Lent Assizes.
Ynis was an action otr recovery of a small debt. The particealars were not of any public interest. MZlr. SCARLETT was for the defendant, and on cross-examining one of the plaintiff's wvimesses, he asked him-Have you a good memory ?-I have not. Are you alive ?-I believe I am. WVhy do you .say yOu believe. Have you any doubt about it ?- NVelI, 1 don't know, I am sure. I am alive to aU appearance. (Loud laughter.) MAlr. SCASILE'" then addressed the jury, and said-" Before I go into the circumstances of this defence, allow me to say a word or two for myself, as you might be alarmed at my appearance here. Permit me to assure you, I did not die on Thursday night last (loud laughter); or if I did die on that night, and if indeed on the two following days I appearecd in this court on the part of my clients as an apparition, permit me now to assure you, I rerived yesterday (laughter); and that 1 now address you in better health than I liave been in for the last week." The learned gentleman then contended against the plaintitF's demand.-Verdict for the plaintiff LIBEL.-WATTS V. BAINES. Air. SCARLETT stated the ease. The plaintiff, Mfr. WVatts, is the editor of the Intclligencer; the defendant is the editor of the Mercury both rival newspapers published in Leeds. This action originated in the following circumstance:-A Air. Swire, an over- seer of the roads in the township of Skipton, sent an advertisement to the Leeds IntellAgencer, addressed " to road-makers," and de- sired it should have hve insertions; it was accordingly inserted, and previous to the third or fourth inisertion, a person of the name of Merryweather (an auctioncer at Skipton, and an agent for the defendant's paper, the ,lfercury, there), sent another and differenf advertisemnscn for insertion, by fdirec- tions of hlr. Swire, but did not direct the first to be withdrawn. Botlh were consequently inserted together, and this provoked the anger of Mtr. Mlerryweather, who addressed a private letter to Ir. Watts on the subject. This letter, however, was of such a nature, as to induce .Mr. Watts to reply to it through the medium of his paper, whici lie did in the following terms:-" A person of the name of lilerrywearher, who is agent to the Leeds Mercziry, has addressed a very insolent letter tO our office, respecting an adver- tisement, headed 'to roadmakers,' which has appeared severaltimes in the Leeds Inteligencer: it is due to the gentleman by whose orders the advertisement was handed to us, to mention, that after it had been inserted three times, another advertisement order, for two insertions, was forwarded from the aforesaid AMr. AMerryweather, without any instructions to uiscontinue the one originally sent, which we had been desired to insert in our five succeeding news- papers, and yet he has, in no gentle terms, charged our office with neglect for attending to this request: had the error really rested with us, this man tmight have written in a more temperate ianner; it appears, however, to have arisen entirely from his own inadvertence, and he wishes to excuse himself with the gentlemen who employed him by blaming us. This is not the first time we have had to en- dure insolence equally unprovoked from this person." This was the only provocation which gave rise to the libel, the cause of the prcsent action, and which the defendant, iMIr. Baines, inserted as an advertisement in the Mercury, viz. *- " To the proprietors of the Leeds Intelligenccr. Gentlemen,-On Tuesday I received an insolcnt letter from a person in your employ, who signs himself 'I dward Wood,' and this day I observe in your paper a note to correspondents, calumniating me for writing to your omice to rectify an error whicl originated witli yourselves: your Billingsgate editor is so habituated to lying, that 1 believe he cannot speak truth if he would: he says of me, ' It ap- pears to have arisen entirely from his own inadvertence, and he wishes to excuse himself by blaming us.' Now be it remem- bered, I sent you the identical advertisement I received from Air. Swive; my employer, and when the - erraturn appeared in the Intelligencer, I sent you MIr. Swire's letter and on which I wvrote my own, pointing out the blunder. How, then, in the name of wonder, can any inadvertency be attributed tome? If that gentleman had not detected the mistake, I never should, for yours is a publication I do not condescend to read. j always thought the I ntdlligeucer an imbecile journal, but since it has become your pro. perty it is worse-it is now worse than contemptible. Your editor has, by his impudence, reduced it to the last stage of a galloping consumption; and in a very short time, I have no doubt, it will be totally extinct. I very much doubt the sanityof'persons keeping a wretch to fatten on your bounty, and who is weekly sporting with your ixterest and reputation. Farewell for ever. ,,Skipton, Oct. 2, 1823. "JoHnS IERllRYWEATHEn." ILr. Watts, immediately on the publication of this letter, asked who was the author ? Air. Baines (the defendant) said the person who signed it. Ar. Watts then demanded the original manuscript, which was retlused. Hence the action was breughlt against him, and not Ais. Alerryweather; and by doing so, the defendant had an opportunity. of bringing forward Mr. Merryweather, and if there was one word in the libel capable of beingjustified, they had thereby an opporttnity given them. The defendant has not, however, thought proper to plead a jstsdification. The question for you, Gen- tlemen of the Jury, then is, first, was the libel published h.y him? The iiext question was of damages. He (Mr. Scarlett) would tell them it was not the object of his client to put money in hispocket by this action; but it was of imoortance tlhat newspaper editors, who take so great a lead (and, as le, Mlr. Scarlett, thought, too great a lead) in forming public opinion, should be taught they are not to attack any man's character with impunity. Thomas Ray stated that he bought the newspaper containing the libel on the 4th of October; he accompanied Mlr. Watts to The .'fercury office next moming, when Alr. Baines refused to give up the original manuscript. Witness was cross-examined by *Ur. WULIMAIrS, and lie ad- mitted the parties had been always enred in newspaper warfare. Tle libel and notice was then read by the Prothonotary. The case for the plaintiffclosed. Air. J. WILLIANis addressed the jury for the defendant, whom he admitted to be editor and proprietor of. The Lceds ilfercury. That gentleman stood to.day in a novel situation; for although he bad been engaged for five and twenty years in the duties of a newspaper, this was the first time he was concerned in an action of this deacrip- tion. In the many political controversies in which hebad been engaged during. that- time, he always thought it the most becoming in any man who had in any degree the guidance of public opirison to resist every attack made upon him throughthesamechannel through whichi they were made, if he"thought them at all worthy of replv. l\r. Williams complimented his learned friend for identifyi6g his feelings and interests to.day- with those of the Leeds Initelli- geencer, and upon sacrificing the remembrance of former animadver- sior,s to the exercise of his professioaal duty. With respect to thc libel, lr. Baines had nit more to do with it than any one of the jury :,it found its way into the paper as an advertisement ;and when applied to, he showed the originalmanusctipt of thelibel: it was true he refused to-give up the manuscript, but he did not refdse to be forthcorming with it for anylegd purpose,if he hai been required so to do. W'hy, then, did MIr. Wlatts, with the author before hitn, refuseto attack him, and not Mr. Baiues8Pslely becauselie wished togratify those feelitngs of rivalty which had (frons' the. evidene) been excited between-them, - It could not be true,that thisliflsi- .ured the plaintilFin his editorial cap&citv th e rieto r s'- for. it was in evidencc he was on tIfiebest possible 'enns itfi themns As to th e charje against hisveracir}, Deither could that injure him, for, it was also in evidened that Mis- iierary fame 4epended chiefld upon. his poetry; but every boyltknew fhat the ver slof oetry. was fidtion. (l.oud laughteri) Itdclerly appeirex tfe ph*int iftatituted iliis actiOn ijth a view to ,btaio'a- tOiumnrhh' this tio t o'ver the defendant; bbuhtIehoped thejo ry bnlddi l -A r. Justice B'&VLE Y toldtthe4orV,ft i use dsie-oftwiditor . see that nothmig imiproper crept snt. hris paipr*btti,roth circumstances-of tbe qufiteF it came from, 7ti l ft ;th which it was framed, it cbuld sot Is lctt o fp>5he wt *Weituderstooa,Mr.Wilitains toallhe.tv on Mr Searlett in the Leeds litelligelsrhert he ilsd in h1ttee tion fosr Cmbrdge; and In wh s stated. tu ie ha been foremst In ranning down elOborhi thia descrIptIon on his d0fqt t4ere ltb4;4 ooeo Srkoul daMWy tO the pn1tif.% and it was their province to assess ,the dgst ' - * ' - , o ewfi utes, 'and found a verdict for the pl V-larnaje Is.. -Wlaeb carriesoAtS. Th:etoasBntnytraoFimpnEonancthis day. In -tlhe case of' .}otm ;3unsr, *lw b-a.d been 'comm.itted siDCC the 6th of A4ugust Isstr fota.wunpastural ;?he i3,sbffriud Juryrlretw out diet biUl- and. jilts. ALEXAXiF:R m6&edtij6ouar? for th'e prdsectitor'e; expenses. -Alr..JgisticeS1oLnoyD rcad over the depositions, anid afier doing so, xha'erteJ-z ing1y'on his conduct. It appeared tJat lbeb;d ind&cd tli -*eihd of* ' r. hlansel to give him money,. and OHi their sefusing'toaflowjiimto textort more, he, after the lapse of many months,j-prelierrd the present charge. His Lordship, so far from aU1owing costs; would grant s copy of the indictnnent to Mbr. ?1anselt to enable him to comnmence an action fora malicious prosecution. ; M'Wh 'D. F. JONeE S applied, On the part of Mr. Hansel, for the' copy, which-hisi Lordshil according1v granted. LENT ASSIZEAS. YORK, AIONDAY, MIlARCH 29. CIVIL SIDE.-WIIITAKER AND ANOTHER V. 3MALLIXSON.