Court Of King's Bench, Gu...
The Times, 1824-07-24T00:00:00

Illis was a;n action by 11Mr. Janmes Stamp Sutton Cooke, against a bookselier, in Ludgate-street, for a libel reflecting on his cha- racter. The work in which the passages were contained wns entitled "The SIV]brd Peerage, or ihe Impostor U117naTsked; and designated the plaintiff in the title-page as " The Hon. Janmes Sbalke and Shuffle and Cut." It purported to be written by ,John Campbell. Esq." and consisted of various imputations on the plaintiff's cha- racter as a swindler, blackleg, andl bigamist and of the report of a trial in 1812, at the Old Baiiry, when he was convicted of bigamy, and of thereport of a trial at Derby, of an action for a libel, in which Ile Was plaintiff; and after suistaining great severity of rernark fronm Mr. Sergeanit Vaughan, andlthe Judge, and after the justification of great part of the libel, recovered a fiirthing damages. Mlr. CAMPBELL stated the substance of the declaration, and that the defendlant had pleaded the general issue. The CoSmIoN SERGEANx then stated the case on behalf of the plaintiff-a gentleman wlho was brother ttlthe claimant of the barony of Staftford, and who believed himself to be lineally descended from those who in former times vcre possessed of its estates and ho. nours. His activity in promoting that claim had drawn on hfim the odium of those who wished to curry favouir with the present pos- sessors of the lands, and had brought on him that tissue of calumny for which he now sought redress. The defendant was a publislher, who had sold the pamplhlet, and had thus eitherattempted to recom- mend hirself to the powerful antagonists of Air. Cooke, or to ac- quire profit by fecedings gross appetite for scandal. The learned Com- mon Sergeant then read the passage set forth in the declaration, and called on the jury to issue ample'damages for charges as gross, as unprovoked, and which the defendant had not dared to justify fllr. John Baldwin proved that lie purchased the pamphiet in qucstion at t-c shop of MIr. T. Hughes, in Ludgate-street, on the 15th- of November, and paid for it. Cross.examined.Tlie Vlaintiff was the person who brought an action for libel in Derbyshire. le did not tell the witness that he only obtained a farthing damages. Mr. AB3BOTT then proceeded to read the passages set out in the declaration. AMr. SCARLETT desired to have other passages of the pamphlet read. The CoXeasoN SERGEANT objected to this course. A defendant had a right to read any thing tending to explain or mitigate the cha- racter of the libels ; but not to read otlier independent libels, which happened to be scattered through the same work. In cases of blas- phemous libel, the Court had stepped defendants from reading other olfensive passages from the same book. The Loitn CHNIEF JU ST ICE.-I ahink I have never prevented de- fendants absolutely from going on to read the book; I have certainly told them they could not benefit themselves by such a course. hlr. GuarwEy.-k17 Lord, you have done this-where u defend- ant has avowed that his purpose was to p rove the Christian religion to be false, you have reihacd to permit the book to be read for such a purpose. hlr. CAMrPELL.-If there be one libel declared on, shall the defendant obtain the benefit ef further libelling the plaintiff by reud- ing others? The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.-Mlr. Gurney has correctlystated wha.occurred on theoccasion to which he refers. You seem tomis- take its effect; they cannot prove the truth of what they read; it is in your favour. It they lead more libels, the jury may give more damanges, if they see fit. Mr. ALMOTT then proceeded to read other passages poiuited out by Alr. Scarlett, containing specific charges of considerable enor- mrityiagainstthetplaintif: When he cameto the "Trial for Bigamy," lr. Scarlett requested that it might bc read. The Comm ON SERGEANT objected to this, as the trial was quite a distinct and independent portion of the work. ThIe LoRtD CHIEF JUSTICE said he recollected no instance of a civil action in wvhich the defendant hiad not been allowed to read the whole work. Ile did so at his peril ; his object was to lessen the damages: lie might increase them; but this was entirely for the con- sideration of the counsel conducting the case. MIr. SCARLETT said, lie would state at once the purpose far which he desired the passages to be read. He wished to show that there were specific facts stnted in other parts of the pamphlet; and that the plaintiff had not ventured to found his action on them, but had preferred to rest on the comments on them. Mlr. ABBOTT then went on to read the trial. According to the report, Mir. Cooke defended himself by alleging his nminority at the time of his first marriage; but was convicted, and sentencei to be tiansported for seven years. It wis also stated, that the first mrar- riage was afterwards declared void, and a pardon granted. The re- port of the trial at Derby was also read, in which the plaintiff sought to recover damages for several lbels in a Staftbrdshire journal. His case was introduced by Dlr. Clarke; Slr. Sergeant Vaughan ad- dressed the jury for the elefendant; vwitnesses were called to prove the parts of the libel ijstified * and a verlict was given for the de. fendant on the special pleas, and for the plAintiff on the general is- sse, withl a farthing dariiages. Mlr. SCARLETT asked the witness Baldwin, whether the pamplh- let was written by any person employed by Mwlr. Cooke, and received answer in the negative. This was the plaintiff's case. Mr. SCABL ETTr addressed the jury for the defendant. He asked the last question of the witness for the purpose of showing that Mlr. Campbell, who was counsel for the plaintiff, had not libelled his own client, ancd it was noW quite clear that he was not the author of the pamplhlet which bore a name similar to his own. It was, indeed, manifest that the author was not a lawyer; as, if he had been, he would have taken careFl~ to frame his accusations that he should be able to plead their tmutif lie would not have -called the plaintiff " a bigamist," when by his own statetnent he showed he was not so; wlhen lie showed tlat though he had deluded a young wo- man, and though he had falsely sworn that he was of age to obtain a license of marriae, and though lie had forsaken her and married another, taking adtsantage of his own perjury, yet that he was not, in paint of law, a bismet because his first marriage had been holden void, and he bad obtained a pardon from the Crown. Si a lawyer would have ci,alned himself toa statementof facts,and woiild not hays intwdu5d4-trnAg eoro mtnbs, which however prompted by a moral iindignaion at vice, were not capable ofjustification in iaw. Upon these commennta, rather than on the specific allegations, the jlaintiff rested his conplaint; and though the trials forbiganty anti ibel were really by far the most injurious part of the publication, lie had not dared to eomplain of them, or to insinuate that they were incorrectly reported. In the trial at Derby, there were precedents to he found which might save some labour on the present inqumiry. There was a precedent for the speech of the Com- mon Sergeant in the speech of jllr. Clarke, who tlen, as his succes- sor now, called on the jury to vindica,te this gentleman's characer: there was a speech for the defendant, wvhieh lie (Mfr. Searlett) would not repeat, as it had been already given in excellent voice and tone by Mir. A bbott; there was a precedent of a charge, w hich he did not presume to say was a precedent for the Judge; and there wasc the precedent for a verdict which the jury would be glad to follow. W,5jhere this plaintiff was now; whether, sinee this pamphlet was written, he had been convicted on the indictment to which allusion was made; andi why, if so, he had not as yet been brought up for judg- ment, lie knew not. Perhaps the jury knew something of him; if they knew any thing in his faivour, they would give him the benefit of their knowledge. On the former trial, the learned Judge said to the jurv," W e are now in the county of Derby, and I think you will regret with me that we are in a country where the lowest coin is a farthing,"- which the jury accordingly gave. The present jury wvere in London ; and he trusted they would show by their verdict, that a farthInk was of as much value here as it was in Derby. The LoRn CllEF JUsTICE began to sum up the case; but before lie had expressed any ofinion, except that the verdict must be for the plaintiff, he was Interrupted by The Jury, Who gaid tley were satisfied ; and returned a verdict for the plaintiff.-Damages One Farthing. lr. SCA5ILETT asked the Lord Chief Justice to certify, in order to deprive the plaintiff'of costs. The LotnD CuiEF JUST}CF said lie tliouglht parties must take the risk itt such cases; he would, however, consider of what he should de. 3HAILES V. THOMOrPSON. This ivas an action for words spoken of the plaintiff in the way of his trade as a butcher. The defendant, also-a butcher, was proved to have ealled out, in Sniithfield, on the 28th of July last, to the plainti, "You are a swindUing thief; yoa robbed me of 1401. one morning ," and, pointir g to Newygdte, ' there are many men hung there wpjo are less of scoundrels than you," with other expressions of abuse. Mr. GUstNEY,for the defendant, submitted -that thosewords were slot actionable in thensselves, nor were they spoken 0f the plaintiff in the way of his tr*Pc. The LonD CHsxp.F JUSTICE though1t tlle words not actiosnable, bot suggested the propriety of withdrawizg a juror. Ai1r. GusRzEy assented, and obscrved that-chb words Were not spoken of the plaintifi; batof-anotlherperson, as bheouldabiveshowhn in evidence. . Mr. CASIfX ELLJ for the plaintiff, said this acknOwlerdgmtws Ivery handsome, ald he was readyto yiedto his Lordship's proposal. I Jurorw lasaccordingly withdrawn COUJRT OF KING'S BEN('CH. GUILDIIALT...7UL-Y 23. COOKE V. HUGIIES.