Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1827-03-22
CAsEOFLIBEL-PAUL PRY.

We believe that every body has heard OF
Paul Pry, and that most people have seen him
Those, however, who have neither seen nor
! heard Of him, may as we'll be told in briei, that
he is an English gentleman of leisure, whose
sole OCCUPATION consists in pryins into other
| peoples affairs and babbling them 10 the town.
In plain words, he Is gossip in panfaloons; and
if gossip?ing isever od;ous, it must be emphau
cally so when the person employed in 1t claims
10 pass for Man.
So long as Paul confined himself to the sphere
Of a village, and 10 the mere wagging of his
tongue, no matter how busily i, might be kept
employed, his tales were comparatively Of little
consequence, and served rather as sources Of en-
tertainent than OBJECTS Of censure. Blu: he
must needs thrust his head against the law Of
libel, and c'est une autre chose. Paul has learn
ed to his cost, that there is great difference,
both in morals and IN law, between SANDER and
libel, and their relative effect, and the differ
ence consists in this, that words, being but
breath, are unsubstantial and evanescen, THINGS.
durable, and have the ability Of being circulated
to an illimtable extent. The occasion of his
offending, so as 10 expose himself to the tender
mercies Of an action foi damages, is simply this
Being ambitious of taking the fashionable
:our on the continent, and cutting something of
brella and other moveaoles, bade goodbye to
Col. Hardy, hired post chase oil Doubledot,
and rode to Dover-thence sailed To Calais, go,
sea sick, landed, and posted to the grand city.
Here he spen, several weeks, and having some
spare time on his hands, opened CORES
pc J.ence with the London Literary Gazette
Being of prying disposition he was able 10 COM
municate many facls not known to the cores
pondents of other journals; and as, besides, his
letters were written in vein of great pleasau,ry.
they soon became matters Of con siderable inter.
est 10 readers in general. We have frequent
ly been tempted 10 transplant some Of them in
to our columns, but have been prevented by
want Of room.
In one Of his numbers, Paul fell into an epis
ode upon "puffing," and being seized with his
old village propensity 10 scandal, was indiscreet
enough to express himself as follows:
"Many persons very wrongly imagine that
the art ofPuf6ng is English. We are tolerably
good hands at it, as all readers Of newspapers
and pos,ing-bills know, from 2oss's Wigs down
to Rowland's Macasssr Oil s. Charles Wrights
Champagne, Guslly so called, because he makes
il all himself, without the aid Of the grower in
France, but after all, putting is only an exotic
in Englnnd; il is indigenous in the hot bed of
France"
Now as Mr.. Wright prides himselfnot lit
lie upon his Sparkling" as he styles il par er
,Slence, he thought Mr.. Pry's insinuation abou
his MIR. WIS exclusive property in the article
inst tfsraby ofhcious; and he accordingly direct
I'd his solicitor to institute an action against
him or his publishers, the editors of the Ga
zette, which was done the suit lately came
10 trial, and the counsel on both sides were very
eloquent on the OCCASION Mr.. Vaughan for
the plaintiff, extolIed the Sparkling" to the
very echo, and added, quite candldlv, that he
spoke on this poin, from his own particular ex-
perience. Mr.. raddy for the defendant, en-
dsavoured TO turn the whole subject into pleas
aniry. He said that 'the jury must very we'll
see that tins action was brought solely for the
purpose Of putting. Mr. Charles Wrph, had,
he presumed, almost exhausted his stock of
puts, and therefore had had recourse TO his
learned TREND, who was one Of the most eminent
Puffrrs Of the day
He then quoted several specimens of the va
rious kinds Of puffs which the plaintiff was in
the habit Of issuing 10 the world "Indeed" he
said,"he could not avoid remarking on the SINH.
lariiy existing between this case and B.n,lrv's
answer to Pope, when the latter sen, the for.
mer copy Of his Had. Bentley's answer was
that the expression was quite correc,(his Iliad)
for it certainly was not the Had Of Homer
I laughter. So with Mr.. Charles Wrieht's
sparkling champagne; he called it his. and tru-
ly it was his. He in conclusion, submitted that
the defendants, so far from having done Mr..