Star.
London, England, 1826-10-20 00:00:00

DEATH FROM STARVATION.

Yesterday evening an Inquisition was holden before
J. W. UNWIN, Esq. at the Shears public house, Chequer.
alley, Whitvcross.street, St. Luke's, on the body of an
aged female, Mrs. Ann Barawall, whose death was
occasioned by starvation.
When the Jury was empanelled, they proceeded to
view the body, which lay in a shell in a miserable hovel
in the neighbourhood. The apartment containing it was
destitute of even the common articles of furniture, and
so desolate did it appear, as to attract tk attention of
the Jury, who asked some questions in explanation, in
reply to which, it was stated that the only article dis.
coves ed after the wretched woman's decease was a flock
bed, which was in so loathsome a state, and infested
with vermin, that to prevent contagion, it was thought
advisable to coibmit it to the flames. The corpse itself
was in the most emaciated condition, and round the
neck and shoulders exhibited some marks of discoloor.
ation, which being observed by the Jury, they, on their
return to the inquest room, asked the Coroner if any
medical evideece was provided to satisfy them of the
cause of them, as also of the deceased's death.

The Coroner (to the beadle)—Have you, as I directed, given the
parish surgeon notice to examine the body ?
The Beadle.—l waited on Mr. Wilks, sen. the vestry
clerk, to know whom I should call upon to perform
that office, and that Gentleman said, as the parish board
had determined to discountenance employing medical
men in such cases, he would not think of putting the
parish to an expense on the present occasion. He told
me I might employ whom I liked, and let the county pay
fur it. Not knowing what to do, I did not employ any one.
The Coroner.—This is not the first time I have had
reason to complain of the want of courtesy and atten-
tion of the authorities of this parish. In all the other
parishes in and about London, the parochial stvgeon
examines the bodies of such persons as inquisitions are
taken on. I formerly had to threaten an overseer for
refusing to provide a surgeon to examine the corpse of
a murdered man, and it was only on his being warned
of the consequences of his neglect that he consented to
do so. (Turning to the Jury). if, Gentlemen, you should
think it necessary to have medical evidence to satisfy
your minds, it shall certainly be procured. The inquiry
was then gone into.
Susan Smallwood examined—l am nine years of age;
on Monday night my mother told me to go and see
how the deceased was. She was ill; I believe, some
time before ; I went as I was desired, and found her in
the house where she now lies. On going up stairs I
found the door ajar, and on opening it I called out two
or three times. I received no answer, and on going in
I discovered her lying on the bed ; she was quite dead,
and cold at the time. I gave an alarm, and Mr. Giles
came to my assistance. The last time I saw the de-
ceased alive was on Saturday week:
Edward Giles examined—l am landlord of the house
in which the deceased resided. I did not see her for
some days previous to her death ; she was, I understood,
unwell ; the last time I saw her was when I was called
on by the last witness. On entering the room I found
her stretched on a miserable mattress • she was quite
dead, and rolled up in a heap; her clothes were on her.
I have heard she used at times to solicit alms, and that
she bad a scanty allowance from the parish, which she
found great difficulty in procuring. I saw no marks of
violence on her person. 1 think she died by the visita-
tion of GOD.

Comma—Have you any reason to think she died of want?
Witness—l certainly have ; and, indeed, it is beyond
a doubt. On Tuesday week, by the desire of some
charitable persons who were in the habit of relieving
her, I called at Mr. Price's, the acting overseer, to inform
him that the deceased had determined to go into the
workhouse. When I got to his residence he was not at
home ; I saw Mrs. Price, who asked me in an abrupt
manner what was my business ? I informed her it was
to see her husband, in order to get the deceased into the
poor-house ; she next asked me how long she had lived
with me? and Itold her three and a half years; on which
she observed, "I ought to support her myself." f re-
plied, that having a large family of my own, it was out
of my power. She was very angry at my interfering,
and having said she would inform her husband of the
application, who would see about it, she slammed the
door in my face and went in. No further =ice was
taken of her distress, and neither Price, the overseer, or

any one else, called to see her. She was 60 years of age.
Juror—ls it true that when she before applied for relief,
Price threw a quantity of water on her?
Witness—l have heard she did. (Shame! Shame!)
Elizabeth White examined.-1 live at No. 8, Bridge-
water Gardens, 01d-street Road ; my husband is a

smith. The last time I saw the deceased alive was on
Friday, between one and two o'clock ; she then told me
she was dying for want of food. I was preparing some
broth at the time, and prevailed upon her to take some;
she ate only a teacup full, when she was quite exhausted
and fell asleep ; in this she continued till past 4 o'clock,
when she awoke, and went away. She about a month
ago told me, that on her applying to Mr. Price for relief,
a pail of water was thrown over her. The deceased was
a sober, industrious poor woman • she received the
principal part of her support from Mrs. Smallwood and
myself ; but she latterly was so feeble that she was un-
able to call upon us. lam certainly of opinion that she
died from starvation.

Sarah Smallwood examined—l live with my parents
in Sun-court. About 17 months since, I was coming
past Mr. Price's house, the -relieving overseer of St.
Luke's parish, when I saw the deceased at his door.—
Mrs. Price came out, and exclaimed, "Got along with
you," and at the same time threw a part of a bucket of
water over her. (Horrible ! barbarous!) She frequently
called at our house in tears, complaining that she had
been to Mr. Price, who refused to do anything for her.
I have heard her threaten to go to a Magistrate, and have
Mrs. Price punished for her conduct towards her.
Juror—How is it that this Mr. Price is continued so long u 17
months in office ?
Another Juror—He is a perpetual acting and relieving overseer,
and though there are other officers annually elected, the entire ma,
nagement is left to him.
The evidence closed here, and the Coroner, in sum-
ming up, said, the question principally for the consider-
ation of the Jury was, whether the death of the deceased
was to be attributed to the neglect of the parish officers?
That their conduct was blameless Was more than he
would venture to say—yet he did not think that the
evidence went far enough to inculpate them altogether;
he would therefore recommend to the Jury to bring in a
general verdict, without implicating any one.
The room was then cleared, and after a quarter of an hour's
deliberation, the following verdict was announced-4' Died from
want of the common necessaries of life."

A greater number of petitions against the returns of
Members to serve in the Parliament are expected to be presented
to the House of Commons after its meeting, than at any period for
the last forty yeas, after a General Election.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCL
NEWMARKET SECOND CTOBER MEETiNO.

Newmann's:, Tstunsonx.
Match-200 sots. It. ft. D.M.
Doke of Grafton's Goshawk, Sat. 51b. . . I
Lord Exeter's TiraiDeur, Ist. 51b. . . 2
S to I on Goshawk. Won by a length.. Stickle rade the winner.
Handicap Sweepstakes of 10 sows. each. T.Y.C.
Mr. Rogers's Muleteer, let. Mb. . • • 1
Lord Wharncliffe's Scandal, Bat. 10Ib. • . . e
Lord Exeter's Palais Royal, Sat. 10Ib. . . _ _ S
_ _ _

6 to 4 on Muleteer ; 7 to 2 agst Scandal; 4 to 1 apt Palate
Royal. Two paid. Won by five lengths. Wheatley rode the winner.
Match-200 son. D.M.
Lord Exeter's Recruit, Bst. 21b. • . 1
Duke of Grafton's Paul Jones, list. 91b. . . 2
Ayax 2to 1 apt R nit. Won by a length. Robinson rode the winner.
Han to of £lOO for 4 year olds and upwards. A.F.
Lord G Cavendish's b. b. Bizarre. 6 yrs, 85t.101b. ; 1
Lord neon's b. h. Sligo, 5 yn, sit. 61b. . 2
Mr. Stephenson's br. h. Logic, 6 yrs, Itst. 41b. . . $
7to 4 apt Bizarre; sto 2 apt Sligo; 6to 1 ;get Ball Dog.
Eight started. Three placed. Won by a length. ,mall rode
the winner.
Match-100 sous. T.Y.C.
Mr. Payne'. c. by Hollydock, 7st. 111 b. . . 1
Mr. Greville's Fawn, 9st. sib. . . . 2

6to 4 apt c. by Hollyhock. Won by ten lengths. Connelly
rode the winner.
The Town Plate of ,e5O for three yeas oM, 7st. 41k. four, est. 41b.
five, est. 111 b. six, 9st. llb. and aged 9st. 41b. T. M.M.
Mr. Pettit's br. f. Rigmarole, 4 yrs
Mr. Stephenson's br. b. Logic, 0 yrs - -
Mr. Dilly's b. c. Wamba, 3 yrs • . 3
6to 1 apt Rigmarole ;6to 1 agst Logic. Eight started. Three
placed. Won by a neck. Robinson rode the winner.
Match-200 soya. h. ft. T.Y.C.
Lord Rseter's Redgauntlet, 9st. 71b. . . . I
Duke of Grafton's adorls„ sat. 71b. . • . I
7t04 on Redgauntlet. Won by three lengths. Robinson rode
the winner.
Sweepstakes of 100 sees. each, 60 ft. colts, list lib. fillies, est. 41b.
D. I.
Mr, Grevilk's bL c. by Whalebone ;
Duke of Grafton's ch. c. Norman .
1 Mr. ThornkilEs c. The General

.

. 5

5 to i asst bL c. by Whalebone; even on Norman; 6 to 4 apt
The General. Two paid. Wou by twenty lengths. R. Boyce
rode the winner.
Match-200 roes. D.M.

The Duke of RutliacAdel6,llK. 2117;iie. 150 SOTS' from Lord
Orford's Grimy Bst. 9lb:

LAW REPORT.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Om 19.
taxar..—isumitznoadist V. DANCES.
This action was brought by the plaintiff against tbel
defendant for publishing a libel.
The defendant pleaded—Not Guilty.
Mr. BROUGHAM stated the case to the Jury on behalf
of the plaintiff. He would have to occupy a consider-
able portion of time in stating all the facts of this clue,
and then he would leave it, with perfect confidence, in
the hands of the Jury, to say what compensation ought
to be made for the injury done by the defendant to the
plaintiff. The plaintiff having become acquainted with
the defendant, and having been about to publish a work,
the publication of which he bad actually advertised, the
defendant, by a long libel he had published, had most
materially prejudiced the sale thereof. The plaintiff
began his life as seafaring man; he had been the
captain-of a ship, and for some time occupied in engage-
ments in that line, He had resided a very considerable
time in the East, and become acquainted with the seas
in those parts, as well as with the manners, habits, lan-
guage, and commercial dealings of the natives. A
treaty having been entered into between thermatives of
India and some English traders, that a negociation
should be carried on at Bombay, the plaintiff was to
travel there, and after they were carried into effect, he
was to hold a station there. He did start for Bombay,
but having met with several accidents, he was detained
for a considerable dine in his way to Bombay. In the
course of his journey, he met with Mr. Bankes, who
was then travelling in the gut for his amusement, at a
convent near to Jerusalem. Their acquaintance soon be-
came warm, and afterwards as speedily grew cool.—
' They made short tours together, and particularly one to
the ruins of Jerash, near the river Jordan, which occu-
pied seven days. At a subsequent period the plaintiff
visited the spot again, and made ample notes of his
journey, which continued for ten weeks; these notes the
defendant knew of, and saw. The defendant also bad
made notes of a tour through the same place; after.
wards the plaintiff made up his mind to publish a book,,
containing an account of his observations, to be called
Travels in Palestine, and had advertised the publication
of it in the Calcutta newspaper, of which paper he him-
self was at the time the proprietor and editor. A sum-
mary of the chapters was also published, one of which
stated Dgerish was a place that had been explored and
described. This advertisement having met the eye of
the defendant, without taking time to see whether the
Travels in Palestine were to contain a description of
Jerash only, and having well known that the plaintiff
had visited the place more than once, and had taken
full notes, he, with unequalled jealousy and passion,
wrote a letter containing the language now complained
of. This letter had been decidedly written to meet the
' eye of others as well as that of the plaintiff, for it was
sent to the plaintiff unsealed- and open, by a friend of
the defendant's, a member of the East India Company,
and with a request that he would shew it to others. The
letter was dated Thebes, 12th June, 1819, and began
by stating that he (the defendant) could not but address
the plaintiff as the basest of men. His hand-writing,
he was sure; was known to the plaintiff, for he had
seen it, copied is, and was about to turn it to his
own account.—The plaintiff had seen his manuscript,
and practised the basest imposition by being about to
publish it as his own. Any notes that the plaintiff had
taken, had been taken at the request and from the di-
rection of the defendant ; many of them had been put
down by the defendant's own hand ; the defendant had
sketched out the plan of the "Ruins of Jerash ;" the ex-
pense of the whole tour had been defrayed by him; and
the plaintiff would have to be laughed at for attempt-
ing to be a draftsman and an explainer of antiques, not
being able to know the difference between Turkish and
Romish architecture.—The letter concluded by accusing
the plaintiff of being the most ignorant of the most
im-
pudent and fraudulent pretenders. This was the effect
of the letter, and the Learned Counsel contended, that
a more unfounded and unmanly attack had never pro-
ceeded from the pen of any man. The fact was, that
the plaintiff had copied none of the defendant's notes,
nor had he used the sketch made by the defendant.—
The expense had been defrayed between the two, of the
seven days tour, which only amounted to 50s. each.—
The defendant knew that the plaintiff was eng.4ged in
tilling notes for future use: and it was very important
to be recollected that the advertisement of the woi k ap-
peared in October, 1818; that the plaintiff's manu-
script was immediately sent to this country, which ar-
lived early in 1819, was instantly published, and ap-
peared to the public six months before this abusive let-
,er came into existence; and the Learned Counsel hoped
...he Jury would visit, in the stronge4t possiblemanner,
,he writing of this letter, It had caused the plaintiff bit-

WIT to regret the day he had been introduced to the de-
fendant, and to set that event down among the very
worst of the very bad perils, that in the coarse of hu•
man affairs, beset the wayfaring man.
H. W. Hobhonse, examined by Mr. HILL—Was in
the East India Company's service.; had refused to see
the solicitor, who wished to take down hi, evidence ;
received the letter now put into his hands from Mr. J.
Bankes, the defendant; this was at the end of 1519, at
Trieste; it was unsealed then; witness teed it at tl e
rime; believed the letter was sent to him from Mr,
Bankes; had conversation with Mr. Bankes about this
letter before it was written ; can't describe the tooser.
'Won ; the conversation was partly about the lett' t.
The nature and object of the conversation was th t
Mr. Bankes had fallen in with Mr. Rockingham, slaw.
where in Syria, who was about to publish a work, that
he thought very unfair with regard to a publication tl,at
the defendant himself was thinking of; and that he had
written a letter, a copy of which he would send to wit-
ness; the defendant said something-about what he was
to do with it; believed he had the note from the de-
fendant accompanying the letter ; the note proiuced
was the note, which witness did not know there was any
secret about. Witness at this time thought of going to
Aleppo. Shewed the letter to Mr. John Palintt, of
Calcutta ; thinks also he sheered it to Mr. Erskiae, an
officer filling an office in the Supreme Court of Bombay,
son of Sir James Mackintosh. Has no recollection of
shewing it to other persons. Did not immediately, but
did ultimately, leave it with Mr. Palmer.
The note was this November 16th, 1818," signed
le W. M. Banker," and addressed to witness,--« Dear
Sir,l have found this morning, the rough draft of my
!etter to Mr. Buckingham, upon first getting sight of
his advertisement. I have transcribed it, and sent it to
you enclosed. There may be verbal vatiat.ons in it
from that which was sent, since I kept no duplicate of
it; but it is essentially the same throughout. Some
hues I have prefix-d to the copy, will give you my
reasons for putting it particularly into your hands. I
should wish you to shew it to my friends in Aleppo,
and Mr. and Mrs. Rich. In India you will make what
use of it you think proper ; but should you find that
the work has been withdrawn, it will, perhaps, be best
to be merciful."
The libellous letter was now read. The advertisement
of the work in the Calcutta Journal was next proved.
Other Wien were put in and read, which had passed
between the patties before the one of the 12th of June,
1819, to shew that, down to that time, the pureit friend-
ship subsisted between them ; that the plaintiff never
' had taken the least unfair advantage of any information.
imparted to him by the defendant; and that the de-
', fendant had the highest opinion both of the talents and
honour of the plaintiff.
Mr. Murray sworn, examined by Mr. PATTISON
lam a publisher in London. The manuscript now pro-
duced I received about five or six years ago ; cannot fix
the time more particularly. When I parted with it, I
believe it was given by Mr. Clerke to Dr. Babington
this was some months after I received it. _

By Mr. GURNEY.—At the time I got the manuscript
back from Dr. Babington, I had not seen the letter Mr.
Bankes sent to Mr. Hobhouse ; Mr. Buckingham sent
me duplicates of drawings and engravings; cannot say
how many drawings ; there were more than two—might
be five or six; the rest consisted of old engravings, old
French engravings. Those produced are some of the
old engravings.
Re•exatnined by Mr. BROUGHAM.—Those are some
of the identical engravings ; they were not sent back,
but, by some mistake of my clerk's, kept; they were
afterwards put into the hands of Mr. Bankes ; they are
Mr. Buckingham's property; by mistake they were not
seat back to Mr. Buckingham ; it was not by mistake
they were put into the hands of Mr. Bankes. There
'aught have been more drawings than five or six, but
cannot say bow many more. The other engravings were
sent by my direction to Dr. Babington. had a letter
from Mr. Bankes's father before I gave up the docu-
ments put into my possession. I received a letter from
Mr. Gifford, which was such, that I could not publish
.the work afterwards, without first giving Mr. Bucking.
ham or his friends an opportunity of altering it. The
letter I received from old Mr. Bankes I gave up.
Dr. Babington.—l am a physician ; I have travelled
in the East; I became acquainted with Mr. Buckingham
there; I have known him since April, 1815; when in
the East we travelled together—this was before 1816 ;
I have seen him copy ancient inscriptions—not many,
but a few in India; he could copy those inscriptions
certainly; he saw the foc4fmiles he made at the time;
never saw him make drawings ; saw him in Madras in
1818 ; saw many of his note books in his possession at
that time ; saw small note books similar to the ones
produced; Those I saw contained accounts of Jetash,
and those were the statements that were afterwards pub-
lished. The book now produced, containing sketches,
is a book like that which I saw ler. Buckingham have
at Madras. After I came home I went to Mr. Murray,
to look after Mr. B.'s interest, in pursuance of a letter
received from Mr. B. On going there I received back
the manuscript in the beginning of 1820. I took the
manuscript to Messrs. Longman and Co. cannot say
that the book was published from this manuscript. I
have not compared any part of the manuscript with the
printed book. Mr. Buckingham introduced Inc to some
of his friends at Egypt, to Mr. Buckhardt at Cairo, and
to Colonel Missett at Alexandria. They appeared to be
intimately acquainted with Mr. B. I received civilities
from them on his account. Perhaps 20 or 30 drawings
were given up to me by Mr. Murray, when he deli.
vered the manuscript to me in January or February 20,
which at that time he had had in his possession for
some months.

By the Court—The inscriptions I saw Mr. Buckingham copying
in India, were In an unknown language; I afterwards made one of
them out, and found It was &merit.

By Mr. Gustav—Those drawings were sent to me by Mr. Mur-
ray, along with the manuscript, hut I cannot say who drew them.
I do not know that Mr. Buckingham drew them.
By Mr. HILL—Mr. Rees—l am a partner in the house of Long-
man and Co. We received manuscript from Dr. Babington, and I
believe this is the same. We put it into the printer's hands; it was
afterwards published, the first edition in quarto, and the second
in octavo.

By Mr. Gunnar —There were a good many engravings on it.
Parts of the publication were read, with a view to prove that the
publication was made from tke manuscript of Mr. Buckingham.

Mr. Arrowsmith.—l am a map-maker ; die particular
map in the book, pointed out, is the reduction of the
one I made from the original map that wai delivered
to me. The map in the book is very different in its
variations from the original sketch. The figures of the
buildings differ, as laid down in the two, and there are
a great many dissimilarities in other respects. I have
compared the printed drawings with the sketches in. the
little book belonging to Mr. Buckingham, wh:ch Dr.
Babington deposed to having seen at Madras, and he
found them to agree in ali respects.
This was the case for the plaintiff.

"—Mr. GURNEY addressed the Jury in behalf of the
defendant, and called witnesses to prove the plaintiff did
not take any sketch himself during his visit with the'
defendant to Jerash. On that occasion he wrote for
the defendant, and fiom the defendant's dictation.—
On one occasion be was s-en to copy from a little
boot, which proved to be the narrative of the jour.
bey which Mr. 'hues- had made to Jerash. It
was admitted that he could not take sketches. The,
witnesses who proved the above facts, were a Portuguese
named Antonio de Costa, and a Mahometan reneged°,
named Mahomet, who having beconie a Turk, had
again turned Christian, and was going to Italy, his
motive country.
Mr. John Barry said he travelled in Palestine. He
♦iuted the reins of the city of Jerash ; he was there two
days, and bad an opportunity to make a plan of the
place by measurement; he produced the plan he made,
and believed it to be accurate: The witness had ex-
amined Mr. Buckingham's and Mr. Banker's plan ; they
were like each other. Mr. Buckingham's plan was in
parts inaccurate—(looked at the plan published by
Mr. Buckingham)—the walls in that plan were circular.
The walls of the ruined city, so far as his observation
went, were straight or angular. In Mr. Buckingham's
plan there were military gardens. The witness knew
of none: Ic was merely an angle of the wall. Mr.
Buckingham and Mr. Bankes' plan laid down-two gates
to the city. In fact, there were tour. There were four
openings in the wall. Two towers appeared in Mr.
Bankes's plan on the tight of the upper line. In the
ruins there were no towers at the angle described in the
plan. There were other towers on the ruins which
were not laid down in the plan. There were also pillars
which did not appear in the plans of Mr. Buckingham
and Mr. Bankes. The theatre which was described to
bear west bore north north-west. Thedrawing of the
theatre in Mr. Buckingham's plan was incorrect. Mr.
Buckingham's plans were generally incorrect. His
plans contained most of the inaccuracies found in Mr.
Bankes's plan. The witness was an architect. He knew
the Latin language, and something of Greek.
Mr. Barry, Who travelled to Palestine, Captain Irby,
Captain Mangles, and Colonel Leek, were also examined
respecting the plans of the city of Jerash. They had
all seen the ruins, and desFribed variations and inaccu
racies in Mr. BuckinghPnes plan. _ _ _

Mr. Arrowamith being called again, said, be bad examined the
plans sleet his examination in chief, and he found Mr. Buckingham's
plan most represented Mr. Banker's, bat in some variations it re-
sembled Mr. Barry's.
Mr. Bnovostax then made his reply. He felt there
had been an examination of superfluous evidence, and
he did not wish to detain his Lordship and the Jury
with comments upon the minor points. The great me.
ridional line of the cause ought to guide the Jury to all
the discrepancies of the case. What was the real gist
of the case? Why Mr. Bankes had libelled Mr. Buck-
ingham; Mr. Bankes did not deny the publication; he
said true it is—l published the letter, and gave it to
Mr. Hobhouse and others. I gave it to be published
by them, not openly, but through private channels into
which Mr. Buckingham could not gain access. I did
not give it through the grand tunnel of communication,
the public press. True, however, it is, that he is the
bad character I have represented ; true it is, he stole my
manuscu ipts, and published my notes. Had those asser-
tions been proved ? The East had been ransacked for
Mahometans and Christians to prove it, and nothing of
the kind had been proved. It was part and parcel of
the evidence for the defendant that Mr. Buckingham
was Mr. Bankes's amanuensis. Had that been proved?
It was alleged that he took copies of the papers to
which he had access. Had that been proved ? A book
had been produced of very small dimensions, not in sub-
stance what it had been described. Iwtead of forming
super ficies of sixteen inches, it did not afford four inches.
If that book, small as it appeared, had tallied word for
word with the publication of Mr. Buckingham, some-
thing might have been said about it ; but not one word,
chapter or vet se, was found to tally. The evidence of
Antonio del Costa could not be relied on. That witness
then had a very imperfect knowledge of English, and
could have known nothing of our language in 1817. How
then could he speak to conversations between Messrs.
Bankes and Bnckingham,held inEnglish? Then he might
ask what proof was there that Mr. Buckingham did
not go the second time to the Ruins of Jerash ? None.
The difference of plans was pointed out. It was said
the parts in Mr. Buckingham's plan differed from those
found in 1816. Did Turks and Arabs make no dif.
ference in the appearance of ruins? Did they do nothing
with villa's? Mr. Barry made four gates; Mr. Buck-
ingham two. But was it fair to say, because one man
thcught he saw four openings for gates, another might
not also see two ? The Learned Counsel then adverted
to the prints transmitted by Mr. Buckingham to Mr.
Murray, and reprobated in very strong terms, the
manner in which Mr. Murray had given them sp. He
had been sued by Mr. Buckingham. He made an
apology, and he afterwards chose to publish those docu-
ments in a way that could never be forgotten in the
Cities of London and Westminster. It remained for
the Jury, on the whole of the case, to do th it which it
was their duty to do, for the injured plaintiff. They
were bound to give Mr. Buckingham a compensation
for the deep wounds inflicted on him, and for what he
might still suffer with respect to the expenses he must
incur under long delayed proceedings.
The Loans Curer JUSTICE summed up to the Jury.
The defendant had pleaded Not Guilty. It had, how-
ever been proved that he did publish the libel. Then
there was a plea of justification. The defendant had
put on the record that the whole of the publication was
true. It had been proved false in several parts, and the
plaintiff was therefore entitled to their verdict. The
question was, what damages they ought to give? The
plaintiff and defendant had travelled from Jerusalem to
ancient Jerash. The plaintiff requested permission to
accompany Mr. Bankes on his journey, and was per-
mitted.
The purpose of the journey having been an-
swered, the defendant some time after saw an adver-
tisement, announcing the intention of the plaintiff to
publish a work, called Travels in Palestine. The defend-
ant, supposing they had travelled together on terms
which precluded Mr. Buckingham from publishing
such a work, became irritated, and wrote the letter
which was the libel. His Lordship read the letter, and
having directed the attention of the Jury to the pro-
minent points of the evidence, said the publication was
proved, and, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to their
verdict. In giving damages, they ought to take in their
consideration the motives under which the letter was
written.—There was a strong impression on the defend.
ant's mind that the plaintiff was about to publish to the
world a work which the defendant thought he could
not publish. The Jury giving their decision, should be
governed by conl reflection.
The Jury retired at six o'clock, and basing been out ono hour,
gemmed with a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 4001.

1,