News Of James' Libel Action Spreads

The Sydney Gazette And New South Wales Advertiser,

Wednesday 7 November 1827.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUNE 8.

LIBEL.

D'EGVILLE  V. RICHARDS.

  This was an action brought by Mr. D'Egville, the ballet-master of the Italian Opera-house, against the defendant, Mr. Richards, the ostensible proprietor of the Age Sunday Newspaper, to recover a compensation in damages for a libel inserted in that Paper.

  Mr. Patteson opened the pleadings and Mr. C. Philips stated the case. The Learned Counsel said, that he did not appear so much the professional advocate, as the friend of the plaintiff, who had chosen him to conduct his cause rather from having known him, than from any doubt of the talents of the learned Gentlemen sitting around him. When the Jury were acquainted with the nature of the libel, they would have no doubt it was calculated to injure the character of the plaintiff. The libel was obviously written and published with an intention of wounding his feelings, and throwing a stigma on his reputation. Mr. D'Egville was not more admired by the public for his talents as an artiste, than he was esteemed by his private friends for his amiable qualities. He (Mr. D'Egville), as ballet-master of the Opera-louse, composed a ballet in three acts, called Le Siege de Cythere, which became exceedingly popular. The third act was acknowledged to have been taken from a piece which had been composed by M. Dubervalle. Had the libel in question only attacked the professional character of the plaintiff, in all probability the present action would not have been brought; but the defendant had thought fit to publish in his Paper, what he must have known was a false and calumnious attack on the private character of the plaintiff, who was compelled, in vindication of his reputation, to appeal to the laws of his country.-The defendant had an opportunity of justifying what he had published, the plaintiff haying proceeded by civil action, instead of having prosecuted him criminally.-This course gave the defendant an opportunity of pleading the truth of what he had published, if there were any truth in his assertions; but he had not thought proper to put such a plea on the record, nor had he condescended to answer the action by Counsel. The friends of the true liberty of the press would not desire to see it supported, if it exceeded the bounds of fair criticism, or reflected on the private character of individuals. If such a system were encouraged, the press, instead of being a blessing to the country, would become a curse. The plaintiff, as Ballet Master of the Opera House, received a salary of £1,500 per annum; in addition to which he derived considerable sums from different noblemen and gentlemen, whose families he taught dancing. It was of the utmost importance that his character should be above suspicion: and, being so grossly attacked by the defendant, he was compelled to resort to an action, to prove to the world that the attack was founded only in malice. The libel in question arose out of a pretended criticism of Mr. D'Egville's Ballet, Le Siege de Cythere, and the defendant thought to shelter himself by making it appear that the libellous observations were written by a Correspondent. Mr. D'Egville had repeatedly offered to drop this action if the defendant would give up the author of the libel, but he had refused; and he (the Learned Counsel) was warranted in asserting that the libel was the production of the defendant's own pen. The Learned Gentleman read the libel, which was inserted in the Age, of the 11th of March last, under the head of " Notice to Correspondents,"-as follows:- " A reference to the ballet at the King's Theatre is inserted, in justice to all parties. I do not presume to write a critique-; but only to give you information you may not possess. The ballet at the Opera on Tuesday last, was impudently asserted in the bills as the composition of D'Egville, ‘Siege de Cythere,’ when it was originally composed and produced by M. Dubervalle. The only credit due to D'Egville is the extraordinary memory to have so closely followed the original in every scene, group, and action, unless he made memoranda at the time, which I presume was ihe case. The writer of this was in Dubervalle's ballet when first produced ut the Old Pantheon, and thinks D'Egville can only copy, not compose. For example, his previous billet of Rose Blanche was originally performed at Oudinot's two-penny theatre on the Boulevards, expressly for the revolutionary gentry of 1792, about the martyrdom of the Princess Lamballe and others, when D'Egville was very conspicuous in Paris, and accused of being the bosom friend of the murderer that carried that unfortunate Princess's head on a Pole." -The Learned Counsel said, that this was the libel for which the plaintiff sought compensation at the hands of the Jury, and he believed that a more atrocious and unprovoked attack never was made on a respectable man.-It was as false, too, as it was calumnious.-The plaintiff so far from being active in promoting the revolution, was conspicuous in the ranks of loyalty, and had hazarded his life in the service of the unfortunate Monarch who then filled the throne of France. He put it to the honour of the Jury, as to what must be the feelings of the plaintiff when he saw himself represented as the bosom friend of the greatest monster and most blood-thirsty wretch that figured at that sanguinary period-a fiend, who was not satisfied with the massacre of the innocent of all ages, and of both sexes, but had become the butcher of a corpse! As soon as the plaintiff became acquainted with the publication of this libel, be applied to the defendant to give up the name of the writer, as the libel purported to have come from a correspondent. This the defendant refused; and having slandered an amiable man, he refused to apologise, or to appear to defend the action, in person or by Counsel. The Jury, under all the circumstances, would say what was a fair compensation the plaintiff ought to receive for the injury attempted lo be done to his character by this atrocious and malignant libel.

  Witnesses was culled to prove the proprietorship and publication of The Age, and a witness proved that Mr. D'Egville was the Ballet Master at the Opera House-and among other successful ballets, he had produced Le Siege de Cythere.

  The Chief Justice summed up the case. To charge the plaintiff with being the intimate friend of a man concerned in one of the most sanguinary murders recorded in the history of modern times, was a gross libel. The defendant having admitted the falsehood of the statement by not pleading the truth of that statement, the Jury would say what was fair compensation to the plaintiff for the injury.

  The Jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff-Damages 150l.

National Library of Australia

http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article2189307

James Harvey d'Egville: Before Super Injunctions

— Our libel law, under the auspices of the best of judges, and administered by most sapient juries, is making noble strides. M. D'Egville, the gentleman who deserves the thanks of all the saints on earth, for having cured the young men of the present day of the sinful taste for ballets, brought an action against The Age newspaper for this paragraph:—

"The ballet at the opera on Tuesday last was impudently asserted in the bills as the composition of M. D'Egville, Siege de Cythere, when it was originally composed and produced by M. Dubervalle.The only credit due to D'Egville is the extraordinary memory to have so closely followed the original in every scene, group, and action, unless he made memoranda at the time, which I presume was the case. The writer of this was in Dubervalle's ballet when first produced at the old Pantheon, and thinks D'Egville can only copy, not compose. For example, his previous ballet of Rose Blanche was originally performed at Odenot's two-penny theatre on the Boulevards, expressly for the revolutionary gentry of 1792, about the time of the martyrdom of the Princess Lambelle and others, when D'Egville was very conspicuous in Paris, and accused of being the bosom friend of the murderer that carried that unfortunate princess's head on a pole."

The first allegation is, that the ballet was not Mr. D'Egville's work, and it is therefore one for which he ought to be especially grateful. It would be well for him indeed, if his enemies would deprive him thus of the discredit of the different dull performances with which he has vexed our eyes. The second charge, if charge it can be called, which carries no imputation with it, is that monsieur was conspicuous in Paris, at the time of the Revolution. Being conspicuous is hardly in itself a crime, we presume. But lastly, he was accused of being the bosom friend of the murderer of the Princess Lambelle.

" The learned counsel (Mr. Phillips) said, that this was the libel for which the plaintiff sought compensation at the hands of the jury, and he believed that a more atrocious and unprovoked attack never was made on a respectable man. It was as false, too, as it was calumnious. The plaintiff, so far from being active in promoting the Revolution, was conspicuous in the ranks of loyalty, and had hazarded his life in the service of the unfortunate monarch who then filled the throne of France. He put it to the honour of the jury, as to what must be the feelings of the plaintiff when he saw himself represented as the bosom friend of the greatest monster and most blood-thirsty wretch that figured at that sanguinary period."

We are extremely glad to learn, that a more atrocious and unprovoked attack (than the above quoted) never was made on a respectable man. We rejoice to discover that respectable men, from the beginning of things down to the present time, from Adam to D'Egville, have had nothing worse to complain of. "But what," asks the counsellor, (Phillips,) "must be the feelings of the plaintiff, when he saw himself represented as the bosom-friend of the monster," &c. The inquiry is beside the question, simply because Monsieur D'Egville never saw himself represented as any such thing: the terms of the libel are, that he was accused of being the bosom friend, &c; and there is a wide difference between the representation of an accusation, and the representation of the fact, though it may escape the clear logical perception of an Irish orator.

" The Chief Justice [of the Common Pleas, be sure] summed up the case. To charge the plaintiff with being the intimate friend of a man concerned in one of the most sanguinary murders that was recorded in the history of modern times, was a gross libel, the defendant having admitted the falsehood of the statement by not pleading the truth of that statement. The jury would say what was a failcompensation to the plaintiff for the injury."

Again we observe that the libel did not charge; it merely alleged that the party was accused of an intimacy with a detested character. No defence was made; and the jury, under the circumstances, with the wisdom and moderation which now distinguish juries in libel cases, brought in a verdict of 150l. damages for the dancing master, who has not in the whole course of his professional life taken a more profitable step than this prosecution. In these remarks we are far from intending to justify the paragraph in The Age; it was of the customary complexion of that paper, which we have ourselves more than once described with the natural expressions of disgust; but we do contend that 150l. or a hundred and fifty shillings damages for it, is a sum utterly disproportioned to the injury. There was no defence, however, and the jury perhaps acted on that common principle which caused the chimney sweeper to be " thrown over" from the one shilling gallery, his abrupt ejection accompanied with the sound reason, "he ha'nt got no friends." Being in no degree better than the rest of the world, we should possibly not trouble ourselves much about this manner of disposing of chimney sweepers, were it not that we sit in the pit below, and we have our fears lest the fall of the chimney sweeper should touch our own heads. Therefore, though by no means partial to the chimney sweeper, we protest against throwing him over, even though he "ha'nt got no friends." He is a dirty sooty fellow by trade, but in punishing him beyond his offence, you may, most worthy jurors of the one-shilling gallery, lead to the injury of others who have not offended at all. You are encouraging, nay, actually rewarding a morbid sensitiveness which may be extended to the annoyance of you all. You begin with throwing over the chimney sweeper: well and good, we are all afraid of being befouled, and will not quarrel about him. But there is the baker, who is not an agreeable neighbour to the gentleman in black, and he will go over next; and there is the tallow chandler, who is not redolent of frankincense, who will follow; and the greasy butcher, and one man has a bad breath, and another's pores are too open, and another occupies more than a fair allowance of room, and another has a cough which interferes with your hearing; in short every one has some little annoying quality, and getting on from the greater nuisances to those next in degree, you will at last find that you yourself are in danger of suffering under the law you have put upon others. You say that you are safe, John, because you don't write; but you speak, man—great folly to be sure, but still speech, such indeed as it is ; and if calling a bailiff a bum is declared a wicked and malignant libel, according to the best doctrine, I should like much to know what may not be considered as calumny. There are actions for words as well as for letters.

But what will be the issue of the present blind rage against the press? Verdicts will encourage actions out of number, on slighter aud slighter provocations, till Mr. Bull grows weary of convicting libellers, and then a reaction will take place. A cold will succeed a hot fit, and after having found every thing libellous, our juries will find nothing libellous. The press will then, after a term of persecution, enjoy a term of tyranny. It will say and do what it likes with complete impunity. There are with John Bull fashions, in justice, as in all other things. It is the fashion just now to find verdicts of guilty in cases of alleged libel; it will be the fashion soon to give verdicts with a not before them. Reason has no voice in either decision. It is the mode—the mode, the mode's the thing!

In the report of M. D'Egville's action, it is said that a witness proved that Monsieur had produced, among other successful ballets, the Siege de Cythère. We certainly had not the slightest idea that the success of all or any of M. D'Egville's ballets could be proved in evidence. A pit more than half empty before the ballet is half over, was doubtless one of the facts instanced.

The London Magazine July 1827
Diary for the month of June (9th)