Court Of King's Bench, Gu...
Mlr. CAIMPIiELL havinR opened the-pleadings-in this cause, Mlr. SCARLETT Stated the circumstances under which it was brought. The plaintiffbhad been the clhurchwarden of the parish of AMile-end Old Town, andl (luring his exercise of that office a sum of 2001. was,paid to.him, on behalf of the parish., being the considera- tion given by the Regent's Canal Company for the prchase of a piece of parish land called Road's-well. This sum AMr. A ustin had wvithouit delay invested in India Bonds, that the parish mnighit hAve the interest of theiT money accruing. In this parish of Mik-end, as well as in other place ofnmore importance,there were two parties- there was, the majority, who were, contented wvith the manner in which the a.fairs of the patighitirte uotnducted and there was theminority, consisting of persons who thought they had reason to fitid faulL. It seemed that a very laudable practice prevailed at Milc&-end-that of publishing the accounts of the churchwarden, so that all the inihabit- ants might know exactly how thr parish m,oney was dliposed of. The minoritv to whiom he had allud(ed thiought fit to republisk those accoutnts, preceded by an address, in whichi they chose to express their disappr'obation ofNMr. Austin's conduct; an they hiad dlone this in so incautious and offensive a manner, as to complitat gentlemnan to the present proceceding, for the puirpose of vidcting his character fromn the attack they had made upon it. One of the main objects of the minority was to hiavena churcliwarden of their own elected, and to effect this purpose no means seemedI to them so expedient as to calumniate the gentleman who then filledI that of- fice-. In p4trsuit of their intention, they stated inL their addIress that inquiry hadl been mnade into the subject of the India Bonds, and that the result of that inquiry was, that no such bonds had been pur- chased at all. They cairied their- wit and their malice even farth er, for heycaled te peceof goun (Rads'-well), for the purchiase of whic 201. wa pid, ogus'- 'eU; ad to give point to thie insinua- lio, heycaseditto e rinedin taics. The object of the de- .fenant,whse nmeswer siged o te address complainetl of, enil of teirconsitunts,theminoity lid completely, failed', for their favoriecanddats hd no ben eected chuirchwartdens. They woul be tauglit, he hoped, by the verdict of the jury, that thecir other design-that of blackceiiing rlI r. Austini's reputaition...would be n'i less fuxtile, and that they must not wantonly publisth calumnies whichi were wvholly withouit fooindation. The plaintiff had offered them the fuilleRtopportunityofjttstifyiug (if they could justify) what they had said of him, and he (Mr. Sicarlett) wvas desired to state that nothing was farther from his client's intention than to carrv large damages ; his only desire w-as to refute the aspersions of the aefenrlants. Witnesses were called who proved the nature of the transaction between the parish astd the Regent's Canal Company, the purchas of the In.dia Bonds, and the public announcemnent by the plaintiff toea vestry meeting,of the investment he had made in February,1822. Andrewv Dunc-an, an inhabitan t of' the pariah, attended a towvn meeting on the 8th of February, 1822. He sat upoai that occasion next to Mlr. Austin, and saw hiim produce the India Bonds. Mr. Austin then said publicly, that he had received the money, and had laid it out in the pu-rchase of India Bonds. WVitnests, as well as othe getleen wo wrepesen, eamied the Bonds, and he was JohnCoc, apriter wa appiedto n Agus, 123,by a Mir. Burtn, s prit apape whih pupored t bea addessto the in- habtans o Mie-ed Od Twn.fleafterwards gave the Manu- seni tMr. Boote. While the paper was in witness's possession l?M a oe commniu'ication withi Mr. Carpenter, who directed him as to the mainner in whichi it wa% to be printedl. He sent a proof to each of those gentlemen; the proof from which he printed the ad. dress was signed by all the defendants. He hand an interview with AMr. Maltby, who objected to the note subjoined to the address being printed. ft'was.howvever, atlerwvardsaprinted with that note. Wit- ness printed 2,000 copies, which he delivered to Mr. Wood. He also sent six copies~ to Mr. AMaltby by the direction of Mlr. Boote. Cross-examined-..When Mlr. Citzpenter first saw the proof of the address, he objected to its being headed "1Report of the Church. wardens and Overseers," and to every thing personal whichi it con- tained. Air. Boote expressied himself to' a similar effect. MVr. Carpenter directed witness's attention particulatly to the note,which was then struck out. Mr. Burton called with a proof sheet when witness acquiainted him with Mr. Carpenter's objection, and the alteration which had been made in consequence. T'ie no',e wits re-inserted at Mlr. Barton's request, and all the copies were printed from a proof broughit to witness by Mlr. Burton, signed by all the defendants, and containinig thenote. He never saw any of thie2,000 copiesin circulation. The libel was then put in and read. Benjamin Smith proved that Alr. Maltby called upon him in August, 1823, and gave hiim a copy of the report now produced, tell- in him at the same time to say nothing about it for a few days, by wh,Fichitime the whole of tiecopies would bediistributed. Mlr.AMalt- by said that he bath objected to the personalities contained in the re- port, hut that being in the minority lie lhad been outvoted, and was therefore oblii'ed to concur. This was the plaintiff's case. The ATrTORNEY-GE-NEtAL, for the defendants, reg~retted that the Court had been so long occupied in hecaring this parish squabble dliscuissed. He could assure them that it had been the most anxious desire of the respectablc gentlemen wliom hie represented to prevent the cause comning on for trial. Since, howevor, it had been gone in- to, he should have no difficulty in satisfying the jury, that it had 'never been their intention to calumniate the plaintiff; that they had objected to the insertiuon of the note wliceh had given him offence, and that it was by a mere mistake or oversight that it had been printed. It appeared that AMr. Austin had received 2001., and thatt he had thoughit fit to invest that SUM in LhePurchaseoflIndia Bonids. Some persons in the parisli thioughit that he had not acted properly in idoing s5o, and a meeting was called in consequence,at which the mat- ter was discu.sseth. A report was dIrawn up in consequence of that mieeting, in whiceh the libel, the subject of this actiov, was contain- cii. So far from jtsstifying that libel, his defencee was, that the de- fendants liad done all in thecir power to preVent its pueblication. Ful- lY satisfiedi that he should prove the absence of a-Ay mRalice on the part of the defendanlts, lie confidently relied on proc-aring thze verdict of the jury in their favour. He then called Air. Burton, an inhabitant of Mlile-endc, whio said lie liad taken an active part in examining the accounts of the ovesseers in 1823. He wa,s the author of the remnarks which accompany the reports9. Alessrs.Boote a.nd Car penter were presaent at the mieeting when those remiarks were presented, and they both objected to the passage whichi -is the siubject of the present action, and to every othier personal allu- sion. The acldresti was not signedl at the meetinp. but about a fortnight afterwards, when it had been pinted. he witness saw the printer In the mean time,who showed hrim a Proof,of the address, with a dlifferent headling, and with the objectionable pasasge struck out. The printer saidI tne alteration lied been made by Mlr. Car- penter. Witneas asked to liave an original piroof that he might carry it- to the second meeting. At that meeting Air. Carpenter brouht dwn everl cpied of the address, in whichi the passages to which he had objected' were wholl] mte.'itesatrad diretedMr. ockto print the copies according to ttie copy whieb lie bail originally given hini. The defenclants objected to sign the ad- dressq, but they signed the account which was annexed, saying, "We signi the account alone." The gave no dilrections as to the printing, but theyvleft that to witness. ie considered at iiat time, and consi- ders still, that he had no auithority from the defendants to have thie address printed with the objectionable note. Cross-exaniined by Mlr. SGAuRLETT...Does not know who paid for the first address. Did n6t go to Mir. Austin and say he was the author of the adthlress. He kznew that the action Was commenced in August, and the second edition -of the address appeared in October. He knows froni Mlr. Boote that he has paid the printer. MVr. Cock (called ag-aini) proved that the proof' shown by him to Burten lied beeni altered by Carpenter. He printed it afterwardst wit'hout that alteration, because Burton broughit him a copy signed by the dlefendants, in which the alteration was-not made. The LoRD CHIEF JUSTICE said, it was quite evident that the defendants biad suffered the objection whiceh they at firsit made to be overruled. John Wood, clerk to the trustees for lighting the parish, was prc.. F.ent when Burton read the mnanuscript address to thle committee. There was no objectionable note at that time. lie heard it read after- wards, wlhen the note had been added, and when Boote and Car- penter wcre present, whoobjected topuittling their names to any per- sonal allurions, particularly Mlr. Carpenter, wh said he knew no- thing about the contents of the note, and desired that iit mighit be expunged. The whiole of the 2,000 copies hailbeni witness's Pos- session locked up, and by the desire of the defedns who insisted that none of them should be distributed. Cross-examined by Mr. GUntNEy_...Tbis wast before the actior was brouight. The copies were sent home on the 4th of-August, anid thle action cowmenced on the 26th or 27th. Peter Bacon was also present when the manuscript addire-ss was pro- duced, and heard the defendants o-bject to signing any thing personal. The defendants case being closed, Mlr. SCATtLETT re lied. The LonD CHIEFa JUSTICE recapitulated the evidience, anid said it seemed that the defendants had at firstobjected to thepassage of wlichb the plaintiff complained, but they afterwards perniitted it to be published. itwas not now denied thiat tuie coxteuts of that passage wiere -;ntrue, and there could be no doubt that they were ca- flumnies against the character of the Plaintiff, ft,r which he had a right to recover damagep. It was very extraordlinary that the de- fendants, objecting as it appeared they lied doDne in one instance to the publication of the passage alluded to, had not, after ithey found it was printed, done any thing to sooth the feelings of' the ~iitf, or led venoffredasrapologv as a reparation for thje injury they' had done. This was stillthe more singula~r as they had, but a shortI time before, concurred in a resolution whicii was highly complimen.. I tary to the glaintiff. expressinug their sense of the nianner in which he had discharged the dutefie of the office of churchwarden. If the jury should be of o.~ioion tint the publication bied been, authorized 'Y 'the defendants, t ey would findavedc for the plaintiff; if not (alhouh hs Lrdsiptho~httha aferthe evidence they had head, nd artculrl tht fr Ie dfece it would be impossible ce cnclde oherise) thir vrdit wuld hie for the defendants. In estmatng he amaes,theJur woldconsider the tendency of thelibl, nd heywoud rmem.rtstathourgh the circulation had been stoppc,. nothh2g id been~ tome.tv - hwuvi~icThftdy- *eturned a Verdl6itti?e plaintifF... COURT OF KING'S BENCH. GXLDnUAT.L. JULY 27. Before the LORD CIHIEP JTTnT(E'u and a n77ecial J,mr. AUSTIN V. BOOTE. CARPENTRR. 1HARIUS. AVD MALf.TRV.