The Press. — London, England, 1858-12-18 00:00:00

THE PRESS, DECEMBER 18,1858. There was an a,tempt at applause, which was in. stantly suppressed. The prisoner was ordered to be discharged. WEATHERLEY, v. THE DUKE OF BEAUFORT. Mr. Lush and Mr. M. Kerr appeared for Mr. Weatherley ; Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. G. Somer set for the Duke of Beaufort. Mr. Lush in opening the case for Mr. Weatherley, said the transaction out of which these actions arose occurred on Brighton racecourse in August last. Mr. Weatherly was riding a friend's horse on a por tion of the course divided off by ropes, and the Duke of Beaufort was indulging in an amusement common on racecourses, consisting of throwing sticks at a figure with a pipe in its mouth. and trying to strike the pipe without striking the figure. The duke was playing very vigorously, and bad struck the pipe out of the figure's mouth several times. He had a bludgeon is his hand, and was iu the act of taking aim when the horse of Mr. Weatherley passed. The duke struck against the shoulder of the horse. The horse naturally started a little out of the way. The duke used an expression not very complimentary to Mr. Weatherley, and then committed the gross and unprovoked assault of which damages were sought. The following witnesses were then examined : Mr. Thomas White Weatherley : I am the plaintiff in the first action, and the defendant in the second. I attended the Brighton races in August last. There was a person throwing at a black doll with large sticks, which was the cause of the crowd. I saw a gap between that gentleman (whom I afterwards found to be the Duke of Beaufort) and the crowd who were gathered round him in a circle. I attempted to walk the horse through the gap, and at the same moment the duke was in the act of making aim at the doll. In so doing his shoulder came against my horse's near shoulder. This caused the horse to go a few paces. The duke exclaimed, "D— your eyes, where are you cantering to?" I said, "I am not cantering," but be did not hear that ; at least I think so. He then threw the stick which he was before about to throw at the doll at me, and struck me on the loins. I was about five or ten feet only from the doll at the time. The stick was about eighteen inches long and two inches in diameter. It was the kind of stick usually employed in the game. I said, addressing the duke, It is not my fault." He then threw another stick of the same size at my head with greater violence. I put up my arm to ward off the blow, and received a very severe blow on it. He then picked up another stick of the same description, and aimed it violently at the near side of my horse. That caused the horse to be very restive. I then said, as before, that it was not my fault, and was about to explain the cause of the occurrence, when the duke came to my near side, took my left foot in his hand, and tried to shake it from the stirrup, which I prevented him doing by pointing my toe downwards. Finding he failed to do this, be pulled my leg from the horse's side and forged me off on the off side. I got on my legs and walked round to the duke, and asked him bow could be guilty of such an act. He said, "You d— tailor, you have no business here; I suppose you have never crossed a horse before." I said, "I do not wish to be insulted as well as ill-used. Yon will oblige me with your name." He said, I'll see you d— first." My ancle was very much hurt by hang. ing in the stirrup. My arm was quite stiff, and I was unable to use it. I had terrible pain between my legs, in consequence of their being extended so. This was Mr. Wecherley's case. Mr. Chambers addressed the jury for the Duke of Beaufort, and characterized the action as one to extort money. To show this he read the following extracts from the " attorney's letter " to the Duke of Beaufort : It would almost seem the sport on which your grace was engaged is rather more becoming the humbler frequenter of the racecourse—the apprentice than a peer of the realm. However, ifs peer thinks fit so to beguile his time he must conduct himself with the same propriety as others, or the law will reach him as well as a poor man. In the absence of a full apology, and such an offer to requite my client for the personal injury and insult shown to him while unprotected, which, if made, shall be sub mitted to him with every desire to atop farther inquiry, if possible—l have to request your grace will refer me to your solicitor by return of post, to whom I may send the usual process. The Duke of Beaufort was then called and examined : I was at the last Brighton races. My carriage was taken inside the ioclusare ; the " Aunt Sally" was three or four carriages ofE I went and played at that game. I stood eight or nine yards from Aunt Sally," the figure to be struck. The stick produced is very much th 3 same as the one I used. To Lord Campbell : The object to be struck is the tobacco pipes, which is supposed to be the nose. They gave me four sticks for one bout. I bad thrown the first one and broken the pipe. I stood perfectly still, waiting for another pipe to be put in, when I received simultaneously two violent blows, one on the right heel and the other on the back of the head and shoulder. and I was sent forwards a 1235 few yards. I struggled to keep on my legs, but I think I must have fallen if I had not caught with one hand the splintetbar of a carriage. I turned round to see the cause of my being thrmn in this way, and I perceived a man riding away on a grey horse. He did not express any regret, or even look round, and he was going away. I said, " Oh, this is too bad," and I threw three sticks one after the other at him. He then turned his horse round, and rode towards me with his hand up. In his hand was the crop of a hunting-whip, and I thought he was going to strike me. To avoid that I seized his horse by the bridle, jogged his bead up in the air, and made him rear, and at the same time I laid hold of Mr. Weatherley's leg, and pushed him off on the other side, and he alighted on his right leg. He did not fall, because we looked at each other over the saddle. That was the first time I saw his face. I never made use of the expressions he has attri buted to me. I then went back to my carriage. Mr. Henry Dundas Drummond said : I saw the Duke playing at Aunt Sally. I was not in his com pany. I had spoken to him a few minutes before, and was looking on. I saw him break the pipe, and then I saw him violently thrown forward by a grey horse striking him on the back. He was thrown forward several yards, and I thought he would have fallen. Mr. Weatherley rode on perfectly unconcerned, and was firteen yards distant before the duke bad recovered. The duke threw the three sticks at him one after the other as quick as possible. Mr. Weatherley turned round and rode towards the duke with a stick in his hand 4. He was riding with his hands up, and reins, stick, and hands all in confu sion. I certainly did not see him offer to strike the duke. The duke took hold of the bridle, jobbed the horse back, or he might have been ridden over. He then took hold of Mr. Weatherley's foot, and lifted him out of the saddle. His legs touched the ground, he held by the wall, and did not fall. I said," It serves him right, a tailor, be ought not to be trusted with a horse," for he had previously nearly ridden over me. Weatherley said to me, " Sir, you are adding insult to injury," and I laughed at hi.n. The stick produced is just like those the duke used to throw with. Lord Campbell in summing up, said that the plaintiff in the first action was entitled to their ver dict, and it became a question of damages, upon which they might take into their consideration how far the conduct of the duke could be excused or pal liated. It was clear that he did throw the three missiles at Mr. Weatherley, and the plea that be did so in his own defence entirely failed. The throwing the missiles was not done in the duke's defence, but to punish Weatherley for going away without making an apology. He did not think it was a ease for large or aggravated damages, nor yet for merely nominal damages. As to the cross action, although the Duke of Beaufort did well to defend the action brought against him, to show that he had done nothing unbecoming a nobleman and a gentleman—nothing which could not be pardoned and forgotten—he might just as well have abstained from bringing an action against Mr. Weatberley. In that action the duke charged Mr. Weatherley with having caused him to be inprisoned. The duke might have been in what the law regarded as a state of imprisonment, becauee the policeman said, " Please to come with me," but that was not the act of Mr. Weatherley. Mr. Weatberley only wished to get the name, and never sanctioned what the policeman did. The jury, after a short consultation, found a ver dict for Mr. Weatherley in the first action, damages 100/.; and for the Duke of Beaufort in the second, damages one farthing. Lord Campbell certified for a special jury in both cases, but refused to certify for costs in the second action. THE IMPORTANT CASE OF KEATS V. KEATS AND MONTEZCESA. was heard in the Coart:of Probate and Divorce on Saturday. Mr. Keats, who was recently High Sheriff of London, sought a dissolution of his marriage with Mrs. Keats, on the ground that she had committed adultery with a Spanish music teacher named Don Pedro de Montezuema. The defence set up was that the conduct of the lady arose mainly from ill treatment on the part of her husband, and that he bad forgiven and condoned the offence. At the conclusion of the learned Judge Ordinary's summing up, the jury retired, and after some difficulty and delay, owing to one of the jurymen refusing to accept the Judge's definition of eondonation, returned a verdict, finding that Mrs. Keats had committed adultery with Don Pedro de Montezuema, with da mages against the latter of 1,0001., and further that Mr. Keats had not condoned his wife's offence. MESSRS. DAVLDSON AND GORDON, colonial brot of Mincing-lane, applied again for their cert'' the Court of Bankruptcy on 'Wednaed evidence was giver. • "Ming, howe novel or materiai L-arazter. again adjourned to the P-' r Examination resumed : I knew nothing of Mr. Guernsey, and therefore I wrote him a note, to which I received an answer to this effect, stating that it was all correct; that he had sent the documents for the use of the editor, adding that, of course, he did not wish his name to appear. In consequence of this reply, the despatches were published in the Daily News of the 12th of November. In the week after I wrote to him, requesting to see him ; he called and introduced himself as the person who had sent the documents. I am confident I had no pre vious knowledge of him. I said I sent for some explanation with respect to the documents. I said he must give me some information as to how he became possessed of them. The prisoner said they had been left with him, but said be could not give any further information then. Saw nothing more of the prisoner until he attended the summons at the Police•court. Sergeant Parry then proceeded to take several technical objections to the indictment, which Mr. Baron Martin, without calling upon the Attor ney-General to reply, overruled, and said it was a question for the jury with what intent the prisoner had taken these despatches. Serjeant Parry then proceeded to address the jury for the defence. Before (said he) the jury could come to this conclusion they must be satisfied of two facts—first, that the prisoner's was the hand that re moved the despatches from the Colonial office ; and, secondly, that when he (lid so he had the intention to deprive the Colonial-office of the property, such as it was, that it possessed in those documents. He could not deny that Mr. Guernsey had committed a most imprudent and unjustifiable act in taking away these despatches—an act that he would regret all his life, and which had placed him in his present disgraceful position, and the full consequences of which were still in suspense. He could not deny that, actuated either by a feeling of anger and disappointment, ur a silly desire to bring before the public the information be had obtained possession of, at a time when con siderable exoitement prevailed upon the subject, the prisoner had banded these despatches to the editor of the Daily News fur insertion ; but he (Sergeant Parr)) said be very much overrated his own powers if he did not satisfy the jury that this act was as far removed from the offence of felony as could possibly be imagined. It was not necessary to be a lawyer to understand what was meant by the term " stealing ;" the common sense of every one told him that to steal was to take away the property of another without his consent, and afterwards apply it to his own use. If Mr. Gcernsey he d required payment for these despatches it might have been a very different thing, but there was nothing of the sort ; he merely required that they should be published, and he did not derive the slightest benefit whatever from the transaction. He was quite sure that the prisoner bad long ago bitterly repented that he bad been led by anger, or by folly into the commission of such an act, and he sincerely hoped that the jury would not come to the conclusion that it was an act that amounted to the serious crime of felony, for which the unfortunate gentleman at the bar might be punished, and deprived of his liberty. The Attorney General replied, contending that the act was that of the prisoner, and amounted to a larceny. The prosecution was instituted by his advice to show to the public that no one connected with the Colonial office had, either directly or sur. reptitionsly, obtained a copy, and were the cause of the publication of the despatches. Mr. Baron Martin summed up very briefly, and after calling the attention of the jury to the form of the charge against the prisoner, he said that the question they bad to decide was, whether the pri• scoer, in taking these despatches in the manner it appeared to be admitted he had done, was guilty of the offence of larceny. The learned judge then said that according to his definition of that offence it con sisted in the taking away the property of another without his consent, and with the intention at the time to convert that property to the use of the taker. A good deal had been said about the nature of the article that had been taken in the present instance, bet it appeared to him that such documents as these were clearly the subject of larceny, and that inas much as the stealing of the paper itself would have been a felony, the fact of the paper being printed on made no difference, and that this fact might in a great many instances materially increase its value. His lordship then referred to the facts, and said it appeared to him that Mr. Walker had acted very properly in the matter, and that he had done nothing whatever to be ashamed of, and he concluded by stating that the only question the jury had to decide was, whether the evidence established to their sans. faction that at the time the prisoner took the docu ments away from the Colonial office he intended to deprive that office of all property in them and to convert them to his own use. The Jury, after ten minutes' consideration, at a quarter past three, returned a verdict of " Not Guilty." blziprisoner seemed rather startled, but rousing I smiled compla c ently around the court. I