there must be an abandonment. It is but three days' post from Liverpool to Waterford. There were, therefore nearly three weeks or at least eighteen days, during which the plaintiff neglected to make the abandonment, and treated the goods as his own, and there is a salvage of 951. 3s. 4d. received. The plaintiff could not go for a stranding, because part of the goods were sent forward, and if he had notice of it on the 31st of January which he might have had, he was out of time to abandon on the 18th of February."

Judgment for the defendant.

But it being said that the abandonment was in fact within a reasonable time, it was afterwards directed that there should be a new trial to ascertain that fact.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

Before Lord Ellenborough and a special Fury. July 1808. Carr v. Hood.

THE plaintiff, who is sir John Carr, the author of several

books of travels, particularly "The Stranger in Ireland, the Stranger in France, a Northern Summer, and a Tour round the Baltic," brought his action against the defendant, a bookseller in the Poultry, for publishing a libel against him under the title of " My Pocket Book or Notes for a ryghte merrie and conceyted tour through Ireland by a knight Errant." In this work, the plaintiff's writings were ridiculed with extraordinary wit. The plan of the book was to suppose the traveller making notes of things, to be afterwards inserted in a quarto volume, which notes were extracts from the ridiculous parts of sir J. Carr's work. This libel had so rapid a sale, that it came soon to a second edition, when the publisher added some plates, illustrative of the traveller's wanderings through Ireland. In one of them the plaintiff was represented as weeping most

bitterly at leaving Ireland, and carrying a pocket handkerchief tied up by the four corners, marked "MY WARDROBE," while a lusty porter was groaning under the weighty load of his ponderous travels. The plaintiff in his declaration complained principally of this caricature, and alleged, that he had received special damage by it, inasmuch as two booksellers, sir R. Phillips and Mr. Leigh, had refused to purchase another work of his, to be entitled "A Scottish Tour," for which they would have given six hundred guineas, had it not been for the effect of this publication of the defendant's.

Sir R. Phillips was called, who said, that he refused to publish any more of sir John Carr's works, because he thought his reputation was greatly injured by the ridicule in the work called "My Pocket Book." Upon his cross examination sir R. said, he did not read or attend to scandalous and anonymous criticisms. He, however, admitted, that he published the Oxford Review. But this, though it was anonymous, he said, was an honest Review. He also published the work called “ Public Characters," and also "Anecdotes of the leaders of the Revolution in France." He was asked, whether he did not read the Edinburgh Review. To which he said, that he had not read it these six years.

Lord Mountnorris and lord Valentia said, that sir John Carr, who was knighted by the lord lieutenant of Ireland, was strongly recommended to them from Ireland. Lord M. said, he should have bought "The Stranger in Ireland," because it spoke so well of Ireland, but he read " My Pocket Book," and that prejudiced him against it.

The attorney general contended, that the work published by the defendant was a species of fair criticism upon the works of the plaintiff, which were in general compiled of old jokes and inflated common-place reflections upon men and manners, which were set off by hot pressed paper and fine plates. He commented strongly upon the evidence of sir Richard Phillips, showed its contradictions, and said, that no books nor reviews could be more libellous than those he had acknowledged

to publish, if severity of anonymous invective could be deemed a libel.

Lord Ellenborough declared his opinion to the jury, that every man who published a book laid himself before the public, and became a fair subject of criticism. If his book was penned in a pompous and empty stile, ridicule might fairly be used to strip folly of its self importance. With respect to the caricature, the author of the Travels in Ireland was the relater of his own history in connexion with that country, and made his own character as an individual and an author, so embodied with the work, that it was impossible to disconnect them. Even the caricatures did not affect the plaintiff, except as the author of the work which had been ridiculed. There would have been no doubt, if sir John Carr's private character had been degraded it would have been a libel. Nothing of that kind was imputed to the defendant. Then it was of the highest importance, that criticism should be free, for, without it there could be no improvement in taste, in politics, or in science. Every branch of learning was indebted for its advancement to the severe strictures, which succeeding writers had passed upon the works of each other, and the only question was, whether this author had done more than expose, according to his best judgment, what he conceived to be a vitiated stile of writing.

Verdict for the defendant.

Case of the Horizon.

Mr. Madison has written a book to show the interpolations of the law of nations, which, he alleged have been committed by England, but has entirely failed in substantiating a single instance. We now recommend to his attention a comparison of this decree · and decision founded upon it, with the following article in the treaty of 1800 between France and the United States.

ARTICLE XII.

Ir shall be lawful for the citizens of either country to sail with their ships and merchandize (contraband goods always excepted) from any port whatever, to any port of the enemy of the other, and to sail and trade with their ships and merchandize, with perfect security and liberty, from the countries, ports and places of those who are enemies of both or of either party, without any opposition or disturbance whatsoever, and to pass not only directly from the ports of the enemy, aforementioned to neutral ports and places, but from one place belonging to an enemy, to another place belonging to an enemy, whether they be under the jurisdiction of the same power, or under several; unless such ports or places shall be actually blockaded, besieged or invested.

Nor shall any vessel of either, that may have entered into such port or place before the same was actually (or in the French really) besieged, blockaded or invested by the other, be restrained from quitting such place with her cargo, nor if found therein after the reduction or surrender of such place, shall such vessel or her cargo be liable to confiscation, but they shall be restored to the owners thereof.

A TRANSLATION
NSLATIO

Of the decision of the imperial council of prizes in the case of the American ship the Horizon, stranded on the coast of France. Under the decree of the 21st November 1806. The imperial council of prizes has rendered the following decision. The papers relative to the affair of the stranding of the American ship the Horizon being taken into consideration, the result is as follows:

The American ship the Horizon, belonging to Mr. John M'Clure and Mr. Alexander McClure, brothers, of Charleston, cleared out in the month of September 1804, under the command of the latter, for Zanzibar, on the eastern coast of Africa, with a cargo of different kinds of merchandize for account, and risque of these two brothers.

The papers with which this vessel was furnished, were,

1st. A register dated at Charleston, on the 3d of September 1804, proving the property to belong to the brothers, the M'Clures.

2d. A passport from the president of the United States, dated on the same day, for the ship Horizon going from Charleston to the isle of Zanzibar.

3d. A Mediterranean passport of the same date.

4th. The list or roll of the men composing the crew, signed by the captain and certified by a justice of the peace at Charleston, on the 3d. Sept. 1804.

5th. The act of engagement of the people composing the crew at the time when the vessel was cast away, and of which the first article is dated on the 20th Jan. 1807.

There were besides many papers relative to the cargo, which were perfectly regular.

It appeared by a declaration of captain M'Clure, that the Horizon went first to Goree, where he sold a part of his cargo, which was replaced by articles of that country; that from thence he made sail for the river De la Plata; that on the 30th April 1804, he was stopped at the entrance of that river by an English privateer who released him under an agreement signed by two captains, that the validity or invalidity of the prize should be decided by four merchants of London; he then touched at Buenos Ayres, where he sold his cargo, and afterwards went to Monteviedo, the only port designated for the clearance of foreign vessels; that at this port his ship was freighted by the correspondents of the house Brentano and Virbreta, to carry to London a cargo of merchandize, and that this circumstance determined captain M'Chure to give up the