MR. ERASER VERSUS MR. GRANTLEY BERKELEY. 



THE details of this case having- already met the eye of the public 

 through the medium of the papers of the day, we will but briefly re- 

 capitulate them here, in order that our readers may the better be en- 

 abled to follow us in the comments we are about making upon it. 

 Mr. Grantley Berkeley had written a novel called " Berkeley Cas- 

 tle," a review of which was published in " Fraser's Magazine" on the 

 1st of August last. The criticism was unusually severe and pungent, 

 and allusions were made in it to circumstances affecting Mr. Berke- 

 ley's family, which that gentleman deemed personally offensive and 

 insulting ; and, acting under this impression, he proceeded, on the 3d 

 of August, to the shop of Mr. Fraser, in Regent Street, accompanied 

 by his brother and another unknown individual, and there com- 

 mitted a violent assault upon Mr. Fraser by cutting him in a dread- 

 ful manner over the head, face, and hands, with a heavy horsewhip, 

 while his two companions kept guard at the door to prevent the in- 

 terference of the passengers in the street whom Mr. Fraser's cries had 

 collected round the door. 



The natural, and indeed unavoidable consequence upon this viola- 

 lation of the law was an action for damages brought by Mr. Fraser 

 against the Messrs. Berkeley, which was tried in the Court of Ex- 

 chequer, on the 3d of last month, before the Chief Baron and a 

 special jury. The damages were laid at 6000/. Considerable elo- 

 quence and legal acumen were displayed by Messrs. Erie and Thesi- 

 ger, the leading counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant ; and a 

 deep interest was manifested throughout the trial by a densely 

 crowded auditory, amongst whom we recognised several literary 

 characters, and one or two at least of our distinguished female 

 writers. After an investigation, which lasted nearly six hours, Lord 

 Abinger charged the jury in a luminous speech, which completely dis- 

 entangled the case from the difficulties with which the ingenious 

 casuistry of the opposing advocates had encumbered it. He laid down 

 the law clearly on those points which involved legal questions, sum- 

 med up the evidence with admirable precision, and left it to the jury 

 to decide the amount of damages to which Mr. Fraser was entitled 

 for the assault committed upon him by the defendants, and how far 

 the publication of the libel complained of should mitigate those da- 

 mages. 



After a few minutes' consultation the jury returned a verdict for 

 the plaintiff Damages 100/. 



Before pronouncing an opinion on the adequacy of these damages 

 to the offence, it will be necessary to examine the merits of the case 

 minutely ; to view it in all its phases, to weigh between the provoca- 

 tion on the one hand and the assault on the other, and to decide 

 without permitting our prejudicies or our sympathies to bias us in 

 favor of either. To do this fairly, we must not limit ourselves to the 

 mere matter at issue between Mr. Berkeley and Mr. Fraser, we 

 must not only admit the libel contained in the review as a palliation 

 of the assault; but we must try how far the reviewer was at liberty in,. 



