Star.
London, England, 1828-05-22 00:00:00

Pave been sustained by the On the contrary.
production of his genius...toe pictuie of our revered
Sovereign, was produced in a Court of Justice, in Lon-
don, as a specimen of his talent. Where could he have
exhibited this with so much advantage as in London, a
place of no inconsiderable taste, and where with so
much effect as in a public Court of Justice, the
proceedings of which went Co the farthest extremi-
(es f the kingdom ? He had been benefitted rather
than injured. and could not therefore have pleaded
any spe,ial damage. . Criticism should not be too
closely confined, and in the case of Carr v. Hood,
Lord Elleriboiough decided that the greatest lati
tude should be allowed to the critic, who was as
useful to the public as the author. The defendant
accused Mr. Thompson of having painted a bad
picture, little better than a daub, and further charged
him with having been careless in having painted a,
portrait of his Majesty with only a single sitting. He
further accused him of having appropriated a pic-
ture, painted for one purpose, to another—in having
changed the object, and sent to Somerset House, as a
mere portrait, that which was to have represented his
Majesty on the occasion of his visit to Ireland. The
picture of the King was of more consequence to the
world than that of an ordinary person. It was an
historical painting, and the artist owed it to the
world not to send forth such a picture with all the
characteristics of being a hasty production. The plain.
tiff .had not ptoved having obtained Vo r permission
of his Majesty to change the object:of the picture.
The libel also put a certain number of letters after the
name of the artists and put immediately after those
letters a note of interrogation. The notice of such a
thing as this showed the straits to which his Learned
Friend was driven to make out his case; but surely it
was too much to say, that the readers could attend to
the punctuation of every thing they read, or that such
a Offing matter as punctuation could at all affect the
merits r f the artist. Why might not a critic say that a
picture was a daub, and unfit for any other purpose than a
sign-post? He might say so if he chose, and no one could
say that malice was to be inferred, for all pictures were
placed in the exhibition at Somerset House, expressly
to challenge criticism. Thidefendant was allowed to
exercise a judgment, and that judgment might be
erroneous, but that would not war rant an action
for libel, or there would be an end to all criticism what-
ever. Malice niust be proved, but here it was admitted
that there could be no personal motive, and therefore
his Learned Friend had no ground to stand upon. The
libel stated that bis Majesty never sat for that portrait,
and this was the fact. He sat for the face to he painted
for another picture, and the other parts had been subse-
quently added, for which parts his Majesty did not sit.
The Com JUSTICII said, that itXFpeared to him to
be necessary that it should be in evidence for the plain-
tiff that his Majesty had sat for the portrait, or he must
fail in his action; and with the permission of Mr. Ser-
geant Wilde, he would then allow Mr.'Seigeant Teddy
to supply such evidence, in order that I.e might not be
talsen by surprise. It was necessary to do so, because
every count in the declaration stated, that the portrait
was painted with the permission of his. Majesty.
Mr. Seigeant Wang had no objection to allow such.
evidence, if it could be adduced.
Mr. Sergeant TADDY declined advancing such evi-
dence. _ _

The'Curee JUSTICI said. as the objection came so
late, the better way would be to let the case go on. with
liberty. to Mr. Sergeant Wilde to move for a nonsuit,
in case the Jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff. He
thought however that the face could not be considered
as the portrait.
Mr. Sergeant Wilma then proceeded to argue at some
length that the criticism was perfectly fair and justi.
fiable ; or if not, that there must be an end to all &hi-
cism whatever, for if a man had not a right to sal that
a picture was a daub, so neither had he a right to sad
that a. book was not worth reading. The question lot
the Jury was, not whether the defendant had formed a
just opinion upon the picture, when he stated that it
was badly painted, but whether in such judgment as he
did form he acted bona fide or maliciously ?
The CHIEF JUTICS their charged the Jury. The
question for their consideration was, first, whether that
part of the criticism which commented upon the merits
of the picture, was fair ; and next, whether the defend-.
ant was warranted in imputing to the plaintiff a fraud
upon his Sovereign? With respect to the &Apart, an
erroneous judgment would not warrant a verdict for tbt
plaintiff. Thu cAte of Carr v. Hood had been alluded to,
and he was disposed to go the full length of Lord Ellen-
bot ough% charge in that case, excepting that, io his opt-
Dion, ridicule should nut be resorted to beyond what
might be duetted towards the book itself. With respect
to the second part, he must say, that the evidence nega-
tived-the assertion that his Majesty sat for the portrait
in question. He had sat for a picture, but not for that,
and his Majesty bad therefore been imposed upon, if a
portrait which he was asked to sit for for one purpose,
was to be devoted to another without his consent. If the
Jury thought that the John Bull had made a true state-
ment of the history of the poftritit, and if they thought
the criticism was not dictatEd by malice, the kieftwiaot
was entitled to their verdict..
The J4ry almost immediately returned a verdict for
the defendant.

The Marquis of Cowyngham, Sir W. Knighton, and
Sir Tuoi., Lawrence, were on the Beach during the trial.

Yesterday an accident of a distressing and fatal na-
ture occurred in the New Horse Bazaar, Gray's Inn
Road. Me. Theodore Lane, a young Gentleman, 2S
years of age, and an artist of considerable merit, called
upon his brother-in-law, Mr. Wakefield, surgeon,' of
Battle Bridge, for the purpose of proceeding in his gig
as far as Mill-hill, Hendon, to join a party of friend.
and relatives, who had gone there to spend the day. Mr.
Lane's Lady had previously set out for the place, with
one of her brothers. Mr. Wakefield having to visit a
patient in Manchester-street, Gray's Inn Road, drove
there with Mr. Lane, who to pass away the time occu-
pied by his brother•in-law with the sick person, entered
the Bazaar. He was not long therevrhen a crash was heard
immediately over the Auctioneer's stand, and presently
the unfortunate Gentleman *as seen tumbling through
a sky-light in the roof of a, pOrtico which stands in front
of the betting-room, when his head, coming in contact
with the flagging beneath, be was killed en the spot.—
Jost at this moment Mr. Wakefield came up, but so
disfigured was his friend, that it was some time before
he knew him, but when the melancholy truth forced
itself upon him, he sunk beneath it, yid lay in a faint.
ing fit for some considerable time. The sad occur-
rence is supposed to have arisen from Mr. Lane barring
struck his heel against the rim of the skylight, while
drawing his head from the window of the Betting-
room, and being thus thrown off his centre, fell back-
wards in the way stated. Information of the circum-
stance was sent off iminedia4ly
.tp, the party at Mill
bill, lhose cePeternatien can be better felt tout A*
•serilied. The distraction of : Mai. Lass was out
Most agonizing description,