Jury for the defend-
ant, though he should admit that his Learned Friend,
Mr. Campbell, was as competent as any other in the
profession to manage this case, yet he looked on his
elaborate statement and evidence taken together to be
like the fable of the Mountain and the Mouse, much
ado about nothing. From his Learned Friend's state-
ment be expected that a dozen witnesses at least should
be examined to prove the facts therein mentioned; but
to his great surprise be brought only a single witness,
who proved nothing. His Learned Friend had stated
that the publication complained of contained a picture
so extravagant as outraged probability, and that if
represented in the form of a melo-drame on the stage,
it abounded with such absurdity, that it would be
classed among the same species as the 11 Fairy
Tales." Yet, notwithstanding its inconsistency with
probability, notwithstanding that it was of such a cha-
racter. that no person could believe it, his Learned
Friend had stated that his client's character bad been
ruined by it; but with respect to the real merits of the
case, he admitted, with his Learned Friend, that when
a publication was likely to excite prejudice, or to inflame
the passions, the particular details of a case ought not
ittbe published in a Paper which circulated in the neigh-

bonrhoed, from wh&h the Jury was Wise taken to
a cause relating to the subject of that publication; bit
he would net go so far as to say that Editors of News-
papers should refrain from all- remarks on subjects,
however atrocious, that were likely to come before ti
Jury. If bis Learned Friend's doctrine were true, an
Editor of a Newspaper would be liable to be indicted by
any thief or robber in the Old Bailey for noticing his
committal, if his trial were to take place at any time
after such notice. It would be very dangerous to
lay it down as a rule that the Press should refrain
from ex parte statements in all cases, though he
(Mr. Scarlett) would admit, that in several cases
such statements would prove injurious. He agreed
with his Learned Friend, that libels which affected the
honour and character of individuals, whereby they in•
awed damages, were fit subjects €•+r actions, though
the libellers did not know the individuals, and come•
quently could not be influenced by malice; he admit.
ted this to the fullest extent, providing damages
resulted from such publication ; but no such thing ap-
peared in this case; the, e was not a tittle of evidence
to chew that the plaintiff had sustained any damage by
this publication. The plaintiff had brought actions aqd
recovered dameges from two newspapers, which cir-
culated in his own neighbourhood,where he was known,
and was likely to sustain an injury from the circular
don of such a report; with that he ought to be satisfied.
as this was no more than a repetition of the same libels.
He (Mr. Scarlett) could not subscribe to the doctrine
laid down by his Learned Friend, that, by law. a person
might indict another for a libel on a man that was dead.
As long as he (Mr. Scarlett) breathed, he would opposo
such a doctrine. If any man were to quote a paragraph
out of Hume's History of England, reflecting on the
character of any df the ancestors of the Jury, according
to the principles laid down by his Learned Friend, the
man quoting such a paragraph, would be liable to be
indicted by any of the posterity of such ancestors as a
libeller; the doctrine was too absurd to be entertained
for one moment.

The Curer BARON, in charging the Jury, observed
there could be no doubt the publications in question
were libels, and libels of a most atrocious description,
calculated to injure the reputation of the plaintiff, for
which The Times, though a highly respectable Journal,
must be answerable. This, however, was only the
opinion of the Learned Judge, because the Jury were
not only to decide upon the question of damages, but
on the question of libel also.
The Jury retired at one o'clock.
The Jury having been called into Court at five
o'clock, by order of the Judge, his /Lordship asked
if they were likely to agree as to their verdict? The
Foreman said that they had already agreed as to their
verdict, but not as to the amount of damages ; ten
of the Jurymen were for giving only onej farthing
damages, and two of them. for giving 101.
Mr. PLAT% as Counsel for the defendants, consented to divide the
el., and to relieve the Court and Jury from further inconvenience,
by letting a verdict go for the plaintiff for £5. After some hesita-
tion the plaintiff's solicitor consented, and a verdict was re.
turned accordingly.