Star.
London, England, 1819-08-07 00:00:00

SUMMER ASSIZES.

EXETER, AUGUST Z.
STAK V. SCAMMEL.
Mr. .Serjeent PELL stated this to be an action
brought to recover damages for a most base and un-
- justifiable libel. The plaintiff, Sophia Stik, was a
young woman only 22 or '23 years of age, of the
most trreproa:liabie character ; and though reduced
by necessity to the situation of a domestic in the
family of the defend:tat, " once had meads, but Lot-
tune smiled deceitful on her birth." She was, indeed,
descended from a most respect:6:e family, end her
connections were still of a grade in lite much supe-
rior to that which she had been compelled to fill.
The defendant was a professional man residing at
Plymouth. lip to the middle of List May, her ser-
vice appareivly had been as grateful to her mastet,
as it had been creditable to herself. It was painful
to be obliged to detail family misconduct; but it was
his duty to allude to such circumstances, where the
case absolutely demanded his doing so. About that
time, then, suspicions which had existed of an impro-
•per intimacy between the defendant and a female of
the name of Wright, who resis.eu in his house, had
ripened into such a certainty, as scented, to the vir-
tuous mind of the plaintiff, imperative on her imme-
diately to quit her service. She left it accordingly ;
and it was on this eccasion that the defendant pub-
lished the label for which he now addressed
to the Jury for au adequate reparation, could that,
•indeed, ever he made for the loss of character which
the charge of theft is sure to occasion, where, as in
the present case, innocence is betrayed by poverty to
the merciless revenge of malice. NVithout the slightest
reason, the defendant had dared to publish of the
plaintiff' the following false and scandalous hand-bill,
which he circulated most extensively:
" Plymouth, May CO.—Five Pounds Reward.
" Whereas Sopliia Stakony servant, absconded from my house
yesterday evening. and is supposed to have stolen some of my
plate ; whoever shall apprehend the said Sophia Stak shall, upon
her conviction, receive the above sum of XS. She i. about 25
years of age, stout and fresh coloured ; wbeever harbours her
shall be prosecuted according to law."
And what was the. suspicion which had excited
this most gross outrage on her unsullied character?
The defendant cheiged her with stealing two silver
spoons, when, with the confidence of innocence, she
offiaed herself before the Mayor of Plymouth, and
demanded to know the grounds of such base and
false aspersions, the defendant did not dare toat-
tempt to. prosecute his charges.. The spoons, it would
be proved were afterwards found in the defendant's
own house. The blow, however, had been struck :
'no innocence could save her: she went to offer her-
self in service—she was rejected with disdain—she
was even driven from the house where she had retired
on leaving that of Scammel, with every mark of
painful degradation. Above all, she experienced that
most oppressive of miseries—the being pointed at by
every finger, as the proclaimed and proscribed thief—
the object at once of moral abhorrence and of legal'
vengeance. The Learned Counsel concluded, after
a few more o' servations, a most animated address to
the Jury, by calling his witnesses.
The first was an officer in the Mayor's Court, Ply-
mouth. He remembered the plaintiff and defendant
being both present before the Mayor on the 29th of
May last. The former had been charged by the lat-
ter with stealing his spoons. The hand-bill in ques-
tion was shewn to the defendant, on that occasion, by
his attorney :.defendant said it was printed at his re-
quest. It had been stuck about the town of Ply-
mouth. Plaintiff gave herself up : she was not in the
custody of a constable. Scammel saia he had lost
two spoons. Plaintiff denied having taken them.
Witness searched her lodgings, but could not find them.
He accused her of absconding Gum his service: she
replied, that he had hail intercourse with another
woman in the absence of his wife, and that she left
his service s:tlelv on that account. On his cross-exa-
mination, he said, that he must have known if any
one had taken her in custody ; that he did not recol-
lect the plaintiff's charging her with taking away her
trunk throngh a window, or of his reminding her
that he had forbidden her to go that evening.
A young Lady, of a very respectable appearance,
remembered plaintiff's applying to be taken into her
service on the 22d May last. She had declined her
offer, on account of lver being accused of theft.
Another witness, Suutherlands, said that the plain-
tiff slept at his house when she quitted Scammel's
service, bat that he had ordered her to leave it for se-
veral reasons. One was, that he was liable to a pro-
secution for keeping her ; another was, that he did
not choose to harbour a thief, and that he had reason
to fear he should offend Scammel.
Caroline Fryer resided in the defendant's house at
the time plaintiff was there. In point of fact, knew
the cause'of her going, but does
,not think that her
intention was known to the defendant. The latter
ordered her not to go; he told her that, as she had
endeavoured to ruin him and Mrs. Wright, he would
give her a character. The witness said, she went
away at the same time, and did not return. The
plaintiff often complained to her of the defendant's
cruelty in attempting to take away her character, by
saying she had stolen plate. Witness left her place
on account of a circumstance which had happened on
the Sunday, the same which was the cause of the
plaintiff's going away.
The hand-bill was here put in and read, and Mr.
ADAM made a very ingpnious defence. Admitting
the defendant to be the author and publisher of the
libel, as it was called, he besought the Jury to con-
sider, whether he was not fully justified in calling
the public attention to the apprehension of a servant,
reasonably obnoxious to the suspicion of having pil-
fered his property. A second charge was made
against the defendant, as a support to the cause,
should the first faiL—that without any reasonable or
probable cause, he maliciously accused the plaintiff,
before the Mayor, of having stolen his property.—
Tht Jury would be told, however, that this must be
proved to have been done without any reasonable or
probable cause: that it was done maliciously, would
not be sufficient for the purpose. Much had been
said of ber situation in life ; but it must be consi-
dered, before complaint is so loudly made of her
Character being injtsred, whether she has herself done
any thing td ii to compromise that character.
The'spoimi, it' was stated, had been found subse-
quently. The apprentice-girl was called : why was
lie not examined to this? The plaintiff had quitted