Star.
London, England, 1818-01-19 00:00:00

feelings of the plaintiff, and as they did not know
his address, and as the contradiction to the libel stated
him to be at the timent the elbow of Mr. Scott, the
Proprietor of the Military Register, they wrote a
letter to the lattet Gentleman upon the subject. Mr.
Stott would prove that he did receive such a commu-
nication, in which the defendants expressed their deep
regret, and requested that Mr. Gilchrist himself
would dictate such an explanation and an apology as
would be most consentaneous to his own feelings and
disposition. They waited for some days for an an-
swer, but not receiving one, they repeated their ap-
plication, requesting an immediate reply. In the
mean time, subsequent to the discovery of the error,
another Number of the Hampshire Telegraph was
published, but without an apology, as they waited for
that which Mr. Gilchrist should return. From Mr.
Gilchrist they received no communication, but they
subsequently inserted such a contradiction as they
thought most unexceptionable. It seemed not a lit-
tle extraordinary, that the plaintiff had taken no no-
tice to the defendants, either of the libel or of their
letters. It was natural to suppose that a man so in-
jured would be the first to make application. Was
his silence to be attributed to his own conviction, that
moving about the metropolis, obvious to the eyes of,
all his friends and acquaintances, a paragraph, stat-
ing him to have been sent to Port Jackson, could
have but little effect ? Or was it that the plaintiff at
that time contemplated an action to put damages into
his pocket, and was therefore unwilling to have an
early apology, lest his claim should be diminished?
TUC Learned Serjeant did not impute any such rno-
tive to the plaintiff, and the less so, because in the,
article in the.-Military Register, which seemed writ.-
ten by his dictation,' aft action was deprecated. Had
an apology been sent, however framed, it would have
been instantly inserted. It appeared, therefore, that
after having committed an error, the defendants had
done all in their power to set it right. As to the
amount of damages, in questions of character, it was
difficult to say by what rale they were to be estima-
ted; the relative situation of the parties, the charac-
ter of the person injured, the motives of the pub-
lisher, judged by his previous and subsequent con-
duct, were the usual guides. By those, in this instance,
the defendants were willing to abide ; and if the Jury
could discover any thing like malice in their proceed-
ings, they would be content to be visited by exem-
plary and ruinous damages. If the Jury found rea-
son to believe that they had even been culpably ne-
gligent and careless, they were ready to endure the
consequences. If it appeared that they had been re-
luctant to make amends, that they lend been tardy in
doing ritht, after having done carol, 'let the com-
pensation be proportioned to their Misconduct. But
if, on the other -hand, no malice could be discovered
against as individual, of whom they knew nothing,
but that the defe iaants had • been the victims of a
s.:aie laid tvr them, and had been anxious to repair
the injury they had inflicted, and that that atonement
had been delayed by the conduct of the plaintiff him-
self, it then came to a• mere dry question of how
much damages he was entitled to receive in a case
stripped of all its aggravating circumstances.—The
'mom of the slander itself lessened its poignancy,
far the appearance of the plaintiff in the streets gave
a practical contradiction to the whole, and sufficiently
displayed its untruth. Such being the case, would
not inconsiderable damages to indemnify the plaintiff
against costs satisfy the justice of the case? The pru-
dence and judgment of his Learned Friend•were well
known, and it waseasy to imagine Mr. Brougham at a
consultation with his client, representing that a vin-
dication would be completely effected by the result
of the inquiry with inconsiderable damages, since
that result within 48 hours would be diffused through
every part of the United Kingdom. He (Mr.
Brougham) would tell the plaintiff, that the defen-
dants could have indulged no malignant feelings, and
they had done every thing in their power to apologize.
" Your object (heavould say) cannot be to put money
in your pocket. You are a British Officer complain-
ing of an injury done to your character. Can that in- ,
jury he repaired by money? You cannot, fora moment, I
wish to make this a pecuniary case—it would be un-
worthy of your reputation, your station, and your pro-
fession. I advise you, therefore, after the proceeding has
gone to a certain point, when the facts are completely
before the public, and the refutation of the calumny
indisputable, to declare yourself satisfied with a hale
indanni y against the expenses you have incurred?'
bush would be the recommendation of a prudent
and even of a zealous advocate, and his Learned
"Mend would no doubt accompany it with the ut-
most poignancy of reasoning. The Learned Serjeant
hoped that this advice would be taken, not so much
for the sake of his own clients, as for the character of
Mr. Gilchrist himself. He belonged to a profession
which the Learned Serjeant loved and revered, not
more for their gallantry and bravery, than for their
fenerosity and magnanimity. If the advice was not
ollowed, the case would then come to a mere ques-
tion of pounds, shillings, and pence, to be estimated
by the Jury in the absence of all malice, and in the
presence of every exertion to atone and amend.
Mt. William Hatton, Mate of the Convict Depot
at Portsmouth, was the first witness.--He remem-
bered the arrival of the Larkins at Portsmouth in the
summer of 1817. There were two young men of
the name of Stewart first received on board the Capti-
vity convict ship; and they were removed to the
Larkins; and after they were gOne, there was a re-
port among the prisoners in the Captivity, that one
of the Stewarts was really named Gilchrist, and the
other•Stepley, and that Gilchrist had said that be
had belonged to the 101st Regiment, and that he
was present at-the Isle of Wight when M.Guire shot
his antagonist in a duel. The witness had had no
conversation with them; but he met Mr. Mottley,
one • of the defendants, its the Dock-yard at Ports-
mouth, between the 12* and the *-Wth of July, and
told him this report. He bad only mcotioned it as
a report current in the Captivity. The Stewarts were
transported for forgery.
On his crass-examination by Mr. Beoucirem, he
said that the prisoners from the Captivity were em-
barked on board the Larkins on 10th of July.
He believed that the Larkins did not sail till the lat-
ter end of that month. Mr.-Mottley asked no ques-
tions as to the crime for which the Stewarts were
rattsported or any other circumstance.
Mr. Robert Scott was next called, • but before he
we his evidence, he begged to set himself right with
ard to she frocccdings via fonder day. An afg„

davit had then been produced, stating, that he kept
out of the way to avoid being served with a subpoena.
I The fact was 6therwise, and the person who made
the affidavit had been guilty of nothing less than
perjury. lie then deposed that he was proprietor,
printer, and publisher of the Military Register. He
had seen the libel in the Hampshire Telegraph, but it
had been previously shewn to him by the plaintiff
extracted in a London Paper. The plaintiff was in
great distress of mind, bordering upon madness. In
the Military Register of the Sth of August, a contra
diction was published at the request of the plaintiff,
the witness having previously received a letter from
the defendants, which he had not been able to find.
He subsequently received another letter, which he
produced, and which he answered by return of post.
In this letter the defendants requested the witness to
procure Mr. Gilchrist to dictate such a contradiction
to the libel as was satisfactory to himself. It was
dated the 4th of September. The witness, when he
saw the plaintiff; requested him to refrain from an
action, but he complained of the tardiness of the
apology. He never dictated one. The plaintiff had
returned no answer, because no letter was addressed
to him. The witness, in his answer, stated such an
apology as he thought ought to appear, and it did
appear in the deen-dant's next publication.
The letter of the 4th September, and the Hampshire
Telegraph containing the apology, were both read.

Mr. BROUGHAM, in relyallterViel that the de-1
fence anticipated by his Learned Friead had signally
broken down, when he brought faith his evidence to
support it. If even, however, it had been proved, it
would have been quite insufficient to justify the con-
duct-of the defendants, for no Editor should be per-
mitted to let fly his arrows at random, and rankle in
the breasts of whoever they may happen to hit in
this wanton manner. The mate (Hatton) had merely
heard, at second hand, a rumour among the convicts
of one ship relative to some person or persons on
board another; but the defendants thought proper
to embody the rumour into a formal libel against
the plaintiff, and to rake up all the scandalous im-
putations the/ could invent against his character.—
He explained the reason that this case was not tried
in hampshire to be, that the libel was published af-
ter the last Assizes, and could not be tried until the
next, in March, a period too rempte for the effectual
vindication of the plaintiff's character, which could
only be done by a formal legal inquiry, and a full
verdict of a Jury. This, it was said, did not become
an officer. To such an assertion he would reply, that
the most distinguished military characters had not
hesitated, on more ten ler grotmds than could arise
in this case, to seek that mode of reparation, not so
mach indeed as its conveying any adequate balm to
wounded feelings, but from its being the only effec-
tual way of punishing the author or their calamity.
The Learned Counsel paid Mr. Scott a high compli-
ment for his conduct on this occasion, and referred
the Jury, in.estimating the damages, to his expres-
sive declaration of the state of the Plaintiff's feel-
ings when he called upon him, and which were well
described as being that of a state of madness. His
Learned Friend, it seemed, knew not only what
passed at his own consultations, but what occurred
within his (Mr. Brougham's) brick walls--but he
could assure him that his ,surmise was erroneous;
for be had advised the plaintiff to pursue the course
he had done, from a full persuasion that the only
effectual way of setting himself right was by a
legal inquiry and the verdict of an intelligent Jury.
As to the motive of the defendants, be it malice, or
be it not, he cared not one merely looked to
the tendency of their conduct on this particular oc-
casion, and the gross and unfounded calumny which
they had disEemina.ed against his client, winged on
the most respectable news tpers throughout the
country. It was no reparau in of so aggravated an
act to sa7-, they were ready to insert an apology, or
retractation. Any man might escape if such a pro-,
ceedingwere tolerated. The Learned Counsel con-
cluded by enforcing the claim of the plaintiff for ex-
emplary damages, under the strong circumstances of
his case.

The DEPUTY SUER!?? summed up the evidence to
the Jury, who,'after a short consultation, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, Five Hundred
Pounds.

This case excited considerable interest. The Court
was crowded at el very early hour.
Mr. Gilchrist and several of his brother Officers and
friends, who came to speak to his character, were
present.

In the Court of Chancery, on Saturday, in the case
Hawes v., the Commissioners for inclosing Twicken-
ham Common, Charles Simmonds, Esq. and others,
Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY applied for an injunction to
restrain the defendants from converting an ancient
pond upon Twickenham Common, from which the
neighbouring inhabitants had from time immemorial
enjoyed very great and important advantages, into pri-
vate property, under the powers of the Inclosure Act.
Mr. WRAY supported the motion, and the Injunction
was granted.

At the Court of King's Bench on Saturday, in ilia,
case of the Assignees of Mayor gr. Patton and another,
Mr. ScAtmerr, for the plaintiffs, stated, that this was
an issue directed from the LORD CHANCELLOR, to
try the validity of a certain conveyanre, executed by
the bankrupt, bearing date the 31st of December,
1813, by which he conveyed to Mrs. Mayor, by her
marria.r settlement, his right and titre to a certain
house,)ituate in the Circus, near the Reger.es Park ;
and also the validity of a second conveyance, givink
to Mrs. Mayor certain furniture and effects, whicF.
were in several houses, the property of the bankrupt.
The allegations were, that the conveyance of the
house was intended to defraud the creditors, and that
the furniture was never out of the bankrupt's posses-
sion. Several witnesses were called to prove that,
previous to the execution of these deeds by Mr.
Mayor, he was in a state of insolvency. The Jury
found a verdict for the Plaintiff on both issues.

Bow Britur.—John Antonio, a r.ative of Porto
Rico, one of those sturdy beggars who infest the west
end of the town, particularly the r.eighbourhood of
Bend-street, was brought before Mr. HICKS on Satur-
day, by Humphreys and Bond, in consequence of a
complaint from the inhabitants. The prisoner parti-
cularly attacks those in carriages, who stop at shops,
&c. when, if the doors and windows are closed, he
opens them, and is very abusive to the servants. Ile
was committed to Bridrwell for a month. •

1
i '
.i. 1
It ‘1
if
1 :
I
•
1
i. 1 '
.
I
,
I
'
r
r
..:
I
yy
~,t
,
,
. „
~ i
I
;
11 ti
' i .1
1
$ kr
..4 i
;',
'l ~
i i 1 ',
1 i
. 'li
,1.. .
( . ,
i 4 li
I.' p,
{0