which must result to the parties from this painful occurrence. The only consolation I feel is that no possible blame is imputable either to my learned brother or to myself. I came here with uncommon advantages of travelling and with all possible despatch. I left a jury behind me locked up, and had the misfortune to leave several cases untried. The case is as singular as it is unfortunate, and is to me most afflicting."

Mr. Pugh now read the procla⚫ mation against profaneness and immorality, and Mr. Richards, his Lordship's marshal, proceeded to administer the usual oath to the grand juries, both for the city and county of Glocester.

on

His Lordship afterwards addressed the petit jury, and requested their attendance Saturday morning at 8 o'clock. -The Court was then adjourned to the lodgings.

On the adjournment of the Crown Court, Mr. Baron Garrow entered the Civil Court, and the crier having opened it in the usual form, his Lordship spoke to the bar, many of whom were assembled, as follows:

"I am extremely sorry to meet you under the very distressing circumstances in which I am now placed. You are sufficiently aware of the nature of the business at the last place from whence we came. You know the anxiety which I felt, not alone to perform my duties there, but to take measures to ensure my early arrival there; and were witness to the orders which I gave, to make preparations for my depar

ture from Monmouth the instant my presence could be dispensed with. You are also aware of the lateness of the hour to which I was detained. I lost not a moment in setting off for this city; but in despite of the despatch and speed which were used, I did not arrive until after midnight. This delay has given rise to doubts, which my learned brother and myself think it expedient to submit to other authority, before we proceed with the business of the assize, for reasons which your own experience will naturally suggest. We have sent Mr. Under Sheriff with all possible expedition to the Lord Chancellor for his advice as to the course which it may be proper to pursue, and hope by Saturday morning to receive his Lordship' answer. Until that day we do not propose to settle any trial. This is a delay which I most sincerely lament; but which cannot now be avoided: the consciousness that it is not attributable to any want of zeal or exertion upon my part, is the only consolation which I have, in a case so novel, and involving so many important consequences."

The Court was then adjourned to the lodgings.

ADMIRALTY PRIZE COURT, AUG. 19.

S

John Smith Master. - This question arose respecting a British vessel which was captured in the month of April, 1814, by his Majesty's ship Benbow, Captain Pearson, commander, in the prosecution

prosecution of a return voyage from the port of Senegal to this country, and carried to Barbadoes, where she was abandoned by the captors. In the month of May, 1816, a claim was given in this Court by the Master, and a monition was taken out against the captor, to proceed to adjudication. He appeared under protest, and in June, 1817, the Court over-ruled the protest, and assigned the captor to appear absolutely.

Sir W. Scott. This is a case of a ship with a valuable cargo, which was seized in the month of April, 1814. Proceedings were instituted in this Court in the month of May, 1816. A claim was given by the master, and a monition issued against the captor, calling upon him to proceed to adjudication. He appeared under protest which came before the Court in an act on petition in the month of June, 1817. Two grounds were attempted to be established in the protest-1st, that the captor was justifiable; and, 2nd, that restitution had long since been made to the owners. If circumstances excite a just and reasonable suspicion, although they may not lead ultimately to condemnation, the Court will always protect the captor; but, if a sufficient ground for the seizure is not shown, and injury ensues, the person who causes that injury must in justice bear its weight; or if the captor can show that restitution has been accepted by the claimant, the Court will hold the latter to have acquiesced in the arrangement, and consider him as bound by it;

but the Court was of opinion, that neither of those grounds in the protest had been sustained. It was asserted, that by her sails she had the appearance of an American ship, and that there was no manifest of the cargo; but papers were produced which left no rational doubt as to the port from which she sailed, and the port of destination. With respect to the want of manifest and clearance, the master says, there was no custom-house, and the captor might have supposed that this was the fact, as he hardly would have left any port with so valuable a cargo had there been the means of obtaining those documents. If the captors disbelieved this, they should have shown that a custom-house did exist in that port. With respect to the restitution, he had no right to take the vessel at all to Barbadoes, unless there had been strong grounds for suspicion. The Court is always ready to make allowances for convoying vessels. When they make captures, a practice which, although permitted, is very much discouraged, they should put things into the most convenient forms. The

captor might have resorted to any of those measures which have been suggested in argument without the hazard of such great loss. At Barbadoes a sort of restitution takes place, but is it done without sufficient attention? The vessel is left, and the master remains in gaol, and protests against the seizure, declaring that he will not sign any paper to relieve the captor from the responsibility. The Court decided,

that

that the captors were obliged to proceed to adjudication. What is the case now? Can any one doubt but that this is an English ship? It is not denied; but something is attempted to be borrowed from the cargo, to invalidate the title of the ship: but, taking the whole circumstances of the case, and viewing them in every direction, it is impossible to surmise that this is not a transaction wholly and essentially British. It is difficult to lay down in a case so entirely British, that suspicion shall attach, because the bills of lading do not contain account and risk. The master has sufficiently verified them; he swears that the cargo belongs to British owners, and to none others. This cannot be considered a justifiable seizure under any view of the case. Captors should take care to proceed on proper grounds in exercising the rights of war. It is a British ship and cargo, proceeding from one British port to another, with despatches from the Governor of the colony to the government of the mothercountry. She has been unjustly seized, and great injury has thereby ensued to the owners. It is my duty, therefore, to let the weight fall on those who have been the cause of the injury; therefore I shall pronounce a sentence of costs and damages against the captor, referring the amount of them to the registrar and merchants.

GLASGOW, OCT. 5.

This day at 10 o'clock, the Court was opened by Lord Gillies. The cause to be brought before the Court having excited

a great deal of interest, the hall was extremely crowded. The following issue in the cause, in which Thomas Stewart, of Glasgowfield, is pursuer, and Thomas Allan, banker, in Edinburgh, and Alexander M'Kay, of Belfast, are defenders, was submitted to the Jury:

"Whether a paragraph inserted on the 28th of January, 1817, in a certain newspaper, published and circulated in the city of Glasgow, or elsewhere, called the Belfast Newsletter, of which the defenders are the proprietors, and which paragraph is hereunto annexed, and particularly set forth and referred to in the summons, is of and concerning the pursuer; and whether the description of Mr. S. and Mr. S. of Glasgow, in said paragraph, was meant and understood to apply to the pursuer, and whether the said paragraph was or is injurious to the character, credit, or reputation of said pursuer.

The damages were laid at 3,000l.

Mr. Jeffray opened the case for the pursuer, and said that he appeared for the purpose of obtaining reparation at the hands of the Jury for the grievous injury inflicted on the feelings and reputation of Mr. Stewart. The paragraph which contained the libel was headed Heinous Fraud, in capitals. It stated that a singular discovery had lately been made in Glasgow. That a servant of a Mr. S. of that city having heard that a relation had died in India, and left him a considerable fortune, he applied to his master to assist him in recovering the money. After a long delay, his master informed him, that his exertions

exertions had been fruitless, and that there seemed to be no truth

in the report. The libel then went on to state, that the servant had lately ascertained that the money left by his relation, amounting to 20,000l. had been paid over to Mr. S. "Proper steps," the libel adds, "were then taken to bring the matter to account, but we are sorry to add that our report states there is little probability of much of the money being recovered, as he had given a considerable dowry to a daughter, and lived expensively. The necessary steps of law are, however, in "progress." Mr. Jeffray dwelt strongly on the injury which such a statement (acknowledged to be false and unfounded) was calculated to do to the character of a merchant. He then went over the history of the case. The present publication was not the first form in which the calumny had appeared. An application had been made to the magistrates for an exhibition of Mr. Stewart's papers; but on the investigation taking place, the absurd allegation fell completely to the ground. The character of a dealer, Mr. Jeffray observed, was like that of a woman; to circulate a libel of the description which was contained in the Belfast Newsletter, in the coffee-room, and among the merchants of Glasgow, who have much connexion with Belfast, was like throwing a fireband into a pile of combustible matter. The day in which the paper arrived in Glasgow it was much read and thumbed that it was reduced to tinder, and was more read in one day than a

SO

pious old woman's bible is at the end of her life time. The libel originated with a person whose name is concealed, and the defenders evaded giving him up, and therefore they from choice alone were defenders in the present action. The libel was evidently of Glasgow origin. They refused to give up the manuscript; and at first they refused the jurisdiction of the Court of Session, but finally they withdrew this objection, and submitted to the cognizance of the Scottish Court. Allan, the banker in Edinburgh, and M'Kay, the printer, are only nominally the defenders. There is, no doubt, a person behind them, and that person is, no doubt, able to stand the issue of the present action; and that he will most willingly pay any sum rather than have his name exposed as the author of this atrocious libel. Under these circumstances he confidently expected the jury to award the whole amount of the damages asked; for the respectable proprietors of the Belfast Newsletter are standing the brunt of a wealthy person.

An extract from the process before the magistrates of Glasgow, and the absolvir or sentence in favour of Mr. Stewart, was put in and read; as was also a letter from the solicitors of Mr. Stewart, (Messrs. King and Campbell), calling on the defenders for the name of the author of the libel.

The publication in the Belfast newspaper was admitted.

Several witnesses were called to prove the arrival, in Glasgow, of The Belfast Newsletter, con

taining

taining the paragraph about Mr. Stewart, and the interest with which it was read.

Mr. R. Carrick, a partner in the Ship Bank, where Mr. Stew art discounted bills, had heard the report. On seeing the report in the newspaper, the witness told Mr. Stewart that he considered it a stroke against his credit, advised him to take steps to clear his character, and in the mean time to lessen his commercial transactions. After this Mr. Stewart did not do so much business with the Bank as before. Some persons who had placed money in Mr. Stewart's hand, proved that they had demanded it in consequence of the story, which had made a great impres sion throughout the country.

Mr. Moncrieff, for the defenders, stated that Mr. Allan, at the time the paragraph was published, was abroad with his wife, whose health rendered travelling necessary, and who died in Italy. It had been said that the defenders had refused to give up the author of the paragraph; but the fact was that a person of the name of Kilbee had furnished the information; and the pursuer was told so. This piece of news had been inserted by Mr. M'Kay in the routine of business, without his even knowing who was alluded to under the initial S. From the paragraph itself no one could know to whom it alluded. It was only from extrinsic information of the process that any person could know to whom it referred. When the name of the author was applied for by return of post, Mr. McKay expressed his regret, and stated that it was inserted in

the hurry of business. He also stated that in the very first publication, the first opportunity in his power, he had published a pointed contradiction of the paragraph. This ample refutation he published without being solicited to do so, and this contradiction said that the paragraph was false and groundless.

Several witnesses were called by the defenders, to prove the previous existence of the report in Glasgow, before the publication in the Newsletter; and that report had been received by Mr. M'Kay from Mr. Kilbee in the street of Belfast.

Mr. Cockburn replied for the pursuers.

Lord Gillies, in summing up, observed, "The paragraph in question does not appear to be a report of legal proceedings; and it is therefore unnecessary to go into the law with respect to the general question of the right of newspaper editors to publish all the proceedings of the courts of law. Mr. Allan could not be actuated by any malicious motives; and it is improbable that Mr. M'Kay could be so; but it does not appear that he did on application at once give up the author. He is bound to show that the name he gave up was that of the calumniator. Damages are due, not only for actual loss, but solatium. The defenders do not stand in the place of publishers who have given up their author. I think that it was wholly owing to this paragraph that Mr. Stewart was obliged greatly to diminish his business. His Lordship then went over the evidence. The sum claimed is large, and

you