178 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1817. 



to be warranted. They were tlie 

 comments which the learning and 

 ability of my friend suggested on 

 the facts ])roved. " Some actions 

 are founded in folly." That action 

 was so, for it ended in a nonsuit. 

 The whole passcige was not lespect- 

 ing- the character of Mr. Hodgson 

 in general, but in tliis case. If 

 the counsel are not allowed to 

 comnient on the facts proved, 

 there is an end of the British bar's 

 utility ; its energies are paralyzed 

 for ever : without those fair and 

 honourable exertions which are 

 thus attempted to be suppressed, 

 it will be neitlier creditable nor 

 useful. The expressions used by 

 my friend were called for and 

 merited in my opinion. But it 

 was necessary not only to prove 

 that they were false, but malici- 

 ous. Good God ! will it be said 

 that we feel any malice against a 

 party against whom we exert our- 

 selves at this bar .' Will your lord- 

 ship be the first judge to fetter the 

 bar } and, if I may use a coarse 

 and vulgar expression, to oblige 

 every counsel to address a jury 

 with a halter about liis neck? The 

 danger is palpable and plain. Your 

 lordship will not allow in 1817 a 

 principle to be established hitherto 

 unknown to English law. 



Sergeant HuUock. — That this 

 action is priiuae impressionis is 

 proof of the unanimous opinion 

 of the whole profession against 

 it. The words were used in the 

 fair and legitimate exercise of his 

 ]jrofession ; they were too strong 

 ])erhaps, bvit they were not action- 

 able. If he had met a man in the 

 street and repeated them, it would 

 be a libel. In giving a character 

 to a servant there could be no 

 ground of action. Sir Jervjs Clif- 



ton was found liable in an action,, 

 because he had written a lettei 

 respecting a servant, after he had 

 given the character. There was 

 no vindication on record, because 

 the manner and occasion was the 

 vindication. If this action were 

 maintained, it would be the ruin 

 of the British public as well as of 

 the privileges of the bar, 



Mr. Littledale. — Tlie words a- 

 rise from the fair discussion of the 

 question. If they had been used 

 on a question of trespass, the' case 

 would be different. The action 

 was on a note ; the note was frau- 

 dulent 5 it was wicked and frau- 

 dulent in an attorney to act so ; 

 ]Mr. Hodgson was that fraudulent 

 and wicked attorney. The words 

 were not distinct and independent . 

 I admit that Mr. Scarlett would 

 be liable if he had spoken the 

 words in the street, or caused 

 them to be published in a news- 

 paper. That what would other- 

 wise be libellous might be said in 

 giving the character of a servant 

 was proved in the case of Weather- 

 stone V. Hawkins. 



Mr. Raine, (in reply.) — The 

 words are false. The comment was 

 unmerited. That they were mali- 

 cious, I may say, appears on the 

 face of the expressions. I have 

 been twitted twice ; one sneer 

 would be enough for not citing a 

 case. I distinctly admitted that I 

 knew no case. The question is, 

 whether there are no bounds, and 

 Counsel may go any length. If 

 there are, to call my client frau- 

 dulent and wicked was going be- 

 yond the bounds and limits which 

 must be fixed. 



Mr. Baron Wood was not for 

 giving sanction to this action, of 

 a first impressioOj brought for the 



first 



