Star. — London, England, 1822-08-08 00:00:00

~ I SUMMER ASSIZES CIVIL SIDF...--DURHAM, AUGUST 5. WILLIAMS TL 111.15H1LE.--.LIBEL. Mr. BOLT stated the pleadings. The plaintiff set I faith that Stephen Spencer hiving be en convicted at the last Spring Assizes, and receive i sentence of death for bniglary, and the plaintiff having ad dressed a letter to Mr. Justice Bann?, with affi davits annexed, the defendant, in the Durham Ad vertiser, libelled the plaintiff, by alleging that the persons who made the affidavits were subpsenaed by him to swear them falsely. Mr. WILLIAMS addressed the Jury. The parties were proprietors and printers of newspapers. H . e would, however, explain the ground alon e on which this case was brought before them. If the libel had arisen from the freedom of discussion whichthe news papers indulge in--if it had been of the ordinary de scription of abuse, the plaintiff would not have come before them. In the course of their editorial contro versies, they might impute perverse and corrupt mo tives and principles. If any species of reformation was advocated by one, another might impute the dreadful purpose of overthrowing that confirmation and perfection of wisdom handed down by our an cestors. On the other hand, if one contended that whatever is is right, the opposite imputation of de stroying what he professed to support might be made, as corruption did not preserve the constitution more than metal was preserved by keeping on the rust.— But such representation or misrepresentation the plaintiff would not have complained of. That would be but the high road of abuse, which editors are allowed to travel; that would be the beaten path.— It is the departure from this path into the modern course of attacking the private lives of the parties or their predecessors. Early in the last spring Stephen Spencer was convicted of a burglary in the house of Mr. Cookson, of Peloe, and sentenced to suffer death. The conviction was, for aught he k4,ew, right; but the evidence which- was laid before the Jury was matter of public discussion and fair inquiry. Mr. Williams had accordingly offered observations on the evidence, and submitted the contradictions which he thought could be given to it. This was open to the Public in all cases, and particulatly in this county, where, and before the same Learned Judge who now presided, a conviction for murder (in the celebrated Herrington case) had been set aside, the principal witness convicted of peijury, and the con victs for murder totally acquitted. On the 17th of March the plaintiff published a letter to Mr. Justice Bayley, with the depositions which had been made subsequently to the trial. The letter was written in the most respectful terms. The County Advertiser, of which the defendant was editor and proprietor, contained an attack in reply, of which it would be for them to say whether it was made in a proper manner, and referred only to political opinions and political topics ; or whether it was not an attempt to fir upon the plaintiff the imputation of having cor ruptly and wickedly fabricated the documents, either singly or in conjunction with others, in order to im pose upon the wisdom of the Judge and pervert the current of public justice. The letter which contained the libel began with referring to " the disgraceful attempt' —they would never mind that, it was in common course—" of this his eling printer, who un blushingly dared to insinuate"—still a part of the generalities. It proceeded to charge all " the radical Whi , z-writers with the design to mislead the Public." Thi:, was all right, for radical Whigs might of course be charged with burglary, murder, schism, arson, and a'l soles of crimes, but the writer of the libel had not been content with this new and poignant charge. These was next—" unprincipled and wicked design," but that was general still, though approach ing to the libel. 44 As if the conviction may be set aside by any evidence which the prisoner and his coadjutor, the editor, may have the impudence to fabricate." Again, 44 My opinion is, that the affi davits have been fabricated by the editor of the Duilunn Chronicle himself." " The depositions ori ginated in a foul conspiracy to rescue this delinquent from the sentence of the law, which, in terms of ra dical cant, is styled 6 to award to innocence its due, and to crime its right punishment.'" The plaintiff caused a letter to be written by his attornies, Messrs. Burkitt and Phillips, of Newcastle, to give the de fendant an opportunity of explanation. The answer of the defendant was, " that he had sent the letter to the author, and his reply would determine which Of them would flefeudahe action ; but never will condescend (Lord" 'bless us, Gentlemen !), I never will condescend to make the apolpgy required, Francis Mumble.'" For this charge of an act of deliberate baseness this action was brought. One circumstance mare he had to mention: the damages were laid at 101. purposely, advisedly, and with a strict attention to the object of the action. The plaintiff wanted none of the defendant's money. Ile wanted only to wipe off, by the verdict of a Jury, the foul stain falsely and -wickedly attempted to be fixed upon him. George Walker, formerly primer of the Durham Chroxick, proved that Mr. Williams was editor and proprietor. In his cross-examination by Mr. Serjeant Iluxxocx, he stated that he knew of no other person connected with the Paper. He was paid by Mr. Williams. The only guarantee he had was a verbal assurance by Mr. Kirton, an attorney, that he should be paid, whatever happened. Mr—Hayes, clerk of the Crown, produced the indictment and judgment against Spencer. Mr. Wolfe stated, that Spencer had been under his charger In cross-examination, he said that the amount of the robbery was £4OO, which the prisontr's father returned to witness. David Tindall, clerk and servant to Charles Spierman Esq. the Magistrate who took the affidavits, proved the swearing of the affidavits and the signature of the Magistrate. Cross-examined.—Mr. Spierman was infirm for many years. There were many dther Justices in Durham. Witneu knew none of those who made the affidavits before. Mr. Spierman was not in bed. The affidavits came ready prepared. They were all sent up together to his master, who read them for a e siderable time. He did not know whose handwriting they were. Mr. Walker was recalled by Mr. Serjeant HULLOCIL He should have been inclined to think the writing was Mr. Vetch's, who occasionally was employed by Mr. Williams. Mr. Walters, the Chief Justice's clerk, produced the affidavits, which he had from Mr. Load, Mr. Justice Bayley's clerk. They were read. They consisted of statements to establish au alibi for Spencer. The clerk of the Attornies for the plaintiff paved the corre spondence with the defendant, which was read. He also preyed that the defendant avowed himself amenable alone for all that appeared in the Paper. The plaintiff's letter to Mr. Justice Bayley was then read, and the letter in the ildvertiser, signed " Veritas," containing the alleged libel. Kr. Wolfe was recalled by Mr. Serjeant Runnel, and stated that Spencer was sent to the hulks, and transported for life. Serjeant liut.t.ctnK addressed the Jury for the defendant. They would judge how highly.abe plain. tiff valued his loss of profits and of character, when he estimated the damages at £lO. The plaintiff had not submitted the affidavits privately, but published them in his Newspaper. Was that the way to act in such a case? He aid impute blindness and credulity , on this subject to Mr. Williams. Was there anything to prove that the affidavits were not a tissue of per jiiry.? Who was the Magistra t e selected ? Who wrote them ? Who congregated the persons? One of them swore it was moonlight, when the moon was not five days old. Was there not rashness, impro priety, indelicacy chargeable upon the plaintiff? He was the grossest andinost palpable dupe of silly per jured individuals. Was there any Printer in England who was not a hireling? There was nu printer or speaker but was a hireling. The affidavits were false—they were a fabrication. The plaintiff lent himself to the fabrication, and that was all that the defendant had charged. He confidently called upon them, therefore, to give their verdict for the defendant. Mr. Baron Woon said, the plaintiff had set him self very officiously to collect affidavits, and wrote a letter to Mr. Justice Bayley. If he had confined him self to writing, there would be no blame attached to his conduct. But what had he done? He went a great deal farther. He published not only his own letter, but all the affidavits. This be conceived was very improper conduct, because it could be with no other view than to bring into contempt the adminis tration of justice, and the verdicts of Juries. This conduct deserved to be reprehended, and he did not blame the defendant for reprehending it. Whether in doing so he had gone too far, was for them to say. It had been said, that. the verdicts of Juries were open to discussion. If that was consistent with the 'law of the land, it was a most mischievous practice. It certainly deserved, in the present case, proper ani madversion. If they thought that it was fair and proper animadversion, they would find their verdict for - the defendant ;if otherwise, they would find for the plaintiff, with such damages as they thought proper The Jury retired for some time, and returned with a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages One Shilling. SUSSEX.—LEWES, AUGUST S.—CROWN SIDE. James Wiggens was indicted for the wilful murder 1 of Henry Lilliott, at Brighton, on the 20th April. Mr. ANDREWS conducted the prosecution. It ap peared in evidence that, on the day mentioned in the indictment, the pi isoner and the deceased had set two boys to fight on the beach at Brighton. Some alter cation took place as to the merits of each combatant, mutual reproaches followed, and, as soon as the boys bad done fighting, the prisoner attacked the deceased and offered to fight him. The latter being the lighter man of the two, after a round, in which he got the worst, declined the combat, but still continued to jeer the prisoner upon the subject of a defeat in which be was beaten by some other man in three rounds, and said, that if he, the deceased, bad more weight, he would be a match for him. After provoking him for some time in this manner, the prisoner fell upon the deceased, knocked him down, and, whilst he was on the ground, kicked him two or three times between the hip and the back. The deceased being released, he walked home, apparently not much butt: this was on Saturday ; on the Monday folloWing he com plained of a pain in his back, but continued to work for six or seven days afterwards at his business as a bricklayer, when he was obliged to lie in bed, from which henever rose again, and expired on the 2d May. He was examined after death by two surgeons, who stated that there appeared to be no marks of violence upon the body, either externally or internally, which could produce death. They attributed mortality to a fever produced by encitement of the constitution, in consequence of the blows he had received. Be tween the hip and the region of the kidneys there was the mark of a slight contusion, but not such as would have produced death. The deceit:Y.l had been previously in good health. The prisoner called two or three witnesses to give an account of the transaction, but their evidence did not very materially differ from that of the witnesses for the Crown. The LORD CHIEF BARON Charged the Jury that they must acquit the prisoner of wilful murder, there being no evidence of any malice aforethought to sustain that part of the charge. If, however, they were of opinion that the prisoner had occasioned the death of the deceased, they would be justified in find ing him guilty of manslaughter. The Jury found the prisoner Guilty of manslaughter only, and the Learned Judge, after animadverting upon the cowardly brutality of the prisoner in kick ing the deceased whilst on the ground, the latter, being confessedly no match for him in self-defence, sentenced him to six months imprisonment in the I County Jail. James Tilley and David Barnett were indicted for burglariously breaking and ei.tering the dwelling house of Elizabeth Watson, at Petworth, on the night of the 18th of April, and stealing therein three Chi chester and two Arundel Bank -notes, for the payment of 11. each, two.canisters, containing a quanity of tea, and a gun, her property ; and Henry Leggatt was indicted for receiving the gun, knowing it to have been stolen. There were circumstances of con sid:rable atrocity in this case. The prosecutrix, an elderly maiden lady, and a female servant of still more advanced years, resided in a detached house in the parish of Petworth. On the night of the 18th April they had retired to bed about ten o'clock. Between eleben and twelve o'clock Miss Watson was alarmed by the screams of her servant in an adjoining room. She immediately got up, and was approaching the room, when she was seized by a ruffian, who de manded her money, and on the instant stabbed her in the left arm with an instrument like a bayonet. Though greatly alarmed, she had self-possession enough to observe that in the maid's room there were two other men, one of whom was lying upon the poor creature, as if holding her down. The assassins had candles, and she could see that her servant Was weltering in her blood. Her own appearance'at tracted the observation of the other men. Some scuffling ensued, and the candles went out. In the scuffle the prosecutriz received several blows on the head and face. One of the ruffians went down stairs, and procuring a light they all proceeded to rifle the house, and carried off the articles mentioned in the indictment. The female servant deposed, that be tween eleven and twelve o'clock she was awoke out .of her sleep by three men, who rushed into her room with candles in their hands. They were armed with k a short swgrd and bayonet. She jumped up in bed, and Screamed out as loud as she could. One of them' immediately struck her a violent blow on the head with the sword, which inflicted a deep wound, and then jumped upon her and presse4 her down on tbe bed, with so much weight as to break one of her ribs. To prevent her screaming, 'he thrust his hand into her mouth, pinched her tongue, and isnecked out I some of her teeth. Whilst she was in thitsituation her mistress came to the door, and then they left her without any further molestation. Both herself and her mistress were confined to their beds for a fort night after. It appeared that the assailants had en tered the house by a back window, which they had forced. Some days afterwards, a man named George Turner, a disbanded soldier, was apprehended on sus picion of being a participator in the outrage, and he confessed the fact, and implicated the other prisoners, who were immediately taken up. The principal wit ness, therefore, to rapport the case for the prosecu tion was the approver, Turner, who deposed that he, Tilley, and• Barnett, had agreed, on the 16th April, to go on the 18th to Miss Watson's house and com mit the burglary. They arrived at the house at eleven o'clock. He waited in front of the house, whilst the others broke in the back way, which having done, they opened the ft ont door, and let him in. According to the statement, he took no part in the violence inflicted upon the maid-servant, but swore that after she had been wounded by Barnett, he jumped upon the bed to prevent further violence, and besought the others not to hurt her any more. In this respect. he was flatly contradicted by the old woman herself, who deposed, that there was but one man on the bed, and that that man, whoever he was, had cut her, broke one of her ribs, pinched her tongue, and forced out her teeth. The accomplice denied all this, and said he had merely interposed from motives of humanity. In collateral parts of the statement, however, the ac complice was confirmed by several witnesses. The burglars, previously to their entering the house, had disguised their features with some ,red and white powder, to guard against detection. After tin:) , had effected the robbery, they met the other prisoner, Henry Leggatt, by previous concert, at about a mile from the house, with a cart and horse, and to him they delivered the gun, which was part of the plun der.—The prisoners strenuously denied their guilt, and insisted that the accomplice was perjured. The LORD CHIEF BARON summed up the whole of the case to the Jery, pointing out to their attention the discrepancy between the evidence of the female servant and the accomplice, with respect to the vio lence committed upon the former, but left it to them to say uhether the rest of his story was entitled to credit, confirmed as it was in many collateral points by the testimony of credible witnesses. The Jury found all the prisoners Guilty. CIVIL. SIDE. TIIE KING V. DANIEL. This was a Customs information against the de fendant, for assaulting a Custom-house officer in the execution of his duty. The defendant pleaded guilty, and it was understood that he would not be called up for judgment. JOHN FULLER, ESQ. V. RANDALL. This was an action of trespass, for breaking and entering the plaintiff's preserves, and destroying his game after notice. The plaintiff is a Gentleman of some celebrity, and formerly had the honour of representing this County in Parliament ; and the defendant is a Gentleman farmer, residing in the plaintiff's neighbourhood, in the parish of Dallington. Notice had been served upoa the defendant in December, 1820, not to tres pass upon the plaintiff's preserves; in consequence of imputed acts of aggression on previous occasions. Three distinct acts of trespass were now proved to ' have taken place after the notice, namely, in Octo ber, November, and December last year. On one I occasion the defendant had pursued a hare from his own land into that of the plaintiff, and there bagged his game; on another he sent his dogs into the plain- I tiff's preserves, and killed a rabbit on a private road of his own, which traversed the plaintiff's soil; and on the third he was with his dogs on the plaintiff's land, but no game was killed. Mr. GURNEY, for the defendant, contended, that the plaintiff was entitled merely to nominal damages. The defendant, in the keenness of sport, had acci dentally trespassed on the plaintiff's land, which ad joined his own, and certainly never meant to insult the plaintiff by a wanton trespass, as was very fre quently the practice on such occasions. There was, therefore, no ground for anything more than nomi nal damages. Mr. Justice PARRS charged the Jury, that they must certainly find their verdict for the plaintiff, but told them that it was only a case for nominal damages. The Jury retired for about three quarters of an hour, and found their verdict for the plaintiff—Da mages ; costs 40s. DICKENS AND ANOTHER V. SHAW. This was an action brought by the Lords of the Manor of Brighthelmstone against the defendant, for trespassing on the sea-shore between high and low water-mark, and digging and carrying away the sand and soil therefrom. The object of the action was to try the plaintiffs' right, asLords of the Manor, to the soil of the beach between high and low water mark, along the coast, in the parish of Brighthelm stone.—The plaintiffs rested their case upon evidence to shew that the Lords of the Manor of Brighton had, time out of mind, exercised dominion ever the soil between high and low water-mark, and had the ex clusive ownership thereof, in contradiction to the acknowledged rule of law, that the manorial rights of the Lord do not extend beyond the high water mark, the right to the intervening soil and the low water-mark being generally in the King. The right of wreck—of contriving the removal of sand and gravel—the fixing of moving capstans on the beach, and other incidents of dominion, were insisted upon, as confirming the plaintiffs' right. Documentary evi-, dente, on the nature of ancient grants, was also ad duced for the same purpose. For the defence it was contended, that the plain tiffs claim was not made out by any adequate evi dence of enjoyment, sufficient to controul the corn mon law right in all the King's subjects to the soil between high and low water-mark, more particu larly as there was no distinct evidence of any inter ruption of this right, from time beyond the me mory of man. The case went to the Jury, under the directions of •••• tlie Learned Judge, who was inclined to think that the esideace of enjoyment was as strong as could be given in such a case. The Jury retired for about thiee-quarters of afi hour, and found their verdict for the defendant. INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT. John- Stuart came up to be heard on his petition . to be discharged, and was opposed by a creditor,' named Isaac Armstrong. The insolvent, on his exa mination, admitted, that he had been twice a bank rupt, and that he took the benefit of the Insolvent Act in May last year. Mr. Armstrong stated, that he was a creditor of the insolvent's previous to his having taken the benefit of the Act last year, and had on that occa<ion entered an opposition againit him, but relinquished it, in con sequence of receiving from the insolvent four bills to the amount of the debt and costs, which bills have not since been paid, and constitute the debt on which he now opposed the insolvent's discharge. Mr. Armstronghaving examined the insolvent, and given his evidence, addressed the Court with glea. energy ; he said, be did not oppose the ins,.lvenes discharge from any expectation of advantage to him self, but entirely for the good of the commercial community, of which he was a member, being certain it never could havebeen the intention of the Legisla. cure to allow a person who had conducted himself as the insolvent hadjdone, to enter again into the trading world without having received some correctional punishment; his own conduct he considered perfectly natural and unexceptionable ; the insolvent owed him a debt contracted in a manner that empowered him to make an effectual opposition to his discharge; and he had forborne to exercise the poA or be pos sessed to punish the insolvent, on the condition of getting a security for the future pay mcnt of his debt. Mr. Armstrong having concluded an address to the Court, not inferior in length at least to that of many a Learned Gentleman ; The CHIEF COMMISSIONER pronounced the judg ment of the Court. The insolvent's discharge, he said, was opposed by a creditor who had been so previous to his taking the benefit of the Act last year, and who, according to his own account, had at that time a legitimate ground of opposition to his discharge; but instead of availing himself of his right to oppose the insolvent's diScharge then, he relinquished it for the sake of an advantage to himself, not in conjunc tion with all the other creditors, but in opposition to their interests and just rights. Without entering at large into the opposing. creditor's views of the inten tion of the Legislature ►n passing the Act, one thing was certain, that the Legislature never intended that the opposition of a creditor who had so conducted himself should receive any attention in that Court. But although the Court could not pay the least at tention to the opposition that had bee❑ made to the insolvent's discharge, they could not overlook the de merits of his case, and could not ~ ce sailv reaso►► kr consenting to his discharge without hi; obtaining the consent of three-fourths of his creditors, as required by the Act in the case of an insolvent applying for the benefit of it within five years after he had been discharged, unless the Conic saw some special rea sons for dispensing with such consent ; in the present case no such reasons appeared, and the insolvent's Petition must be dismissed. George Wheeler came up to be heard on his peti tion to be discharged, and was opposed by Mi. LOCK on behalf of Sir Peter Pole a ani Co. banke: - 3, Maidstone. It appeased by the insolvent's examination, that lie was a cattle-dealer, and kept an account at the bank of Messrs. Jones, Smithfield; and that in November last he went to Maidstone market and purchased cattle from different fetsons to the amount of up wards of three hundred pounds, for all of which he gave checks on his bankers, in m hose hands he had not any money at the time, but who had frequently paid his checks in advance to a much larger amount. The insolvent disposed cf all his cattle in a few days, and lodged part of the money with his bankers, who paid his checks as far as they had funds of hk, but refused the rest, amounting to £lBO, amongst which was one for £2B, in the hands of Sir Peter Pole and Co. on which the insolvent was oppe,ed ; and which, it appeared, had not been presented for payment fur ten days after it was drawn. Sir Peter Pole and Co.'s solicitor proved that when the insolvent was sued for the check they held, he put them to vexatious defence. The COURT said, it was impossible to say that the insolvent had contracted a debt fraudulently, as 1:e probably supposed when he gave the check that it would be paid, which it was also probable would be the case had it been presented in time ; but by the vexatious defence he made to the action brooght against him for the amount of the check, the insolvent had clearly brought himself under a penal clause of the Act. The judgment of the Court was, thaehe should not be discharged until he should be six months in pi ison from the date of his petition. The following simple remedy for Rheumatism and Gout has done wonders in a variety of cases :—One ounce and a half of the best sulphur, an one ounce of calcined magnesia, to be put into a quart bottle of the best Hollands gin, and well shaken. A ‘‘ilie glass full morning and night will be a sufficient dose. COAL MA . RKET, AUGUST 7. Adair 345. 611.-Burdon 375. 6d.-Charlotte 375.-Coxlculge 381. 9d.-Dean's Primrose 375.-Heaton 325. 6d.-Hebburn Main 393.-Ilolywell 375.-KiUingworth 395. 3d.-Ord's Red belles 325. 6d.-Pelaw Main 365.-Pontop Windsor's 345. 6d. -Tanfirld Moor 365.-Townley 345. 6d.-Wallsead Bell and Co.'s 395.-Du. Bewicke 40s. 9d. a 415.-Do. Brown's 335. 3d. -Do. Newmarch 395. 6d.-Do. Northumberland 38s. 9d.-Dc Riddells 40s. 6d.-Do. Russel 415.-Wylam 35.. 9d.- 'l'aaiield Trader 375. 9d.-Welsh Coal 6W.-Stone Coal 525.-st. 1).1- viti's Main 325.-Whitelee 335.-Eden Main 375.-U,dworta Main 335. 6d.-Lambtoa's Primrose 375. ado-Nesham 375. Lambton 425.-Do. Stewart 425.-Do. Sko hart 378.-59 Ships at Market -52i Ships sold-6i Unsold. MAIL& All. DIM 1 0 I 1 0 Dublin Waterford Guernsey and Jersey 0 '0 Lisbon 0 0 Holland 1 0 New York 0 0 •M% PIA. France 1 0 Hamburgb 1 1 Flanders 0 0 Jazualca o o Gnttenburgb 0 0 Brazil o 0 HIGH-WATERat LONDON BRIDGE TO-MORROW Mcrnthg . - - 24 palmate' after 8. Afternoon - - 44 minutes after 8. LO,I 4 IRON; hinted and pubNe hed by Lsv iKa Vishati. place, Tanph-Ba. W Iry : 4i I, :•~~