The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1826-06-22 00:00:00

'stark of time. and he was afraid the Ecclts'astieal Court would think it was a case in which the wife ought to have immediate re sist'. His I,ontvhin said he had no doubt, if his respectful complt. ants were presented to Sir Christopher Robinson, that LCAHICki J ud i re would inform him what he thought of his declaration. Mr. Dna t observed, that the expenses of the suit in Doctors' Co.nuirwis wodld not he less thin 341,0001. The Loan Cis ANCELLOR did not know if he might be allowed to siv a word about the poor, hunted Court of Chancery, but hr h . heard the expenses in that Court were less than in any other. He had hoed of an issue which coat 10.0110/.. and there could be no d tub' that suits in the Ecelesiaatical Courts were very expensive, betowse the corts fell all on one side. Tice Solicitor for I, itly Portsint uth observed, that if Mr. Fel- Wares would undertake to advance the money, there would be no ditbeulty. l'h. Lotto CHANCELLOR observed, that it Wan • Erl 7 difficult thing to get rid of a wife, if neither she nor her Solicitors liked that kir dOlil her husband should part. ROLLS COURT, WEctirminav, Juice 21. THE ATTOYXF.Y•OEXERAL v. NZWIOIR. On the re-hearing of this case to-day, a qmnition arose as to the •alidtty of a bequest, devised be the testatrix, Newsom. to Mary Insinbers. of 301. per annum. The Master had excluded the de visee front the benefit of the legacy, in consequence of an erasure s.f ho. name which appeared in the will. The question on which the Court was called upon to decide was, whether such erasure, her nsme appearing in another part of the will, would bar her t•tg the amount or the bequest. Mr. Soo ems said that the erasure in the will could not deprive Ais Chambers of the legacy which had been bequeathed her by the testatrix. The terms of the bequest were, that the sum in question was devised to the Vicar and Churchwardens of the parish of St. Martin, provided that, in consideration of that sum, the rid Ann Chambers should be received into the workhouse of that parish ; but in case she did not go into the workhouse, then that the annual rum of 3111. Long Annuities should be vested in Ann Chambers herself. The erasure in the will was only as regarded her going into the workhouse, and only proved that the testairis did not wish Ann Chambers to go into the workhouse, but did not at all affect her title to the legacy. Mr. If EALD ssid, that what Mr. Sugdrn had said. he confessed, appeared to him unanswerable, and he would not therefore make any objection to it. His Hoxotra (tile Mister of the Rolls) decided that the de visee (Chamber•) had a right to the legacy, and onleted that the return of the Master should be corrected. Ile was however anxious that it should be done in such a way as to prevent its being made a precedent. UH'RT OF KINITS_RENCII, WESTMINSTER. Jowt 21. . ... [Before the Loan CHIEF Ice Tics and a Special Jury.) THL RING V. *MEM. This was Indictment for a libel. The prosecution was instituted by Sir (filbert Bast, Bart., bi consequence of a letter which he re mired from the defendant. The Indictment set forth that the de fendant did make attempt to provoke him (Sir (filbert East) to • breach of the peace, by the publication of a letter to the following effect : Sta—four recent conduct convinces me that your repre sentations, respecting the wine, are entirely Gibe, otherwise you would not hesitate to send back the casks for the purpose of being measured. You rosy be a Baronet, but you are no gentleman." 'rhe eireumatsricen which gave rise to the alleged libel arose out of the following transaction. In October, Inf. Sir Gilbert East bought some wine of the defendant ; a quarter cask of sherry was part of the purchase. Sir Gilbert paid for it by a check on his banker, and received it at his house in Welbeek-street. Sir Gilbert's butler represented to his master that, in bottling the wine, the cask did not contain as much wine as the othcr cask which he had bottled: in consequence Sir Gaiert East wrote to the defendant, complaining of the deficiency. The defendant sent for the cask for the purpose of getting it measured, and not getting it, he wrote the letter complained of. A Mr. Ward, on the part of Sir O. East, called upon Mr. Rcagh for some apology or explanation ; but the defendant said he would Sooner see Sir Gilbert (1—.41.. . . These were the facts of the case, which were statel by Mr. Sc••LETT, who was about to cat witnesses, when Mr. J. WILLIAMS, for the defendant, took two objections— ti he contended that there was not sufficient publication to warrant a pro•ecution; and, secondly, that the indictment did not contain words to thew that the defendant sent to the prosecutor less wine then the quantity contracted for. The LORD Clime JUSTICE withdrew for a few minutes. for 'the purpose of eensulting the other Judges ; when he returned, he said, that hating consulted with the other Judges, he was of opi niim that there was sufficient publication to let in evidence. Witnesses were then called who proved the case above stated. The letter had been received by Sir Gilbert East through the two penny post, and was proved to be its the hand-writing of the de fendant. _ _ - _ - _ Mr. J. WI I. LIA MS then addreated the Jury for the defendant, and contended that the letter of Sir Gilbert East was an attack upon the character ..f his client, a most respectable merchant ; and that there was sufficient provocstinn in the communication which Mr. Rauch received, to justify hint in writing the letter in question. After a short charge from the Lord Chief Justice, the Jury found the defendant—Guilty. TEM RING v ELIE EARL. Or HARROROCOH AND CAPTAIN BAILIE. This was ■n indictment tut the of Richard Dallet son, a watchman of St. George's parish, for an assault, alleged to be committed on himself and other watchmen, by the Earl of Hay borough and ('apt. Bailie, at Stevens's Hotel, Bond-street, on the night of the 19th June, 182.'5. The Com xoN SERGEANT stated the case. He said the charge was brought against a peer of the realm and a gentleman, for as saulting a watchman in the discharge of his duty. It would, he said, appear in evidence that the noble defendant and another gen. tleman were making a great noise in Bontl.strcet, on the 19th June, last year. The watchman remonstrated with them, and even told them that there was a sick lady in one of the neighbouring houses ; butt they persisted in making the noise, when the watchman endea. soured to seize the Earl of Harborough, who ran off to his hotel, which was convenient, where he again repeated the noise. The watchman again attempted to seize his Lordship. The door wan opened, and a number of young gentlemen came to the assistance of his Lordship. and heat the poor man in such a manner that he was unable to attend his duty as a watchman for sane time after. This. the I earned gentleman said, Wittnot only an illegal, but • gross moral offence. which was aggravated by the use of an iron instru ment with which the prosecutor had been beaten. The poor man had a large family. who were by this manure deprived of his see. vices, and he felt confident that he could establish the facts which he I.ad stated, to the satisfaction of the jury. Richard Dalleson sworn—Has been a watchman of St. Geo r ge' s parish during three years. On the night of the 19th of June, ottilst on his beat in Broathatreet, he heard a hallooing by some person, who was singing out like • sailor, yeti, which was repeated. The noise was made near the house of a Mr. Cooper, whose wife was ill ar the dote. The witness remonstrated with the gentleman who made the noise, who said he had a right to sing if he wished. 'there was another gentleman in company with him, who made the noise. The witness attempted to seize the gentleman who made the noise, but he ran off towards St yen's Hotel. The witness said, before he ran off, that if he were • gentleman he would net make such a noise. The gentleman, whom he had since dis covered to be the Earl of liarborough, in running away, cried out Seweey at the watchman. He sprung his rattle. When the Earl of Harborough got to Stevens's Hotel. ht rang the bell. The watchman at this moment laid hold of him. When the door was opened, the Earl of Harborough sang out for • rescue, and several gentlemen came to his assistance; amongst others, the other defendant, Captain Bathe, who took off his coat, and began to knock the plaintill about, and his Lordship called out foe the poker. An iron rod was handed to his Lortlthip, and when he got it he hallooed out, " Now for Waterloo!" rite witness produced the iron, with which he said he had been beaten by his Lordship abopt his head and belly. Capt. Bailie assisted in beat ing the plsintiff. The scuffle took place in the passage adjoining use coffee.roorit. Ili* coat was pulled over his head, and he was dragged towards the stairs, his Lordship singing out, " D—n him, kill him !" Capt. Bathe was on the second or third step of the stairs, and struck the witness a blow between the eyes, which nearly stoniest him. About this time other watchmen came up to, and assisted In extricating him. His shirt was loin. The gentlemen forced the other watchmen out of doors. He was near being left inside, but he got away. Ile kept his bed fur three weeks after. wards. Has a wife and family, and Dolling to support them but kis wages. (►n his evoss-examinatiors be Mr. TYNDAL, he said that the gentleman wish the Ear; of Llsirborough did not tell him who he was. nor that his hordsh:p was going to hilt hotel. No person at the hotel told him who Lord Harborough was. Del not know but some person might mention his Lordship's name, but did not know whether it was mentioned. The waiter was present; there was a woman who came down stairs. A watchman of the name of Murphy told the witness at the door that he knew the gentle r•an, but did not hear Murphy say it was Lord Harborough. To a question hum • Juror, he said the first time he knew who bowl Harboyough was, was the neat day, at Marlborough street police-otfice. the Magistrates at that office bound the de. fondants over to the Sessions, but the case was since removed to dna Court. The expenses of the prosecution are partly borne by the parish. The witness underwent another crossexamination by Mr. WZOItTNAN, on the part of Captain Bailie—Witness does not know whether Capt. Bathe struck him, or asked him find to let his Lordship go. Ile tried also to take Captain Bailie. Did not re. member having said that he would hare his Lordship, dead or alive, but he was determined to take him, if he could. Air. Priviall, another watchman, said that on hearing the rattle be came to the assistance of the first limners, whom he found in a Katie with a nunaba of gentlemen ; the pnncipal persons who were attacking him were hued Ilarborough and Captain Bailie; paktum was so beaten that he could not distinguish him but by his voice. The watchman would have let the gentlemen go if they could have got their names and addresses. lie did not see the last witness strike any person. lie (lid not know whether the house keeper meant to give the address; but upon hearing her say some ping. mi.(' out r• No, no." Twoother watchmen and a patrol corroborated the statements of ths. two first witnesses. A constable front .Marlborough-•trcet proved having called upon the waiter of the hotel next day, who refused to go to the office; but, upon getting a summons he went and gale the name, of the gemlentftn. .• Mr. TYNDALE, for the defence, called upon the Jury to sue. pod their opinion until they heard the 4:lideuce which he should bring Were It was already evident to the Jury, that great exaggeration had been used ; it was even thought necessary to state, that the sickness of a female was the cause or the watchman's interference ; but no such sickness had been proved. Nothing was left out of the case that might contribute to make an impression. A weapon was produced, and called a bar of iron, which was snore like a skewer than an instrument of destruction ; and the bending of it, which was occasioned by the scuffle, was said to be caused by the weight of the blows inflicted on the watchman : he men tioned Buse circumstances to shew that there was no want of zeal in getting up the case. Ile considered the case of importance, in some respects, as it was as necessary to protect the public against j the insolence of watchmen as it was to protect the watchmen in the discharge of their duty. The plain facts were as he would state. Lord Harbotough was in the habit, when he returned from boating, an amusement of which he was very fond, to call out " Gee ho" when parsing a friend's house, for the purpose of letting his friend know that he was sale. (A laugh.) His Lordship happened, at the time the watchman heard him, to be passing his sister 's when he corn nutted the act which is converted into an offence. The watchman seized him, and the principal offence which his Lordship corn. mitted appears to be, that lie said at the door of his own hotel, he would say out "Gee ho ;" and he put it to the Jury whether watch houses were intended for persons whose residences were known, or whether, if an ofence was committed, it was at all necessary to take Lord Harborough from his own hotel to such a place. [Here a fellow in the crowd said " Lord Harborough was never in a watch- house yet," which caused some laughter, although apparently unobserved by the Lord thief Justice.] lie trusted the Jury would by their %%relict protect the public against such outrages that attempted by the watchnien. Mr. WIGHT SIAN addressed the Jury on the part of Cap i Bailie. The duty, he said, devolved on him in the absence of Mr. Adolphus, who was unavoidably absent. Ile said his client had been disturbed in his chamber by the scuffle between Lord II srborough. Upon coming down stairs he saw his Lordship in the hands of the watchmen, who were using great violence towards his Lordship. Having seen Lord Ilarbitrough and his friend ,Mr. Bray thus rimmed into their own hotel he endeavoured to extricate them, and this w,ia his sole efence. But he would leave the Jury to decide upon the case by the evidence which would be brought before them. Henry Grey was then sworn—lie was in company with the Earl of WerLorough on the night in question. His Lordship, in pas sing his sister's, sung out—gave one halloo. The watchman came up immediate ly, and said he would take his Lordship to the watch house. The watchman was very saucy, and pursued them to the hotel. It was hut a short distance. hoed Harborough said, when at the door of the hotel, he supposed he might hollow at his own d , or. The watchman raid, "Do if you dare." fits Lordship did sing out once. A watchman of the name of Murphy came up at the tim and told the prosecutor who Lord Harborough was, and that his Lordship lived at Stephens's. The door was opened, and Lord Harborough rushed in. The watchman seized him, and said lie would take him to the watchhouse, notwithstanding the re ntonstrances of witness, and of the watchman Murphy. The wit. ness endeavoured to extricate lord Harborough from the grasp of the watchman. The watchman then seized witness, who asked what he had done. The noise attracted Capt. Bailie, who came down stairs, and some watchmen had also come, in conse. quence of the rattle which had been sprung by the prosecutor. The clothes were torn of Lord Harborough, and his Lordship received several blows. Witness heard the master of the hotel say to the watchmen, that the gentlemen would be forthcoming in the morn ing, but the watchman said he would take Lord Harborough out dead or alive. There were three or four of the watchmen attack. ing lord Illarbarough, who, he believed, was knocked down. [Here a yam in the crowd said, in an audible voice, " That is wrong." We believe it was the same person who had before be. Vowed his anxiety for his Lordship. The LORD Cuts F JUSTICE ordered him to be taken out of Court,] On the cross-examination of Mr. Grey by Mr. Hoe:mato, he ' said that he was the intimate acquaintance and associate of herd Harborough; and often he had spent some time on board his Lordship's yeah. On the 19th June he dined in company with his Lordship at kichmond ; they drank but one bottle of wine be tween them. The reason they drank so little was that it was very bad. Ile did not hear his Lordship tell the watchman who he was. The watchman did not attempt to seize his Lordship until they got to the door of the hotel. His Lordship did not halloo but twice altogether. He saw the watchmen strike his Lordship with ' their sticks. His Leedships' legs and arms were black and blue next morning. Thomas Murphy, the watchman alluded to, said that his beat was next to the hotel. He saw the watchman seize Lord Harbo rough, upon which he told him who his Lordship was, and that he resided at that hotel. Ile heard his Lordship say he would halloo at his own door. This witness fully corroborated the statement of Mr. Bray. On his cross.examinat ion, by Mr. EvAlis, he said that he had been foto. years a watchman, and removed but once ; that was not for taking money, but tne not reporting a public, house that was said to be open at unseasonable hours. Ile was discharged al together, but that he said was for doing what many a good man J had done—that was getting drunk. The waiter of the hotel and the housekeeper proved that the watchmen were ti Id who Lord Harborough was. '1 he waiter mid the reason why he el d not go at once with the police officer, who I called upon next morning, was that he had received no summons If/ that effect. _ The keeper of the hotel said that when he got to the scene of the scuffle he told the watchmen that he would give them the names of all the gentlemen in the morning. Mr. I)ENMAN briefly replied. He said that amidst all the conflicting testimony which had been received, the principal point was whether the watchmen were apprised of the name and address of Lord Harborough, for he admitted that if the name and address of his Lordship had been given, it was unnecessary for the watch• men to take his Lordship to the watchhouse; but he considered that the testimony of the watchmen had cd.tblished that point suf ficiently to obtain a verdict for the prosecution. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, in charging the Jury, said that the Common Berg. ant had put the case upon its true grounds, in stating that the only point for the Jury was whether the watchman was apprised of the name and address of the Noble defendant. 11 is Lordship then briefly recapitulated the evidence, and left the Jury to decide on it. _ . ----- -- The Jury, without leaving the box, returned a ver.lict of Nut Guilty. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WzmrEmmy, JUNE 21. (Before the Lo RD CHIRP JUSTICE and a Special Jury.] WARLEY V. SOISESON. Mr. KELLY opened the pleadings. This was an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendant for a libel, which had ap.. peared in April, 1826, in the Mrdieo.Chirorgicul 114:acre. The defendant had pleaded the general issue. Mr. COMMON-SERGEANT stated the Mt to the Jury. They had heard, from the opening of his Learned Friend, the nature of the action. It was brought in consequence of the publication of an alleged l i bel in a work, of which the defendant is :he editor. This libel was of such a nature, that the plaintiff felt it to be due to his honour and general character to appeal to them—first, that he might be cleared from the imputation which it cast upon him ; and, sec sadly, that he might receive cornpensation for the injury he had sustained. The plaintiff on this occasion felt that honest indignation which every man must feel who cared for his integrity and good fame. He had brought the present action in such a manner as would afford the defendant an opportunity of proving the truth of his allegations, if he could do so ; it the plain. till had abstained from this course, he must have retired from the world, subject to all the shame and reproach the conduct imputed to him merited. The plaintiff is the editor and principal proprie. tor of the Lancet, a publication doubtless well known to them ; and in that character he had been subjected to all the calm invective and personal attacks which the detandant had thought proper to heap upon him. The defendant had been for many yews the edi. tor and proprietor of the Medico.Chirargieal Quarterly Review, which had a wide and extensive circulation, being read II the me dical protession in all part* td F.urope and America. 'llse injury which had ace.ued to the plaintiff was therefore moat extensive and serious. flaying stated a few of the facts of the case, he should en. deavour to account for the conduct of the defendant. In 1823, the Lassa originated with the plaintiff: It had since obtained consi derable celebrity and circulation, and was, therefore, a formidable rival of the defendant's publication. It appeared, then, that the defendant had determined he would put down the plaintiff's work; and he sought to effect this, not by fair argument and the means which free discussion offerei: him, but by a heap of personal and Ca- I lumnious attacks on the plaintiff's private character. In 1820, his client married a lady of respectable family, and took a house in Argyle-street. He subsequently insured his property in the Hope Insurance t Mice, and some time after t h is increased the amount of his insurance. In the course of a few months, his wife being ab sent in the country, the premises were burnt, the plaintiff anti his servants escaping from the fire. The plaintiff, in consequence of this misfortune, became, fax a time, almost au outcast from society. Ile went, however, to the insurance-office, and claimed the coni. pensation to which he was entitled for the loss he had sustained. The insurance company thought proper to question the manner in which the fire had occurred, imagining that it originated with him; and the consequence was, that an investigation took place in a court of Jaw, at the suit of the present plaintiff. The verdict, de livered by a special jury, was fully satisfactory, both to himself and family; every thing calculated to cast even the shade of a suspicion that he had any participation in the burning of his premises, with a view to defraud the insurance company, being totally destroyed. This question was, therefore, most completely set at rest, and the fact was never after mentioned, except in the way of commiseration, until the plaintiff happened to set up the Laurel. Then it was that the dying embers were raised up and rekindled; and, as it were, the very phtenix of slander arose out of them. The alleged libel was contained in the ightli volume of a new series of the defendant's publication, pub. lished in the month of April last. The first part of the libel arose out of a meeting which took place at the Freemasons Tavern, at which several members of the medical profession met, to consider the beat means of remedying the abuses existing in the Royal College :of Surgeons. At this meeting it was proposed, either to draw up a remonstrance to be presented to the Council of the College, or to petition Parliament i and it was the doubt the plaintif entertained of the propriety of' the former measure, which collo I forth the remarks of the defendant, comprehending as gross a emote of libellous effusions as could be conceived. In a note to some observations on the meeting, relating particularly to the plaintiff; the defendmt said, " We are well aware how many vials of arils will be !soured out by the voracious and immaculate heb domadal junto, in consequence of this little exposi ; wrathful ravings, which we regard as the rock regards the foaming wave. Next to the approbation of honourable mlnds, we prize the male- e bra • THE BRITISH PRESS. dictions of those who have no I.onour to bestow—whose censure is applause. " horum Nunquam ego optarim pauperrimus esse malorum." The sec , nd part of the libel was an answer to a letter. purporting, to have been received from a p e rson aigning himself " Atropos.', It wax headed. " To those whom it may concern," and proceeded as follows The letter of Atropos came to hand, full of friendly offers and insidious counsel. . _ f imeo l)ansos et dons ferentes!' We suspect that it comes from the enemy's camp. At all events we want no assistance of the kind profferrel ; it is not with such weapons as Atropos would furnish, that we have hitherto main tained our ground, and we do not mean to change our mode of de fence. We regard it, indeed, as a piece of peculiar good fortune to escape the praise, and daily receive the vituperation of the out. casts of medical society—of men who have been accused of arson. convicted of libel, cast lit a court of equity as literary robbers, and thriven from the practice of a ptofeasion they hare disgraced"—This was not true, for the plaintiff was still practising as a surgeon—" of men, who first attracted notice by obscenity, and can only maintain it by slander—of men, whose instincts prompt them to prey on garbage. anti, as literary scavengers. to fling their dirt at every pas senger—of men. whose courage consists in openly rifling the Intel lectual property of others, and abusing those whom they have robbed —4 men, whose main talent consists in the art of lege, main pilfering; and of pandering team meanest passions--of men. whose liberality of sentiment is freedom from evert acsuple of conscience, or principle of rectitude—of men, who have never evinced, because they do not possess, one particle of professional knowledge beyond what they picked up in the lecture room ; finally, of men whose organized system ttf defamation will mark an era, and fix a stain on the history of medicine, in the country which had the misfortune to give them birth ! Such are the men whose unremitting ire we have called forth, and whose ire, we trust in Heaven, will never remit, till malignity work (and work it will) the malignera fall." Having read to them the second, he would proceed to read the third part of the libel. This was headed— " Mr. Bell's Lectures at the College," anti proceeded—" Bell's first lecture at the College (the only one delivered before this sheet went to ores+) attracted great attention from a crowded audi enee. The princip .1 subject was counter-fissure or fracture, and many ingen'ous arguments and illustrative arises were brought for ward, to thew the principle on which the counterfissure takes place; the draw rigs were, of course, most beautiful, especially that of the sabre-wounded soldi:r. 31r. Bell concluded with some observa tions on phrenology, but lie had not time for a clear development of his ideas on that intricate subject. The Theatre was crowded to excess, but all went off quietly during and subsequent to the lecture. We on 'erstoad that previously to the admission of visitors the appearance of a SALAIeANDEtt in the gallery, among the students, excited c m•iderable ferment there ; and that at one time there was every reason to believe the fallen angel's ambition would be gratified by an aerial flight over the heads of members, council, and all ! The threatened expulsion of Lucifer from the presence of the gods, on high Olympus, spread terror and dismay among the inhabitants of the lower regions; but happily they were spared a visit from 'Hu ire-brand, or rather fire-factor, as he is now generally denominated. who willingly, for once, made his exit through the postern gate. There was a note to the term" Lucifer," which said, " The common derivation of this word is wrong. It is not from lax and ,fero, but from /orris and fireitt, vide Secret Me moirs of the Bonze ofArgtoU.' also. A new !Mode of lighting the streets without lamps, and extinguishing debts by means of fire engines.' " The Learned Gentleman then continued—These were the scandalous insinuations which induced the plaintiff to come be fore them to obtain damages as compensation. As regarded the charge of arson, the verdict of the jury was most satisfactory, en tirely exculpating him from the slightest suspicion that he had any hand in it. It was not the fair way of carrying on literary warfare, to rake up slander, as had been done in this instanee. But it would be proved (said the Learned Gentleman). by the record of the trial, which took place five years ago, that the plaintiff obtained a verdict, and be was subsequently paid his demand by the Insurance Company. Was there then to be no limitation to such slander? After a man had been honourably acquitted, was he to be still maligned and calumniated? He saw that his Learned Friends, who were most formidable opponents, were arrayed against him ; but what defence they could possibly set up he was not able to imagine. The defendant could rot and d-red not justify such slander, and he hoped the Jury would, by their verdict, put a stop to it. They were that day to draw the line between private slander and free discussion. The plaintiff sought protection at their hands, in order that Ilia character and fair fame might not be at the mercy and the capricious cruelty of those whose object seemed to be an individual's desttuction. The subject of damages was pe culiarly the Jury's province; but, he would observe, they must feel that a man so charged was deserving some measure of com pensation, and he did not doubt but they would teach libellers not to exceed the bounds of fair discussion arid publish slander to gra tify the worst passions. He should now leave it in their hands, hoping they would give such damages, by way of compensation, as would meet the justice of the ease. . . Itlr. Samuel Millswas then called and examined by Mr. KELLY —lle waa a printer, and printed the work called the Lancet fur the plaint tr, who is the editur and proprietor. He received all coin munie.ttiona. 0042-Examined by Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN—IIe had been the primer al out twelve months. Ile seldom read the works. Ile em ployel Hinters to see that chat was printed was the same as the copy received. Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN—Have you nut frequently read matter in the Lancrt reflecting on the character of Dr. Johnson ? Mr. COMMON SERGEANT objected to this question, as being too general. If there were libels they ought to be put in. otherwise the witness was placed in the situation of Judge and Jury. After considerable argument, and several references to cases in which it had been held that evidence ought to be given to shew that persons brinuing actions for damages fur a libel had been in the habit of libelling the other side, and that this would operate in reduction of damages, The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE decided that the question was too general, and could not be put. Mr. Mills's examination was then resumed. Mr. Sergeant VAUGIIAN—DO you not know, from what you have seen, that the plaintiff' has represented the defendant as a lunatic, a drunkard, a dotard, an imbecile, a sensual debauchee, a liar of the first magnitude ? Mr. COMMON SERGEANT objected to this question also, unless the book containing these charges were put in. Daniel Nitcher was then examined by Mr. KELLY. He was servant to the plaintiff in 1820, when he lived in Argyll-street; witness lived there when the house was on fire • there was a great deal of furniture ; he did not know where the plaintiff kept his papers. Everything in the house was burned, except himself and his wife. (A laugh.) The plaintiff had no other house. Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN—The plaintiff was not burnt t witness went to bed about half-past eleven o'clock. and left Mr.Waklcy in the back parlour applying leeches to his temple. Witness did not see him again till the next morning, and then saw him at a Mr. Parker's. He fastened the duors before he went to bed ; the fire took place between twelve and one o'clock ; the flames came through the partition from the font parlour. When witness saw Mr. Wakley he had a bruise on his forehead, and some cuts on his hands; he had also wounds in his side, as if stabbed by some nne, and his waistcoat was cut through w here it was buttoned. IVitnes could not say whether the cuts in the waistcoat were oppo‘ite the wounds. Mr. Wakley went out of town to recover his health ; lie had not been long married ; the family consisted of his wif and hinmeif and sister ; and sometimes his father and mother were there. Re-examined by Mr. Ker.mr—Witness thought the house was set on tire by some villains his master let into the house after he bad gone to bed. Thomas Parry examined—ls clerk to the Hope Assurance Com pany; the plaimitrwas in s ured at the office for ',DM., and was subsequently paid that sum. 003 s-examined by Mr. Sergeant WILDE—The ground of de fence, when the payment was resisted, was that Mr. Walley had set tire to the house : he believed it was proved that there were red marks on the linen which were not blood. -. Henry Gates produced the record in the trial against the Hope Insurance Company. Mr. Saunders Paid he was a bookbinder; he stitched the volume of the Medico-Chirurgiral Review which was handed up to him ; he received MO from the printer; Dr. Johnson was the editor ; he called on witness to ask if No. 8 was ready ; he did not recollect whether he had had any conversation with the Doctor about this action. The defendant told him an action was to be brought by the editor of the Lancet, and all he said was" Indeed, Sir !" Witness could not say he was surprised. Messrs. Burgess and Hill are the publishers. Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant WILDE—Dr. Johnson said he had been abused in the Laurel ; he did not say he had been called a notorious liar, but lie alluded to general abuse. Mr. Samuel If ighley, bookseller, proved that he had accounted to Dr. Johnson for the sale of the work. The defendant told him, after the action was brought, not to sell any more copies. He had none left, and believed they were all delivered out to the trade. A Gentleman examined by Mr. KELLY—Had attended Mr. Bell's Lectures, and believed that Mr. Wakley was the person re. ferred to in the libel. Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN—He was present at the Freemasons' Tavern meeting. The object of Mr. Wakley was to get the Charter of the College of Surgeons abrogated. lie thought the paragraph referred to the plaintiff', though he was not named. Ile thought the reference to argon was an allusion to the trial he had heard of. NVitness was present in the Court of Equity when Mr. Abernethy moved for an injunction, and he though, literary robber" referred to that. He believed the passage " whose main talent consists in the art of legerdemain pilfering,' , meant that the notes were taken In short hand. Mr. Lawrence (examined by Mr. Wakley) said, he presided at the meeting at th e F reemasons ' Tavern. He had read the whole article, and had no doubt the person to whom it was meant to apply was Mr. Wakley. Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Wome—He had never said to the plaintiff that he was a great fool for bringing the present action, and that he had much better have taken back Ina own sauce; he never male use of such an expression to any one. One of the numbers of the Lancet was then put in, to prove that the plaintif was t' , e editor at the time the alleged libel was written. This closed theplaintirs ease. Mr. Sergeant VAUGIIAN addressed the Jury on the part of the defendant. Ile said if he had only to contend with the evidence, he should not feel much anxiety about the issue; but he felt that he had to meet the eloquence of his Learned Friend, which was calculated to exert its influence even up to this late period of the cause. He understood his Learned Friend apperred in this Court on this occasion, because he was the Counsel for the plaintiff in the action brought against the Hope Insurance Company, and he (Mr. I Sergeant Vaughan) had no doubt his Learned Friend then con - I fined on the plaintiff a service, which must have contracted a debt of gratitude on his part such uhe would long remember. He did not mean to call any witnesses on the part of the defendant ; neither did he intend reading any of the passages complained of, with a view to their further elucidation. The record was drawn up with consummate art, and the most perfect know ledge of the special pleading profusion. There were three counts, the first of which trered the whole Vine an one continunu. libel, which it would be imagined were all wriuen at the same time, though they had no connexion with or reference to each other. Let the Jury look to the relative situation of the parties for this was materiel. The defendant had been for 28 yearn the Editor of a highly useful publication, while the plaintiff was the Editor of a periodical, of which only one number had been put in as evidence, his Learned Friend appearing reluctant to put in a publication, all the numbers of which probably contained some libellous matter or other. But what W3Il the one they had put in ? It professed to give an accurate report of an action brought against the present plaintiff by Mr. Tyne'. and wan said to contain—what ? Why, remarks" on the one-sided charge of the Lord Chef Justice, who tried the cause." ((treat laughter, in which his Lordship heartily joined.) Here, then, was a proof of the honesty, fair dealing, and abstinence from attack of the plaintiff—re pedellercarni, he might say. He did not want to see tire foot of llercules ; hut the plaintiff appeared to be putting, on this occasion, his best toot forward. (A laugh.) This old ragged Laard they had put in was a fair sped. men of the remainder, e.r sun acre ornnrs. It was a proof of the spirit which prevailed, and of the manner in which the publication was conducted. _ _ . . . . . The Loan Ciattf JUSTICE said the plaintiff had quite wiped away the effect of his observation, by complimenting him by bring ing his action in this Court. Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN said he knew what would be the effect of suck observations on his Lordship's mind ; but was it not a strange coincidence? Did it not show what must be the mind, tem per. and disposition of the man who was driven to bring such a publication forward ? The title of the work bespoke its character. It was called the " Lancet," to show that its object was dissec tion, or phlebototry. It propos"d drawing weekly copious streams of blood from the characters of those it chose to attack. It an nounced that it would imply the knife, the lancet, or the cautery, to destroy those who were obnoxious to its conductor. The plaintiff said, this was a rival publication to the defendant's. The latter was conducted by a society of physicians and surgeons, and super intended by Dr. Johnson : it was a quarterly review, a scientific and literary vublieation. Was the plaintiff's work one of this de scription P 1 o make the libel intelligible the plaintiff' had been obliged to call witnesses to glee it a certain construction ; this brought them to the question whether the inducement had been proved. If it was proved, how had they proved it? They had called witnesses to prove the charges contatnec in the alleged libel, and had thus saved the defendant the trouble of pleading or proving a justification. Let it be remembered, the libel did not impute to the plaintiff the crime of arson ; it merely said that sucn an accusa tion had been made. But the first count in the declaration said the fire was casual ; and one of the witnesses swore that he believed the house to have been set on fire by some villain or other. One of the witnesses swore that the defendant had been abused in several numbers of the Lanc e !, and that of use might have imitated the defendant, but the Jury would make allowances for a man who sustained the first attack. It was complained that the plaintiff was called a salamander; but from the evidences it really appeared as if lie had some claim to that title. Who, not being a salamander, could have lived in smoke and fire from 12 o'clock till fi? Yet this was the inference from the initendo, the language of which was " thereby meaning the plaintiff as having been in the house during the time of the burning." (A laugh ) Nobody knew when he was taken out of the ruins, or how he escaped ; nobody saw him till-six o'clock in the morning, and then he was wounded. Per haps there was another salamander in the fire and smoke, and they fought, and thus the latter got his desperate wounds. (A laugh.) Be this as it might, it appeared he went to his country house in the morning as if nothing had happened, and that he really wasla salamander, therefore, there could be no doubt. (Laughter.) The J ury would recollect, that, according to the evidence, the de fendant had at least not been the first assailant, and surely a man who received a slap in the face might find some excuse for return ing it. In oral slander he who called the first bad name could not recover, and he (Mr. Sergeant Vaughan) had no doubt the Jury would collie to a conclusion founded on the same principle. They were " mote sinned against than sinning," and he trusted the Jury would not give more than nominal damages. The LORI) Cuter JUSTICE summed up. The question for the Jury's consideration was—first, was this a het ? aeeondly, were the inuendos proved? and thirdly, to what damages was the piaintiff entitled? That the passages pointed out were libellous there could be little doubt. As regarded the inuendoes they had the evidence of Mr. Lawrence, who was a gentleman of great in telligence, great knowledge, and great ingenuity ; and he did not hesitate saying, from his knowledge of the circumstance, that lie conceived the plaintiff' was the person alluded to. The question of damages he should leave entirely to the Jury. The Jury, after a few minutes' consideration, found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, Mt WAKI.EY V. HAYDEN'. Mr. COMMON SERGEANT said this was an action brought by the same plaintiff against the defendant, as the minter of the Medico-Chirurgical Review, it being feared that the author of the libel would not come forward. As, however, Dr. Johnson had himself appeared, his client would consent to take a verdict with mere nominal damages, provided an indemnity were given him for the costs. 31r. Sergeant VAUGHAN said he willingly acceded to this propo sition, with an understanding that his client would be at liberty to mote the Court on any point of law. The Jury then delivered a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, one shilling. MARLEY V. MILLARD. Mr. COMMON SERGEANT said this was an action brought by the same plaintitras in the two former causes, against the defen dant, a poor woman, for the publication of a libel. The defendant was the widow of a man who had been engaged in one of the hos pitals ; and since his death she had published an exposee, grounded on information derived from her late husband, respecting the hospi tal proceedings. The plaintiff, commiserating her situation, had rendered her some assistance, and the cause of the present action was her discontent, resulting from this assistance being dis continued. The LORD CII F.F Jr ST ICE —After what you have stated, Mr. Common Sergeant, it appears to me that this might be differently settled. Mr. COMMON SERGEANT-3ly Lord, my client would accede to a proposition, not even going as far as that made in the last cause. We will be contented with an apology. Mr. H t cy—l am for the defendant, my Lord, and I have already expressed my opinion in very decided terms, but without success. Mr. COMMON SERGEANT—We will be contented with a pro mise not to repeat the offence. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—WeII, Mr. Hill, surely you can promise that. Where is the defendant ? Is she in Court ? Mr. will undertake to promise that, my Lord, on my own responsibility. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—You have acted with your usual discretion, Mr. Jiy the 'consent of both parties a Juror was then withdrawn. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21. [Before the CHIEF BARON and a Common Jury.j PRICE V. THWAITES. - . Mr. STARKEY opened the pleadings, and Mr. LUDLOW stated the case. This was an action to recover compensitioa In damages, for a libel or. the plaintiff, published in the Morning ?fernld on the 11th of March last, headed '6 Police Reports—Bow.strect," to the fol. lowing effect : Getirge Price, Esq., Banister of the Temple, was charged with having, at 12 o'clock last night, indecently behaved himself towards two ladies, in Maiden-lane. The watchman stated that the defen. dant was at that hour in the area of a private house, doing some thing inconsistent with common decency, and that two ladies had gone to the next door at the time ; but he exonerated the defendant from all recollection of the circumstance, by declaring that he was intoxicated at the time. Mr. Price submitted that they could not be females of extreme delicacy, being out at so late an hour without a male protector. Mr. Minshull said that it did not follow, as they might be at the Theatre, or at a friend's house ; and even if they were the commonest girls in the street, they should not be insulted with impunity, by such disgusting conduct as was alleged against the prisoner, who ought to remember that there were gas-lights now in the streets, and that mere incautiousness might prove an offence to ladies. Mr. Price admitted the truth of the charge, hut said that he did not do it with an intention to insult them, and begged to be excused, as he was intoxicated at the time ; whereupon the Magistrate discharged him, advising hitn to be cautious how he should conduct himself for the future, Fix. The defendant pleaded the general issue. LunLow said that the plaintiff' thought proper to bring an action, rather than prefer an indictment, in order to give the de fendant an opportunity of proving the truth of this defamatory libel, of which the only gr oun d s were , t h at M r . Price happened, on the night in question, to be rather exhilarated by a glass of wine; and on his way home hr met a watchman in Maiden-lane, who thought proper to take him to a watclihouse,and prefer • charge against him which he was unable to establish. This was the only foundation for the false and malicious paragraph in question. He doubted not but that much public good .would be derived from a fair and judicious report of proceedings in a police office, but if maliciously distorted, like the statement in question, it would prove a curse instead of a blessing. He hoped the Jury would give such damages in this instance, as would operate to render newspaper editors more cautious for the future in publishing state ments involving the characters of individuals. An officer from the Stamp-office proved Mr. Thwaites to be a registered proprietor of the Morning Herald. Mr. JARVIS addressed the Jury fur the defendant, and said that the alleged libel was no more than a fair statement of proceedinp before a Magistrate, and therefore perfectly justifiable. He admit. ted that an ex-pane publication of a criminal charge would be gal ; but this was no more than a misdemeanour, and the legality of publishing* correct statement of proceedings of that nature was never before questioned. The defendant regretted having pub lished the statement, and was very willing to make an apology, which he submitted ought to satisfy the plaintiff: If he should succeed in proving, as he was given to understand he could, that it was a true statement of what occurred at a police office, the Jury should give a verdict for the defendant. James Ackland being sworn, was objected to by Mr. STARR IE as an incompetent witness, on the ground that he was the reporter At Chellowes Park, in the county of Surrey, Margaret, wife of James Donovan, h:sq. aged 82 years. On the 13th inst. at Mount Shannon, In Ireland, whilst on detachment of his Regiment. Lieutenant John Forster Mills, of his Majesty's 21t1. fifth son of the Rev. 11. F. Mills, Chancellor of York Minster. Yesterday, at Windsor Castle, John Wright, many years porter to his Majesty. HIGH WATER THIS DAY AT LONDON BRIDGE. Morning Printed at THE BRITISH PRESS Office, by J. W. CARLTON, Ne. WT. strand, and publirbed by R. CANNON, sante p/14•4. o the libel; and if it should appear that he bad given a false sc . count, whereby the defendant should be rendered liable to damages, Mr. Thwaites might sue Ackland for the amount, and the bau, mony given on this occasion mid be made use of against hin t; I s waa theretnre interested in making it appear true. After a few words from Mr. JARVIS, The LORD CHIEF BARON said that if this was an indictmeo. it would he optional with the witness to answer questions calculatgd to criminate himself or not; but lie doubted much it in the pr e ,, t case he would be liable to the defendant, since It appeared tha t wan under no engagement to him, and that he was paid only such reports as were published; whereas, if he had been on s establishment, there would be an implied con tract t h at lie wool(' supply faithful reports. If not. Mr. Thwaites would give bun a release that could be no objection to his testimony. Mr. lattnr.ow said that the plaintiff waived the objection, a h e was anxious for a thorough investigation. James Ackland was then examined, and deposed that he leas i n Bow-street Police-office on the 10th of October last. W hen :qr. 11Iinshull came in, he asked Mr. Price, who was sitti ng nn a cha., what was his business there. Mr. Price replied that he was th ere on a charge of indecent exposure. The Magistr a t e d es i red the cage to proceed ; whereupon the watchhouse-keeper prod,red a b oo k, out of which the clerk read the charge, as witness b e li eved. The watchhouse-keeper was then called, who p ro d uced the book containing the charge. joorehntb laltichhendioidnd, not a c re le a r d k in charge llow- ine Bow-street, in the W.A . Bet, was next c a ll e d , and took down the evidence of the watchman, which was, that he had found the prisoner at twelve, on the night in question, in an area, doing something indelicate. Two female, went to the next Mame at the same time. Ile did not think the prisoner intended to insult them. Whereupon Mr. alinshull called for the Vagrant Act, and finding that an intention to insult was necessary to bring a per m within the Act, the prisoner was discharged. The examination of James Ackland was then resumed—He left off reporting shortly after the publication of the paragraph in question. Ile was at present proprietor of the blow-firers Gazette, and also tutor to the Infant Atithmetician. lie did not hear at Bow-street that the plaintiff' was a Barrister; he knew it previously, Ile was not paid by the defendant for that paragraph. Another person had also supplied it to the Morntar Herold, who was paid fo r it through mistake. Ile sent it to the Tim. r, and on seeing a pa ra . graph in that Journal contradicting it, he sent a re-statement of tire facts to the Editor, who refused to insert it without a letter front Mr. Minahull. This he applied for, but was refused. The witness having deposed to the statement, in the report is correct, Mr. ittnt.ow replied at considerable length. The Lorin CHIEF BARON, in addressing the Jury, sa'd that his being an action for damages, it was competent for tie &fen. dsnt to plead a justification ; but as he thought proper to abandon t is privilege, he could not be allowed to produce evidence to prove t e truth of the publication. When a publication affected to be • report of what passed in a Court of Justice, it ought to be true d impartial in all its parts, and unexaggerated, othawise it might be made an engine of the most atrocious oppression. It was for the Jury to say whether or not this was exaggerated to the prejudice of the plaintiff. The charge molded in the Magistrates' book was different from that in the report ; besides, there was no evidenced it having been mentioned before the Magistrate that the plaintiff was a barrister. The insertion of this in the report served to point him out to the public. Ile felt no hesitation in saying that it was a gross libel. ilr. l'rice was a respectable man, had a wife sad family,and if the Jury thought that he was entitled to their verdict, it was for them to say what damages he ought to get for such sr outrage on his character. The Jury retired for a few minutes, and brought in a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages loot. ELECTION INTELLIGF.NCE. MEMBERS RETURNED. Kent—Sir E. Knatchball, W. Hone wood. Nottingham-4. Birch, L or d Roodffe. Glamorganshire--Sir C. Cole. Cardiganshire—Colonel Powell. Cormarthensiiire--flon. G. R. Trevor. Derbyshire—Lord G. Cavendish. F. Mundy, Esq. Denbighshire--Sir W. W. Wynn. Cheshire—W. Egerton, D. Davenport. Suffolk—Sir T. Gooch, Sir W. Rowley. STATE 0, rF POLLS. SOMEIIIT. MALDOX. Dickin,un Lethbridge Hunt - 419 - 397 - 64 WELLS. Winn Lennard Dick - 1729 J 320 NORTllAurrog. ... ......... Tudway - - 128 Edwards . - 123 Taylor - . - 119 ‘Vilhams - - 115 TAUNTON. Robinson 134 !limberly 1137 Gunning 1003 Two former elie•ed. LEICESTER. - -.- • Seymour _ ._- - - 200 11, a , ltey . 187 - R E. Creswell . 162 Baring - - - 72 Mddmay _ - 22 E. Creswell . . 8 __ _ READING. lia‘tings Cave Evans Denman - 164 - 16:3 1614 114 Belgrave Grosvenor 31onck _ 580 Spence 492 - - Palmer - 488 Wakefield - - 366 The two former elected. LICIIFIELD.—Seventh Day. Amon - 413 - Vernon - 351 Creaky . - 350 Eighth and last Day. Anson . - 474 Vernon . . 411 firesley . 335 The two former elected. Egerton Townshend WEYMC TI!. Thos. F. Buxton, E•q. 1:38 Right Hon. T. Wallace 105 Colonel Gordon - 11r2 Illacerton Ure, Esq. 97 Jata:le6 Wm. Ferrer, Esq. 116 PRESTON. S , ar.ley - 1168 Wood . - 662 Barrie - - 6.58 Cobbett - - 628 7e3 720 717 646 CULSTEE. Iib:REFORM East nor Clive Jilakemore BEDFORDRIIIIIE. Yesterday, 3 o'clock. Macqueen - . 1273 Taatstock . 393 Pym - 737 BERWICK.. Beresford Gladstt ne Blake BUSSES. Burrell Curteis Webster - 303 - 467 465 HUNTINGDONSHIRE. Mandeville . - 968 Fella Aes . 911 Russell £658 Two former elected. SW INDLING. CAUTION TO THE PUBLIC. A fellow Is ntiWlioingaboutlondOtTaUirsen:iro-s, swindling the public, by stating to the " lady of the house" that he was, some time since, on most intimate terms with her husband, and that he is now most dreadfully distressed, his wife having been just confined, &c. ; which plausible tale generally works upon the kind and benevohnt feelings of the Indy, and the swindler, nine times in ten, gets rewarded with a present. A fellow of this description called yesterday morning at the house of a gentleman, residing at la, Baker-street, Wilmington-square, and by the above tale of woe, heightened by a relation of various other miseries which he stated he was at present experiencing, prevailed on Mn. in the absence of her husband, to make him a handsome present. He sated that he was nephew to a highly-respectable tradesman, residing on Holborn-bridge, which, upon inquiry, was found to be correct, as far as regarded dr " rephewahip ;" but with respect to his character, it turned out lo be worthless in the extreme, and only deserving to be reprobated by every individual possessing a single spark of COIIIIIOII honesty. He is a young man, about 30 years of age, dres•ed in a Hack coat and b'ue trowsers. and altoge. thee hiss the appearance of being what is tennel s shabby genteeL" We trust that this public sticement will be the means of guarding the public against being further imposed on, and at the same time of causing this swindling knave to be apprehenthd and brought to justice. LIVERPOOL CORN EXCHANGE, JUNE 20.—We bare had a thin attendance at our market this day ; sales of Irish and middle qualities of Foreign Wheat have been made at a decline of 2d. a 3d. For Oats and Oatmeal a better de:nand has shown haat: and an advance has been obtained on prime samples. Flour is more saleable, at about Is. Barley more inquired ter, and sales have been made at 3d. to 4d. advance. No alteration in Pear. Other descriptions are steady. The dry weather continues, but se have had an increased supply of Grain in impors. Miss Foote is, we understand, about to take leave of England. Before her departure, she is engaged to perform at the Newcastle Theatre, during the race week, In some favourite and some new characters. Mr. Bullock's Exhibition, and that of the Copmorama, were yesterday visited by the first division of the hop of the Mi litary Asylum, consisting of about 409, in grand array—eolours flying, and drums beating. They expressed themselves highly de lighted with their treat. A second division will visit these Exhibi- tions to-morrow. NEW IMITATION GOI.D.—The public are respectfully informed that T. Cockraite, the original inventor, has removed from Ludgate-hill to No. 10, Royal Arcade, Pall-malt opposite the back entrance to the Opera Rouse; where he has of the new& fashions a choke assortment, at the following moderate prices . Ladies neck-chains, front 12s. to 235. each ; ditto, bracelets, front 15s. to 425. ; ditto waist-buckles, front ss. to 12a. ; Gentlemen's watch-chains, 10s. to 30s. ; ditto seals, ss. to 154. : ditto keys, 44. to 7s. ; eye-glasses. 4s. to 9s. ; guard-chains. 275. to 40s. ; and strong silver ditto, 425. each ; warranted of the best London work manship, and first style of chasing. The Imitation Gold b-ing of a uniform colour throughout its whole substance, is peculiarly applicable to articles subject to wear and friction, as, in case of ac cident, its original colour will appear immediately on applying the ordinary modes of cleaning gold or silver. Platina watch-guard chains from 6/. to 91. 9s. T I , .4 • V