Star.
London, England, 1817-05-31 00:00:00

I-41r 1117 ELL/GENCE.

COURT' OF KING'S BENCH, MAY O.
STHAHE V. LoVELL.
Mr. CHITTY ripen-d the pleadings; and stated that
it was an action brou.dit by Mr. D. Stuart, one of the
Proriet,,rs of The l'eurier Newsp per, Against Mr/
Lovell, th. Proprietor of 'the Siatueson Newspaper,
kr a libel, riiserted in *Statesman on the 1 Itli 4 A
Der,tnher. 1816.
The delendant pleaded the general issue.
Mr. MAIIISYAT S4id. 11141 the object ot the action
on the part 01 Mr. 13. Stuart, one • f the Proprietors
of the Courier Newspaper, .was to recover compensa-
tion from Mr. Lovell. the sole Propriet•tr of the
Sratesroan Newspaper, for a gross personal libel, in-
serted in that pub! cation ; and lie trusted that the
Jury would give ample damages to mark their sense
of the iojirry. 'rite plaintiff. Mr. Stuart. had been
mins, year. a Proprietor of the Outlier Newspaper
(having pr.vi iusly been the Proprietor of another
Paper), but he never had been Editor. and for some
}ears he I:4J had little to do with the management
of the piper ; the literary part of which had been
altogeti•er lett to the co-proprietor. It was not 're-
cess ay for him to inquire whether or not there bad
been any thing previom.ly published in the Courier,
personally directed uganist Mr. Lovell ? The fact,
however, was, neither Mr. Lovell nor the Statesman
Newspaper had ever been mentioned in the Courier.
It was not for him (Mr. Martial) to conjecture the
rear,• s which had induced Mr. L kvell to make this
attack "n Mr. Stuart; but it did so happen, that Mr.
Lovelits pus. I i c s. being genet My different from them
of Mr. Stuart's paper, he had chosen to make ?dr.
Stuart the object not merely ot political but personal
attack. Ht- would nut inquire into the propriety of
the Editor of one Newspaper CAVliiill.; at the sent'.
inents•ut the Editor of another; but unquestionably
it. WAS not allowable in any writer in a Newspaper or
any other public •tion, to indulge in ,calumny for .he
gratification of a private and malignant feeling. whe-
ther with provocation or without it. In the present
instance, however, no provocation whatever had been
given by Mr. Stuart's paper to Mr. Lovell. In all
societies certain negotiations of conduct were prescri-
bed, which it behoved the individuals of whom those
societies were composed, to observe towards each
other. In that Court, it was not permitted to any
man to libel the private character ot another. In as-
semblies of a higher description, it was not permit-
ted even to name any individual to whose sentiments
a reference might be made. The opinion of that in-
dividual might be freely centroverted, but no personal
allusion to -him was ever tolerated. But the Jury
would be surprised to hear, not merely that -a per-
sonal allusion had been made by Mr. Lovell to Mr.
Stuart, from the beginning to the end of the article
in which was the particular passage for which the
present action was brought ; but that' he distinctly
accusei Mr. Stuart of having been guilty of a breach
of trust, and of the embeastemeot of contiderahle
sums of money belonging to a very respectable So.
dirty, called the Friends of the People, and of which
many high and distinguished persons were members,
to which Society Mr. Stuart, twenty-five years ago,
was Secretary. Certain .sums of money. subscribed
in this Society, bad all been regularly *motioned for;
and when the Society teased, the balance had been
daily paid over. Yet in the libelloos.article published
by Lovell he had accused Mr. Stuart of the
embezzlement before adverted to, and had referred
to several highly respectable members of the Society
as capable of confirming hi; statement. The whole'
libel ran through two pages, of which he would read
extracts to the Court. Mr. Maniac here read seve-
ral peuages from the libel; and among them the
following s
4.. The Grier Melds handleable every man, sod except the
eitweluars of the State, every man's band is lifted against biol.
Le sag all other &raki, be has batty taken it into ins kepi to
catechise the Lord Mayor rospoeting his Lordship's conduct to
Prates and Hooper; the former Secretary and tie latter Tra-
inee: to the esteem& hodety. Now we recollect, that 74. CAf
fie' himself Ailed both these awes to the Society called the
Rico& of the People, fa 1753; and if our memory fails' sat,
we rather think be had the good fortune to pocket sit or mien
handelle pounds of money belonging to the fends of that So.
chap. This, se be sure, happened before he betrayed Ida re.
tree.; sad. perhaps, fore even his treachery was suspected.
Either ot the Lords &thine or Grey could throw much light
upon this subjects and it was certainly rtunriered at the time
teat tome reps of a keel kind were lb 'agitation, to compel the
insuef Tie Carrie to dlegorge the money. Now whatever may
be the other sins of Proton and Hooper, we have as heard that
they tan be &ailed with betraylog thin el:opium% and seising
the dolmen fend."
The formal parts of the case being proved—
The Right Honourable George Tierney was then
:Tells a witness.
ELLIABOROUCTI interposed, and said, that if
the evidence of this Gentleman was tendered for the
purpose of negativing the matters contained in the
iel be should not receive it. Had there been a
jestication upOn the record then evidence might be
admitted on both sides.
Mr. MAIHLYIST said that this was not the object he
. had in view in'ealling the witness.
Mr. Tammy: stated, that he was Treasurer to the
Sekinety celled the Friends of the People, of which
Mr. Stuart was the Secretary. It was witness's duty
to receive subscriptions. He had read, the libellous
paragraph three month* since, and be believed it ap-
plied to the plaintiff.
Cross-ezamined—Heithd no doubt that Mr. Stuart,
the proprietor of the Courier, was the same person
wNo acted as Secretary to , the Society of Friends of
C:e People. .
The Libel was then put in and read.
A copy of the Statesman of the 15th January last,
was then offered in evidence, to spew the spirit with I,
which the defendant had traduced the plaintiff's the-'
ratter; but
Lord Eumioaotran said, be could only receive
such evidence, in eases whew the libellous Matter
charged was equivocal. . .
Mr. Briar was next ezawismi. The plaintiff bad
nothing to do with the Stair,/ department of the
parr.- Witness was the Editor. He had, no doubt
in the libel applied to the plaintiff.
Lord Giza stated, that be had been a Member of
dtetiociety of. -the Fria* of the People. He cthald
ape doubt thatthe libel ied wilts plaintiff.
,t
Here Octave of thef ' tar closed, which was
conducted by Mr. Ma . AT, Mr. GININIST, Mr.
Cuswoos, and Mr. C . .
Mr. Scan= addresetti the Jury in behalf of the,
deleadinat.-=1 Mr. Lovell, tor oboe I appear, bat
ilDriad qua me ilea rather were; Imam :La

has thought At to remind uric (I wish he had not done
so) of the situation in which I stood some years ago '
as his Counsel, when he had the misfortune (for it
was N misfortune) of presenting himself in a Court of
Justice to claim damages from a Jury for a libel puh
'idled against him by a brother Editor: hr has put
into my hand some expressions used by me upon that
occasion, which I cannot but regret, because I am
of aid he Oinks that the consequence of using them
WAS, that the verdict went against him. 'nose ex-
pressions may be imputed to a want of zeal tor my
client--a charge I do not deserve; or to an excessive
candour, which, as advocates, we do not, and ought
not to admit ; but the effect of theist, he apprehends,
was, that the Learned Judge directed, and the Jury
found, a verdict against him. Mr. Lovell states,
that I said, that if there were any persons who ought
to be indifferent to the pub!ications in the daily press
it was those who themselves conducted and profited
by the operations of that press ; and that it ought in.
deed w be a ease of a most extraordinary nature t"
justify 'the Editor of a Newspaper in coming into
Court to ask damages fora libel upon him. I make no
doubt that I said so, because I recollect, that though
Mr. Lovell was charged with being the hired agent
of the arch-enemy of this country (Bonaparte), yet
the Jury thought that he was entitled to no compen-
sation. I do net know exactly whether lee expects
th it I should repeat and enforce that remark upon
the present trial; but I should Certainly think it a
great reproach upon use, as his Counsel, if I'did nor
enforce that position for his defence now which I
urged before, and which lost him the verdict as a
plaintiff. Indeed, the whole of it may be summed
up in a single-line. with which one of my. 'miner
friends has furnished me, (tor we before thebar have
had time enough to forget our Latin), and on which
what I said can be consiJeted only a commentary
Quii tuterit Graccaos de sedition title:Vetoes r
Who can endure that an Editor of a Newspaper
should bring an action for dainves ?—I confess, I
have very seldom read the Courier, but Mr. Marryatt
Worms us that its politics are raker adverse to those
of the Statesman. Probably it is so, and for 014
reason I could not believe that Mr. Stuart, one of the
present proprietors of the Courier, was the same Mr.
Stuart who Was formerly the Secretary to the Society
of the Friends of the People. whose object, if I recol-
lect, was to, promote a refirm in Parliament, and
was not very well disposed towards the Ministers of
the day. The witnesses who have sworn to this gen-
ileman's identity are too distinguished and respect-
able for me to doubt the fact. Formerly be associa-
ted with the noble and honourable individuals who
have been examined; and formerly he held them to
be disinterested-, virtuous, and of the soundest politi-
cal principles. He has, it seems, of late years altered
his opinions in this respect; and does he mean to as-
sert, that the accusation of this change injures his ho-
nour and character, and entitles him to come before
a Jury for reparation ? If see, in what a deplorable
case are halt the Newspapers in the kingdom! Few
indeed do not assume this licence, warranted as it has
been by examples so notorious. No doubt, Mr.
Stuart bad very good reasons for making the &lora-
tion. The'defendant only says—" You, Mr. Stuart,
who formerly sounded your brazen trumpet against
Mc. Pitt and his policy, now sound the same trumpet
in his praise, call him the heasteu-born Minister, and
extol all who tallow and support his system. You
accuse the Lord Mayor and the City of London of
inconsistency. You say that a certain Address is in-
consistent with the opinions they expressed two years
ago; and how can you take upon yourself to be a
reformer of consistency, who have yourself found oc-
cadon to make such a striking clung:. in your own
conduct r—This in reality was the libel, and for this
the plaintiff seriously asked for considerable damages.
The Lord Mayor has not complained of the law
scurrilous language he has indulged in against him ;
and why. is the plaintiff to be so sore upon the subject
that he cannot rest in his bed under this foul charge
of inconsistency I The latter and smaller part of the
libel refers to the plaintiff's Secretaryship to the
ciety of the Friends of the People ; and it accuses him
of improperly putting money into his pocket. I do
not think that it necessarily imports a criminal charge,
and I hope that you will be of the same opinion, and
if I have the good fortune to persuade you so, Mr.
Lovell will be entitled to your verdict. I submit
that the fair meaning of the paragraph in the News-
paper called the Statesman is nut to impute any offence.
Can it be said, then, that in any way the character of
the plaintiff has suffered ? Was it possible that it
should suffer. under the circumstances The sale of
his concern has not been injured in the slightest do.
gree : and we have no reason to think that the circu-
lation of a Newspapee depends much upon the moral
character of its conductor. We judge of works from
themselves ;• by their own merits. We hear of
wounded feelings. that are to be healed—the wounded
feelings of a Newspeper writer 14114 linnet L
he not leen a riven perpetually' dabbling in the press 1
Is he not the Mr. Stuart who was concerned as de-
fendant in the case which I cited ? Was he not once
an advocate for the liberty of the press, which he now
seeks to restrain ; and does he not call upon you to
ruin a rival Editor, without the possibility of benefit
to himself ? His character, if it ever suffered, is me.
stored by the admission I have made; and surely he
is not one that ought to complain of great delicacy,
and nicety of feeling. The Noble and Honourable
Persons called on behalf of the plaintiff, I dare say,
-never.imagitted that Mr. Stuart was guilty of what
is charged-against him ; all others no doubt have for-
gotten it; and Mr. Stuart, without much forbear-
ance, I should think, might have slept soundly in the
delightful satisfaction of copscious innocence. As to
tergiversation, I really could not believe that this
was the same man: I could not think it possible,
until his own partner assured us that Mr. Stuart of
the Courier was. in truth, the Mr. Stuart of the So-
ciety of " The Friends of the People."- At all events,
however, gr. Stuart's system has been the most suc-
maul j tor, while he has been living in this retire-
ment of affluence, my upfontosate client has been suf.-
tering fur his Consistency in polities most severely.
Has Mr. Stuart suffered for his consistency 1 No. lie
was more prudent; and the only share he now takes
is the labours of his concern Is the counting and cal-
culating of the profits. Will pm not say then, Gen.
'lsom under such ginulateSOCel. that she smiillest;
damages— aro sufficient ?—they will testis, boa repo.
Luisa. and they will keep "nay client from min. 11*-1
collect the reaps:wive situations of the pardes; and
incanhers too, that the Lditior of a Newport "Owl

(firm* {alone, on the spar of the moment, and you
will not vi.tt it too severe. if he has stepped a•little
nut of the right way to say a few words against this
Gentleman trf the Courier. The Etitors of Newspa-
pers ought to exercise great forbearance towards their
brethren ; they ought to remember the old maxim

" Be to their virtues ever kind,
" Be to their faults a little blind."
Mr. Stuart must feel that his hen tor and character
had not suffered from what Mr. Lovell had published;
and he therefore hoped he would be satisfied with
their verdict, if they should give it in his lavour, al-
though it carried the smallest possible damages.
Lord Ett.exaortouon, after slating the nature of
the proceeding, charged the Jury in the following'
terms:—The libel contains matter defamatory of the
Plaintiff in two respects: first, with regard to the
conduct of the Courier, which it says is politically
prostituted, and flaurishing in full-blown baseness
and infamy. We will consider this part of the charge
a little, before we proceed to the other calumnious
matter. Certainly one publisher of a newspaper may
comment upon the productions of another, and has
ill the rights of free criticism that belang to any
other subject of the kingdoms to this liberty Lord
Kenyon referred in the case of Herri.a w. Stuart;
but an Editor has no privilege to comtuen: on the
moral character of another; and when, as in the
libel, it is stated that the Courier is prostituted to Al
parties, that the Editor is the venerable apostle of
tyranny and oppression, 'and that the full-blown
baseness of the paper precludes it from all respectable
connexions, it oversteps the limits of free and allow-
ed observation. But there is another part of the libel,
upon which the Learned Counsel principally relied,
in which the Plaintiff is accused of a breach of a pe-
cuniary trust, when be was Sectetary or Treasurer
'to the Society of the Friends of the People. Mr.
Stuart has given the defendant an opportunity of
justoying, by proving the truth of tae alle4ation,
which could not have been done had he proceeded
criminally. Had it been the fact that the Plaintiff
had the goad fortune to pocket six or ‘7OO of the
Funds of the Society, the Defendant niglit this day
have shewn it. He has not done so, and it must be
taken to be unfounded ; and I do not think that it is
open to the exalanation attempted to be put upon it,
tor it ampuxs to the Plaintiff the receiving of this
money, and appropriating it unwarrantably, and in
the nature of embezzlement; and it is added, that it
aas rumoured at the time, that some steps of a legal
kind were in agitation to compel Mr. Stuart to dis-
r gorge : the very word sdirgorge seems to impute that
he had obtained the.rioney improperly ; it is a con-
tumelious word, and implies that the money had been
obtained in some manner criminally punishable. If
you think that the plain meaning of the words is,
that the Plaintiff had been guilty of a fraud, the pre-
sent action is maintainable, and the Plaintiff will be
entitled to is fair and reasonable measure of damages:
what the amount should be I do not pretend to say,
since it is a question entirely for your judgment.
The Jury consulted for a few minutes, and gave
the Plaintiff a verdict, with £l(X) damages. .