Court Of King's Bench, We...
3ma was an acusta ty lilr. Charles allolloy Westmacott, author of A Cr;tical and Descriptive Catalogue of the Exhibition, against the proprietor and publisher of the ilfornting Iherald for a libcl. The paragraph coinplained of closed an articleonthe JRxbibition, in the Herald of the lSth of May, and was in the following termns:- "We here warn the public against the purchase of anycatalogues outside the walls of the Acadeny. These catalogues are necessarily imperfect, since, it they were otherwise, they would be subject to a legal prosecution by the Royal Academ)y. But the reason of this no-ice Ls, they present notes descristive and critical,' scarcely In- telligible from bad grammar; but the writers of which arc hirelingo, who extort money frora the artists, impose on the visiters, and are totally ignesant of the subjects they have the presumption to ha.ndle." 51r. 11'5(HTMAX opened the pleadings, by stating that this was an action for a libel, to which the defendant had pleaded the gene. tal issue. Mr. Gunitsjy opened the case on behalf of the plaintiff, whom he descrbed aA a gentleman of considerable literary attainments, the natural brother of Mr. Wesitmacott, tho artist. The gc- casion wbich the defendants took to libel this gentleman was the publication by him of an aniual descriptve and critical catogue of the pictures exhibited at the Koval Acadeny. Therc was no loubt that pictures pjublicly exhibited became thesubjectsof fair and temperate criticism,whichtendedtodi. courage bad taste and to procure for merit the honour and reward wwhich were its due. The catalogue in question was sold near Somer- rittbhouse, not fot the purpose of forestalling the ceatalegue published by the Academny, which contained no observations ; but to amuse and instruct those who might be willing to assist their own judg- eient with that of another. Yet, innocent as this purposewas, it called forth an article in which the eriter, not content with repre- senting the work as unintelligible on account of granmatical errors, and manifesting a total ignorance of the subject on which it treated, but added the fouland falsecharge that the author was a hireling, vwho extorted money from artists. For this calumnious charge there was not the slightest presence or foundation; the defendants had not deaed to allege its truth; yet they had neithier offered a public apology, stor diclosed the name of he anonymous libeller. Their journal had a large circulation, arid maintained a respectable choa racter ; hut this only increased the evil for which M5r. Westmacott now sought redrAss. Joseph bihaclell; who printed the Descriptive Catalogue, proved 1tlat Air. Charles UVeitnmacott was the author of that wof k. The se- cond edition was delivered to the publisher on the 7th of May. ilir. SheTwood, of Patemoster-row, proved that he published the ca4t.loguefor Mr. Westnacott before tbe publication if the article. 3t was sold by Mlr. Onwhyn, of Catherine-street. iMtr Onwhyn, who sold the catalogue, stated it was sold in the ptret ppoiteSomerset-house, and the sale was considerable. lie recollected the aplcaranceofthe artidein the AforningHeraldabout a fntnightafter the publication. The sale was not so good in the latter part of thi season as in tbh beginning. It was nast sogood after the appearance of the article. Cross-exdmined.-The cataloq3vs were offered for sale at the door of Somerert-houss by the plaintiff's desire. le did lnot know who corrected the grammar for the second edition. I The second edition srraet enaUler paper than the first. He did not think the second edi& . tn r eat to bhim tiU the end of May. flr. Charles Trevor, from the Stampn-ofice produced theaffidavit, ,rovirt; thr thc defendants were publisher and proprietor of the ror: f $ otald. Tt:2zlci with which the paragraph in question concluded was then r -r Bzdeaireof Mr. SCARLETTT some papers of the first e ci'sn rend, and compared vith correspondent. passages in .-::-]eTain.- There were several errorsofgrammnar,which w r2 ,-1l 7 tm;vcted in the second,editin , and one error also -in `-hich p pf tbe young Lord Clanwilliam was de- iAbo3 d as a portrait of - tire rei *rable Earl Fitzwilliam." Thege. ncral s;tyle of the remarks appended to t;je icture. s and read in court, appeared to the unlearned in the art, very bomrnU- lrud unnican. ing; "i" A Pmndarie Ode' exted occasional Lugutef. It was noe clr-ar from tbe eyidence whether the second edition appeared be. fore er after the article: Mr. 5hackell said it was deliyered before; but iMr. Onwhyn thought he did act receive it till the end of Mlar. .Ir. 1SCARLETT addressed the jury for the defendarbt. It was a litt,le ytrange, that wbile his learned tdlnd regarded pietures as air chJec.s of criticism, he dlid not sceex to consider ocki as sub- jecies to the same erasure. It surely did not become an author, sand j spedally nne who writes on the merits of bthers, to betlay ltr4uchtensibzity when he, in his turn, fell beneath the lash of ct.ism.u Was not the cesnure applied tO hhn amply justiIied by the'boolcon which it was founded? Wn9 this plaint;ifomps. tert to bestow praise or administer reproof? Trae he prdsd comc tMen of undoubted genius; but this showed their fame, 3nt his discenment; for they vere tooconspicuoua to neomitted in the eulogies of ny man who pretended to akoowl0dge of art? ide obviously did not understand the language in.wbich he wrote or the subjects on wvhlch he professed ta espatiate. The leamed counsel here trwave instalices of hreIies' of 0 rammar, and ridMculed in pointed tennus die Plndaric Ode.' Wat, he asted, inst that critic be. wbo could uitke the portrait of the young Lord Clanwilliain for "tie venerable Earl Fits. william," wIo was undoubtedly venerable, hut whom Sir Thormas Lawrence nevcr painted ? Wbat could he be who talked of a portrait1 as -fleshy in tone and firm in pencil ?" Ied he said *-eshy in toe," there might have been sonc meaning in the phrase; but it was the mere alliteration "flehy and firm;" and why not *firm' in tone, and fleshy- in pencil?' And was it not t{rue that this eatalogie was likely to impose on viaitere-young la- te5.Ics and gentlemen from tbh countr~t..bo woujdobuy it, thL, bg they had procurt otfe genUile catalogcie pubii,ed tv authorit of uretttlie ~ epubited ~yauutifl o tVe Acldeny ? Buit then thete was the aseertion, that the. wrtt Pxtortcd niiondyfrorn artistAe. thisri-o ia exdmsefilo n~iouuly, -but that thei 'r rcea' ng I ht -n nebtmo, fle ii l,.aut,br. *ffis1?$-tiin the face pf the visiters; and ac threat held out that the samc course wvould be annually pursueL. What 'was this but boTtling out to young artists the fear-that theyhvould be prejudiced -in tbeir 'coarse by the endcavoura of thc wrnter, uciless they prnpitieted him] with money?; Tlbe writers who exposed such. attermptst deserved only the thanks of .the pablic: they camne within th'cases which decided that fair criticism should be ptotected; and were entitled to the verdict in their favour. Tnc LORD. CHIEFr JUSTICr , after reading the pasage al. legl to bc libelous, observed, that it was rounded oR a publication by the plaintifF, which he could net forbear to remark. was circa. lated irn a mnannercalculated to induce visiteps of the Exhibition to Purebaseit as thegenuine catalogueoftheAcademy. When an author laid Iis work before tbd pablic, he gave to-every mnas a right fairly to criticise its rnerits; but it did not therefore follow that the critic mi ht extend his observations to the moral character of the writer, unfess that character*was cxhibited in the book. If the defendants had merely asserted that, the catalogue: was alnmost unintelligible, frovt its had grammar; that it was calculated tdimpose on visiters atid tbat its aiathors v*ere wholly incompetent to the task they pro- fessed to execute, it would have been for the jury to decide whether this was just and legitimate ariticism. there wore errora in grammar; there were, at the least, instances of bad taste; and perhaps, If the article had gone no further, thc jury might with considerahle-propriety have found a verdict for the defendants. But it did go further it asserted that " the writers were lirelings who extorted money from the artist.-a very grave and serious im. putution, and one which nothing In the publication itself would jus. I tif^, end which waY wholly unsupported by evidence. It had been urged by the very learned Counsel for the defendants, that the ob. vious -tendency of the work was to induce young artists to avert the severityof thewriter bypresents; hut this did notappear: on the contratv, young artists seemed rather favounites of the author, who, reserved his censures for tlose who bad already acquired success and fnae. If, thens the jury thought this insinuation totally unjustifled by the wark itbelfl they ought to Snd a verdict for the plaintif, with such damages as thle circumstanccs of the case *ould justify. The jury, after a short consultation, found a verdict for the plain. tiff, damnages one s1hilling. Sir T. Lawrence, M lr, Shee, and several other artists, were in court. COURT OF KING'.S BENCH, WEST.MiNSTEr. DEr. R. WEST.MACOTT V. THIWAi'rEg.