The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-07-07 00:00:00

SOW OS

sally taken
tal variance
Pis'
ported the
Mt. Jdit
for the consideration of the Court above.
Mr.SergnatilVinixas then adertissed the Jury for the
defendants. He 'thought this action most unjustifiable,
end when the Jury were acquainted with the eirclosstatiee,
be was pomaded their.would hi of the trame opininm
He had asked a witness whether the piaiiffiff bad not
been a eobler, and he had done this in order A shew, as
was.the fact, that.at least he had onto been in so low a
station= would nofit.him through want of proper educe-
, tion, for undertaking the sacred office of a minis • r of
the gospel. The paragraph complained of had first ap-
peeved 10 17. e Becks Chronicle. Why were not the pie.
ties content with proceeding against that paper? ,WhV
bad the plaintiff brought the present action in London)
The answer was plain—it was that in the county of Buck
initbam the object proposed by the action would. not, be
so likely to .succeed. In that county he was known,
while here. he was a.stranger. His ministry had; not
made him so much an object of public attention as to
render him the subject of the thoughts and admira-
tion of the citigens of London; the vindication of his
character would be more effectual if it could be obtained
in Buckinghamshire; but the action was bronghsliere
that be might have the advantage of tailing his tale of
sorrowfid complaint before those who were ignorant of
those circtunstances with which his own townsmen must
be well acquainted. However, the Beek. Mrs:mirk had
been 'proceeded against; in another week that action
word be tried, and a verdict was now sought from a
London Jury, In order to enable some of the Learned
Sergeants now in filbert to state the example to the Buck-
inghamshire July, and call on them to imitate it. The
Leeward Sergeant then read the paragraph, and observ-
ed that if that was a libel it could not be said to be an
aggravated libel—it was indeed one of the mildest and
most diluted libels he had ever read. The words which
the plaintiff had uttered in the pulpit would this day be
proved, and the gentleman who *bowed so much morbid
delicacy when.bis conduct was in question, should learn
he ought to respect the feeliigs of others. If there was
one place more than anothea from which all bad passions
should be banished, and in which love, good will and
charity, should alone have entrance, it was the pulpit.
If the invectives which would be proved to-day were
true, the lady and not the plaintiff was the person to
complain; she was, indeed. ' more sinned against than
sinning," and it was the duty of the plaintiff to have re.
traced his steps, and have asked her pardon rather than
have appeared here to-day as a public accuser. The
Learned Sergeant went into a detail of the facts, and ob.
served.that the onlv offence of which the lady bad been
guilty, was in suffering two children to go home in
the afternoon in order to afford their mother the
opportunity of going to a Wesleyan Chapel. This
was the conduct which bad been stigmatised as
disgraceful—this was the conduct that had offended the
plaintiff, who appeared to be a divine Calvinistic shoo-
maker, and' whose education, if more extended, would
have softened his mind, and have improved his murals
add feelings. The present action was a sort of corollary
to the invectives he had need, and chewed to demonstra-
tine, that he could not be charged with the too frequent
use of that Christian forbearance which it was his duty
to inculcate and exercise. Ode other circumstance '
de.
served to be meptioned • he (the plaintiff) had once al
mitte.i that perhaps he bad better not have used the
words ; he was requested to make an apology, but lame.
diately and peremptorily refused to do so. observing (in
imitation of a great Statesman, who once differed with a
distinguished Leader of Opposition) that if the friends of
the young lady Waited for an apology they would wait •
long enough. In proving the justification he thought
he should establish the plaintiff to have beenthe greater

libeller.
John Ceilings—l knew the plaintifk I was present at
the afternoon service on Sunday, April 6 ; we sing first
and then a prayer is delivered; after which we tiog again,
and a text Is then given out ; the plaintiff was standing
in the table.pew, that is the place where the Minister
stands to perform the afternoon service ; before the text
was delivered lie said something—l am afraid I cannot
repeat the words exactly, I am an old man, and my me-
mory is sometimes at fault-1 believe what he'satti was
this She is a disgrace to the school," he did notinen.
-tion her name then, but afterwards ; " She has done
more hurt than good by giving the children leave to go
to other places," he seemed to signify that they ought-to
have been attending their duty, he began of his own
accord. '
Crose-examined—l am SO years old; I have lived in
Marlow ever since I was three years old; the plaintiff
has officiated there nearly 18 years ; my house was
the first he bad when he came, and very good friends we
were. . •
Mr. Sergeant Pstg.—And I hope are still.
Witness—Yes, ['should be sorry not to be good friends
with him ; the meeting-house is calculated to bold nearly
1,000 persons, perhaps it may not be quite so large, but
it is a very large place; the plaintiff has taken great-care of
the school, he contributed very much to bring it forward
at first ; •several gentlemen and ladies are kind enough to
attend to instruct the children to theirduty .; the
.plain-
tiff did not say any thing of Miss Fair's character many
other way than in permrtting the children to leave the
school; he said that in consequence of her permitting
the children to leave the school she did more berm than
gi)od.
One of the Jury wished to know whether it was meant
that she did more hurt than good by neglecting their
education, or by permitting them to go to other places?
Witness—He complained of the children being per-
mitted to be in the street, the plaintiff was generally ap-
proved of by the congregation—he was always very active
in prqpioting the interests of the schooL
Mary Anne Stone gave words to a similar effect—tge
words stated by this witness were—" I have something
to say, which 1 thought of mentioning before, that is of
a female teacher belonging to the Sunday school ; her
•narne. is Miss Fair, she does more harm than good, and
if any girl dare ask her leave, she-shall be turned out and
never enter the *hoot agsin—her conduce is a disgrace
to the school." Miss Fair was one of the teachers at the
school, and attended there regularly for six or seven
years: she was about 24.
Cross-examined—Miss Fair had asked the witness about
the words. They had been read to her at Mr. Wash•
bourn's; they had been read to her within the lest week ;
they had been read• before; perhaps three times within
the last month. Mr. Washbourn was brother-in-law to
Miss Fair,
Re-examined—Witness first gave the words to Miss
F:6r, and these whirl. ikia been read .to her were the
same, and thee-were the words witness heard pl.intilf
utter. Miss ['Pair was a la.ly of spotless reputation and
irreproachable charaeter.
Miss Eliza Holding stated the words used to have
been—" Miss Fair had been in the habit of giving the
children leave to absent tbemselvea. trom school. He
should not put it in the power of the teacher to give the
children leave. She was doing more harm than good."
Miss Smith stated the plaintiff began by saving that
belittle!) wished to.mention something which be disap-
proved of ire one of the female teachers; he s.id, " I
mean Mils Fair." At that time witness was obliged to
leave chapel on account of a violent cough •, on iter.ra•
turn she heard him say, " does more harm than good."
Mr. Joseph Wrighteene of the Deacon,. whose duty it
is to attend-to the secelar concerns of the chapel, baj
communication witli the plaitititrrespecting the worth- lib,

into
at he
pewb
'd be
the

eonveniug
..s2himat ...alleOntrary
to the lows governiug the Jadepe t meeting. for if
any sectional wasmade against aey one of the members,
be had E. tight to have a meeting, lied added, be could
not beio Imposed on in the independest society, and that
, a Meeting magi be called. Witness convened a meeting.
.which wai accordingly held. Plaintiff said it mast he a
poling it:letting: It was so. Witness read the letter
'which Miss Fair had sent him. After this, witness said
to the Meeting, that he had mentioned the circumstance
to. the plaintiff. and had proposed Fleeting. to which
plaintiff had'ohjected, and witness observed that it was
not jibe borne that a defenceless female should this be
attacked witbbnt being beard. Mid how would be feel if
it had been his own daaghter ? Witness believed plaintiff
said it might have been as well if be bad not mentioned
the name; bat, on being asked by Mr. Waebbourn to
make an apology, lie said he should staid there a long
while before he made any apology. Did the former oc-
casion, whoa witness saw the plaintiffin the vestry,plain-
'tiff said Min Pair was a lying busty. `The matter oc-
casionerfgreat.confasion among the Independent Disseo-
tete in coeseqeence of the meeting being public, which
ware the plaintiff's desire. Witness's son proposed a
vote of 'tensors on the plaintiff, bat it was not seconded.:
Miss Pair's ebseacter was in every respect iirreproachable.
Mr. Sergeser Piti.z.--Nobodyever denied it.
The oritnewewas then uosnexamined.—He did express
warmly;hipiseil had said other things of the plaintiff
beyond went related to his conduct en this oc.ession.—
The letter in question stated the charge which theylain-
tiff had made against Miss Fair, and then observed by
way of reply, that she had only permitted toss of the
children to go home to afford their mother an opportu-
nity of attending the Wesleyan Chapel. It went on to
declare that since the plaintiff had expressed his disap-
probation of permitting the childrea to leave the school
she had ceased to great them leave of absence. This was
reed to the meeting, but the following part, although
written at the same time, woe not stated. It was to the'
following effect t—that she had occasionally left the
plaintiff's chapel in the afternoon, " considering it suffi-
cient self-denial to hear'Mr. Edwards morning and even-
ing, he never having Leen a minister of her approbation,
seer bad she ever derived any benefit from his ministry."
Miss Fair, a young lady whose appearance and msn-
sers were extremely prepossessing, was then called—She
std, I have assisted at this Sunday School about seven
years and a half; I never received any reward for my
services; I never at any time countenanced the absence
of the children from their instruction; I have allowed
two of the children to go home in consequence of their
mother being unable to attend a place of worship unless
they did; they had been present in the morning; I never
allowed them to go home on any other occasions, except
on account of illness.
The letter was put into her hands, which she stated to
be the same she had sent.
Cross-exam:ned—The plaintiff was never a favourite
preacher of mine nor of Ale. Miniboom ; Mr. Wash.
bourn had been on friendly terms with the plaintiff, but
not at the time of this transaction; Mr. Washbourti Lad
been a bankrupt, and the plaintiff one of his creditors ; I
bad never allowed any of the children to go hone, or out
of the sehool, except for the reasons I have before ince.
tioned ; l did not generally attend the afternoon service;
I went to church ; others of the female teal hers were
occasionally absent from the afternoon service ; I do not
know who pat the paragraphs into The Bucks Chronicle.
fly the JUDOS— che plaintiff had no voicein the school
except as a member to choose the Conamiree; the school
is governed by a Committee of Cachet.
Mr. S. Waahbourn corroborated the testimony of Mr.
Wright.
Cross-examined—The Meeting did not express any
disapprobation of the plaintiff's coudnet ; Mr. Wright
proposed a vote of censure, which was not seconded ; he
used expressions personallroffensive to Mr. Edwards;
be said that the plaintiff had disgraced his professional
character.
Mr. Sergeant Pint replied.
Beemionses charged the Jury. The charge
of making use of the pulpit for the purpose of delivering
personal invectives, was of the most serious kin I. A
Minister might be permitted—indeed his duty required.
Mtn to preach against VICO or immorality, bet he was
not justified in pointing out a particular person as the.
object of his censure; the charge was therefore a libel ;
and the Jury ought' to find a verdict for the plaintiff on
'the general issue giving moderate damages, and if they
believed the justification to be made oat, for the defend-
ants on that justification.
The Jury retired at half-past three, and at seven re
-
harped a verdict for the plaintiff on the general issue ;
rimnages forty shillings, and for the defendants on the
justification.

. ..
.1 -: -t ' .**tgliAN
. . . . , . _ T ....... .
. - . . .. .
. ..
thaaviienewit motored +state iffseinsiorioi- had uttered. Witness told him boliado Jitter pat it
dteiffram. 'TECH/ides CAroxicre. This was a fa- his beads of an unpleasant natant. relating to- what
Noce between the feet ind.the ward.. . . had sad •f lee publicly in the pulpit. or in the table pe
Fit.arr.whoWwwitifilir.Serteant Vaininatt; esp• and he *ought it necessary that titymetabetil 'should
the objection. called together, which witness proposed to be on i
rodeo Butiotions reserved the second objection evening of thatday. The likintiff objected to conveni
consideration of the Court above, , the members. Witness said the oh on was. colitis