Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

matter, while the editor cannot at the time have legal evidence for the fact. From the usefulness of these publications, and from the rapidity with which they are made up, errors may creep in ; but it behoves to be made out that malice was intended, and here the Jury must see that the editor is not liable in damages, when he offers to make instant reparation for the accident. The Jury must have sufficient evidence that malice dictated the editor to publish the paragraph in question, before they can award damages. In the case of the King against Wright, before the 1 King's Bench, Judge Lawrence adImitted that it was proper that proIceedings in Court should be published; and in this country, over every other, when the Judges, the Jury, and the witnesses knew their true worth, and acted with candour, it was necessary these proceedings should be known for general informationnot so in other countries, where legal proceedings are carried on in a dark and disguised shape. Let any gentleman go to the said coffee-room, and he would see in every paper the reports of proceedings of the same nature, from all the Courts in the kingdom; and were it not for newspapers, much useful information would be entirely lost to the great bulk of the people, in this enlightened country. It was stated, on the part of the prosecution, that this was a matter of reparation, and the Jury would only have to allow such damage as the pursuer had proved he had sustained. It would never have been applied to Mr Stewart, had the process not been in dependence, which might turn their thoughts to him. Adam's application stated that John Adam, mason, parish of Antermony, left this country for Bengal, in the year 1780, and that an advertisement appeared in the London Gazette, or some other newspaper, announcing that several thousands of

pounds had been left by Adam, and that it was to go to his nearest heirs ; that in the year 1791, Mr S. got the applicant's father to draw out a power of attorney to enable him to draw the money from the East India House, and that he obtained a large sum of money thereby. This was the ground of the process, and Mr S. having sworn that he had no money nor papers belonging to that subject, he was assoilzied. It must therefore have been known and circulated on account of this process, as the paragraph appeared and was contradicted before the process was finished. The learned counsel concluded a very long and ani. mated address, by calling on the Jury to give a verdict for nominal damages only.

After several witnesses had been examined,

Mr Cockburn addressed the Jury, and in a very particular manner stated, that the privileges of the editors of newspapers were great, but the laws of the country would never allow that they should publish every gossipping story that might take place in fami lies. Mr Stewart was obliged to go through the streets under this calumny, his friends not knowing where to find him, from the report that he had committed suicide, through the villainy he had committed in keeping up the money. The defenders did not deny they had committed the in jury on Mr S., but after being writ ten to, their apology was not distinctly made that it was Mr Stewart, of Glasgow Field. Their sending letters to Mr S. or his agents, and still withholding the name of the author, was another proof of their reluctance to make a proper concession; neither has the pursuer, till this day, known who the author is; but by a letter exhibited to-day, it is acknowledged that it was written by Mr Mackay, though Mr Mackay has never acknowledged

this himself. Allan nor Mackay have not given up the real author, and he is perhaps panting in this audience now. By Mackay's own account, he hears a foolish story on the street, and sets it forth through the whole kingdom, and keeps the real author in the background. It has been set forth in defence, that there was no malice in the paragraph, as the parties were unknown to each other; but could the Jury believe, that Mr Mackay was not told, that Mr S., mentioned in the paragraph, was Mr Stewart of Glasgow. field, Glasgow, while he was receiving the particulars on which to build his story? The pursuer is accused of not having proved how much pecuniary loss he has sustained; but who can tell what agony he must have suffered, though he has lost no special sum that arithmetical calculation can shew, his name bandied through the whole land! The defences stated, that the proceedings in courts of law might be published; but in this case the para, graph was not the proceedings of a process before the Magistrates in which Mr S. was concerned, for it was a malicious and scandalous paragraph, before the process had been concluded, and of course biassed the public against Mr S. before he had time to acquit himself. A Methodist minister had been introduced, to give a gloss to the calumny that was about to be set forth. How many accounts do we hear every day, even of our friends, that have no reality in them; and might not this be of the same description? It was evident, that the paragraph was the only cause of the process being known, and that the rumour and vexation did not take place till the newspaper touched on the story. The pursuer wishes to God that he had not had occasion to come here to-day; and the defenders would not have been compelled to make an appearance here, if they had given up the real author. What infamy would

the pursuer lie under, if he had let the libel thus issued against him lie dormant. The learned counsel concluded a very excellent address, by calling on the Jury to give a verdict for every farthing claimed.

Lord Gillies summed up the evi dence in a very concise manner; and was clearly of opinion, that it was a malicious paragraph, and not the proceedings of a court of law. Mackay should have brought forward evidence that he had got the verbal account of the rumour from Mr Kilbee, who had it from his son Edward, a boy, in Glasgow at that time. It even does not appear that he got the paragraph from Mr Kilbee, for he (Mackay) admits that he wrote it himself. His Lordship concluded by advising the Jury, that Mr Stewart was not only entitled to damages, but to solatium.

The Jury retired a few minutes, and brought in a verdict for the pursuer, Damages L.1500.

PROCEEDINGS IN CHANCERY RELATIVE TO THE SHUTTING OF DRURYLANE THEATRE,

Court of Chancery, 8th August.

Sir S. Romilly, on the part of a great majority of the proprietors of this theatre, moved his Lordship to grant an injunction to prevent the subcommittee, consisting of five persons, from proceeding in engaging any new performers, or entering into any new contracts on the behalf of the proprietors, considering the state of their funds. When the late theatre was unfortunately burnt down, there were a number of engagements, and an act of Parliament was passed, authorising a committee of ten persons to raise the sum of 300,0001. in shares of 1001. each, and the shareholders to have votes in proportion to the number of shares.

placed on his shoulders to move the Court to dissolve the injunction which had been obtained against the subcommittee, restraining them from open

The legislature passed a second act, in which the power of management was vested in a sub-committee of five persons, who had full power to ap. point a manager and engage performing the theatre, and also from engaging

ers, &c.-The debts of the theatre amounted to 80,000l., and in June last a select committee was appointed to investigate the matter referred to them, and on the 8th of that month they reported; and it was indeed evident, that the true state of affairs must have been known to the sub-committee. Several resolutions were formed by the select committee, which were read and approved of by the general meeting on the 8th of June. On the 16th July the select committee gave another report of their efforts, and recommended the sum of 17,000l. to be raised by loan, and George Colman, Esq. to be appointed manager. A special committee at the same time reported, that much of the incumbrances was occasioned by the facility with which articles were procured from tradesmen, and also from the very great number of orders for free admission. The report was agreed to by the general meeting of proprietors, at least by a majority of fifty-four. The bill went on to state that no capital remained, but that money must be raised by loan. Large sums were due to the performers, who had consented to receive a composition for their debts on certain terms. The Court was therefore prayed to restrain the sub-committee from from going on. He had no doubt the Court would at once interfere.

The Lord Chancellor granted the injunction on this ex-parte application; but ordered notice to be served on the other side without delay.

Court of Chancery, Aug. 14.

Sir Arthur Piggot, in rising to move for the dissolution of the injunction, observed, that the task had been

any performers whatsoever. He had carefully perused the bill and the affidavit, the only one filed in support of the plaintiff's case, which had been made by Mr G. H. Robins, for no one else had attempted to make one, In looking into the acts of parliament, he found very material matters for his Lordship's consideration. He had looked into the proceedings of the gentlemen of the select committee, who had taken on them many extraordinary acts and powers, although he had looked in vain for the authority for their so doing. Amongst the allegations contained in the affidavit, was one that Mr Robins and his copartners were incumbents and proprietors, and also members of the corporation, This affidavit did not contain any allegation that the opening of the theatre would be injurious to the proprietors, it merely said it might be, in the concluding passage. It was therefore merely presumed, that this loss and injury would take place by opening the theatre. The bill prayed for an account of the debts due to the performers and other persons, but it only pray. ed it against the five defendants; and when he took into consideration the great number of claimants, and the affidavit of Mr Robins, he must say the present was a most extraordinary case. The prayer ought not to be against the five defendants, but against the corporation, for they were incorporated by the act of parliament. The bill prayed that an order might issue to sell, or mortgage, a competent part of the theatre, for the purpose of liquidating the debts. Who could do this but the persons in whom it was vested? This was the general body, for as a corporation, in them, and them

alone, was that power vested, and not in the five defendants. His Lordship was prayed to take an account as be tween these corporators, the special committee and the sub-committee, and in the mean time to restrain the latter from opening the theatre pending that inquiry. This was the most extraordinary occurrence that ever took place in the memory of man, for by that the position was laid down, that a theatre with closed doors was in a better situation to get rid of its incumbrances, constantly increasing, than when it was open. What would be the effect of closing the theatre? Why, the corps dramatique would be broken up, some would go to America, some to Ireland, some abroad, some here and some there, and it would be impossible to get them together again. This was the remedy proposed by the select committee, that committee which had filed the present bill, and who wished the sub-committee to resign their present situations, on the consideration of incapacity. This was the sine qua non. The present was not a bill' filed by creditors; it was a bill filed by eight corporators who were not creditors; and were they at their will and pleasure to bind up all the contributors-all the old renters who had been intitled to three shillings a-night, but who had been compounded with and cut down to one shilling and sixpence a-night, and free admissions in proportion to six shares? There were also the incumbrancers were they also to suffer? By the act of Parliament it would be seen, that certain old renters were to have one shilling and threepence per night and free admissions: And that when the new theatre was built, the same was to be and remain as charges. Where were these parties? had they ever been consulted? It was said that a debt of 80,000l. had been incurred, out of which there were 40,000l. bond debts; but this debt was not incurred by the

present sub-committee. By a clause in the act of Parliament power was given to sell and lease certain private boxes; this had been done, and for which 53,000l. had been received, which was to go in liquidation of the principal sum (300,000l.) borrowed. Where were those lessees? had they consented to shut up the theatre? were they made parties? Had they been asked if the doors of the theatre should be nailed up? Unless the Court would take upon itself to suspend the acts of the legislature, it had no more power than any other person to continue this injunction. It has been thrown out, that the sub-committee was not valid. Why, then, not apply to the Court of King's Bench? Why not move for a quo warranto against the parties and remove them. [The learned gentleman here went into the provisions of the act for appointing the committee.] If any improper manage ment had taken place, whom had the plaintiffs to thank for it but themselves? Could they not have removed them in three months? The last season had been the most successful of any preceding; and yet this was the very time that the plaintiffs chose to make their complaint. On looking at the 51st clause of the act relative to trustees, it would be found that they were not removeable unless they ceased to hold five shares. It was strange that the general committee, who held but three shares each, appointed the sub-committee, who were required to hold five shares, so that they appointed the sub-committee, notwithstanding they could not fill the office themselves, as they were only required to hold three. Why was not the Duke of Devonshire made a party to the present bill? he surely ought to have been. The whole accounts were to be taken against the defendants; there were no others to make defendants, as the trustees were indemnified against all acts but their

own. In respect to patents, what answer would be given if an application was made for another theatre? why, the usual one, that there were two already: But how could that be said when one of them was closed? What attention had this select committee paid to this circumstance? In respect to the allegation that the debt had been incurred by the sub-committee, that was wholly denied by the answer; for it was explicitly stated that it was due before they became committee-men. This was not like a canal: Here the thing was established, with every thing to go on, and why should it be stopped on an affidavit made by Mr G. H. Robins ?

Sir Arthur then proceeded to read extracts from Mr Robins's affidavit, and comment on them as they respectively arose. The case of the persons who would be thrown out by closing the theatre, should also be taken into consideration, since to them such a proceeding would be utter ruin. It had been proposed by the select committee to raise a certain sum to pay ten shillings in the pound to the claimants, -but this was only to one part of them and what, he would ask, was to become of the other? It was said the system should be altered. This brought a little day-light with it. Was it meant that the present sub-committee should alter their system of management, or that they should be turned out of their situations? The fact was, there was some job in it that was not at present known. What power had these gentlemen to pay certain debts? How could they do that when they could not displace the old renters? What right had the sub-committee to tolerate, for a moment, the proposition to give to George Colman, Esq. the whole and sole command over the theatre? He might be the most eligible person for such a trust; but yet the committee had no right to com

mit the expenditure to the hands of one man, when the legislature had expressly said it should be vested in the hands of a committee? It had been said, that great difficulty prevailed in obtaining goods for the theatre from tradesmen,-that charge did not apply to the five defendants, who were wholly blameless. The arrangement respecting the ten shillings in the pound had been come to on the express condition, that the theatre should not open till the money had been paid, and the present sub-committee had resigned, except Lord Yarmouth. What right had the select committee to enter into any such contract? If they went to the legislature for an act of parliament, if any defect appeared in it, they should again apply to the le gislature for relief;-they had no right in the Court of Chancery. One thousand pounds was all that was wanting to open the theatre, and the defendants had offered to advance it. The act of Parliament had directed, that the sub committee should be approved of by the general meeting: That had been the case, for no new one had been formed; the present was merely additions made on vacancies occurring.How then could it be said that the present was not a valid committee?

The Lord Chancellor said there was an express clause in the act, that the committee, when first appointed and approved of, should be invested with the management.

Sir Arthur Piggott proceeded:The plaintiffs' shares only amounted to 401. while those of the five defendants amounted to 90%., and why were they to be removed when there was not one specific charge brought against them? All that was said was, that they were generally and universally complained of. All the allegations in the bill were denied by the answer. If it was intended to overhaul the management, the whole of the sub-com

« AnteriorContinuar »