The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-04-06 00:00:00

APRIL 6, 188 . . 4 ,, z , "Pkrupt was a most interested witness, and on him the whole of 1 he plaint iirs case depended. '_.llisft LW; osu IP. summed up at great l eng th an d w i t h muc h raie, and the ju r y, after retiring for an h o u r , f oun d on t h e 2 n d 10 1 th and' Ilth pleas tbr the plaintiff, and on all the rest for the tlfendaut.. ROGERSON AND ANOTHER V. ROSCOE—ESCAPE. Air. Alexander and Mr. Crompton appeared fur the plaintiff, and Mr Cresswell for the defendant. ti The declaration stated, that one Charles Gardner was indebt ed to the Plaintiffs .and that the.y,sued out a w r i t i n court, an d direct e d i t to the defendant, who is Sergeant at Mace, and that he arrested Gardners and afterwards let him escape. The de fendant pleaded first nut guilty, and, second, that he did not ar rest him. The plaintiffs in this case, Messrs. Rogerson and Minton, are linen drapers at Liverpool, and the defendant is Sergeant at Mace fur the Borough. The office of sergeant at mace is simi lar to that of sheriff's officer. haviug the same duties, responsibi lities, and liabirities. In the month of August last, a person namerl.Gardner chartered a ship for New York, and ordered a quantity of goods to the amount of .02 17s. from the plaintiff, to lie: paid for OD delivery. The goods were delivered but not paid for, and the plaintiffs beCause anxious for payment, and some inquiries were :made resarecting Gardner which induced them to take uut a warrant to arrest him for payment. Mr. Minton Went with the pincers to Gardner's lodgings, and there request ed to see the goods. Gardner showed them a small portion ; said he could not pay, and offered to return what goods were there, about third of worth. The plaintiffs said that would not do, and ordered,the o ffi cers to their duty, and he was arrest ed. Gardner r emained in thc; custody of the officers, and pre sently two friends of his came to see hiM and speak of a settle "'Bent. Gardner wished to speak with a friend at the door, and was allowed to do so, and riot returning soon, the of cers . got up to see after him. and then found that he was gone and he had never Since be en h ear d Of: The plaintiffs ,having t husl lost their goods, and the security of Clardner's"person.. had no alternative but tit come upon' the sergeant at mace, who had •e - uffered the escape. Witnesses were called to prove the sale of the goods, and the amount of the debt. When the defendants - were called on to produce the warrant,. they. not do this, but produced another; the warrant was not produced, the defendants saying they could trot find it, and the plaintiffs were in consequence non-suited. PAYNE V. NIGHTINGALE AND ANOTHER. This • was an, action brought by Mr:Payne, who is a boat builder at Stratford-on-Avon ; and the delendants,•John Nlght ingale and John Banks are assignees of a bankrupt named klughes, who hired several of the defendant's boats. The bank rupt had his own.name put on his boats, and at the time of his bankruptcy, the boats were sold by his assignees foi- the benefit 0f his credit ors; and this action was brought to recover the boats or th e i r value. A number of witnesses were called to prove, that it was customary for wharfingers and carriers to rent boats and paint their own name's on theni, and that they Would by no means have credit giVen Mein on account.of such apparent properly, as it was a well understood custom. For the. defence it was contended, that where a person allowed his Prourrty to be so used by 'another as if it was his own, on such Person becoming bankrupt the assignees had a right to sell such Pf'ipertY as if it were in. reality his own, because the law Ore- Sniued that by - appareufly•being possessed of such property he otmoined creit.. • • • 'the Jury found a verdict. for the plaintiff. (gefiwe'Sii• John Pattesvn.) Ills Lordship took fiis.seat,itt nine o'clock. ALLEGED LIWEL-SALMON V. PATTISSON . . This was an action brought by the plaintiff. William Salmon, 4 o.Etnigration.Agent iti-this town; against Mr. R. Pattisson, to rocover compensation in damages for an- alleged libel, in the Publication ofa certain paragraph in the Li vEapool. STANDgILD, of which the defendant is proprietor, Mr. Mt annir HA RDEN appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr..WAT . SOR for the defendant. Mr MuttPli'y opened the pleadings. The plainit's declara tioh charged the defendant with' composing and publishing the following libel in the LivsneooL STAN DA tti) of the sth of De veuther last . "CHEATING EMlGRANTS.—Yesterday, an application was Inade by Mr. Jones the assistant. emigration agent stationed here by government to prevent the frauds which are continually Practised upon emigrants, for a summons, against William Salmo n of the American packet-office. Mr. Jones stated that representation had been mains to hint y to yung men front Ireland named James Kennedy and John Ale o Toolmin, that they came to Liverpool on Friday morning with the intention of emigrating to America. They were advised by a person Named Fay, to 'go with.him to the American packet office, which they did, and made an agreement with the Agent or Broker, whose name is William Salmon, for a steerage passage to New Orleans, by the ship " Boeser---Sheerrnan," for which they paid ',tint at the ti me £8 an d th e y w ere t o be pht on hoard, with their niStZage. free of expense of water or land carriage. On Saturday morning they went and called on Mr. Salmon according to agreement, when they were told to give up their ticket and re "tiled another in its place. They were then told.that they must P 3 3' 7s. for the cartage of their luggage, which being contrary to their agreement on the first ticket, they remonstrated againt it, (luring which the boat sailed away, and Mr. Salmon refused to send them nit board ; and shortly after, the vessel went to sea. rh eY paid to a waterman to he put on board, but could not lift near the vessel, and had to teturn to Liverpool with them. Mr. Hall granted a summons against Mr. Salmon, and the case to to be heard to-day at (o'clock." • . .To thi s the defeudauthad offered three pleas :—First, that he I not publish the libel. Secondly, that it was a true statement °J.what took place before the Magistrate, awl that the facts and 'ld e n in instances in the libel eutioned, were true, and that the P ll , 'iPtiff did c h ea t th e p art i e s named. And third, that the plain- I. ,, ' 4 Aid - Uto s i n th e eight polinds under false pretences, and there - e !h(l6fenclant had a iit s 4rt to publish. To the first plea, the n l 7 al° tilt - Yoined issoe. the second, he demurred in law , that l as no justificetion for 'the defendant to -publish an exports inquiry before a stet rlept of what took place itt a preliminary [rate. To the third plea, the plaintiff repo e ,denying e'rendant'i statement of. having olitairted the money under ilse Pretences, upon which issue was joined. s„' issue "e is iii law hail, on the preceding evening, been decidheforeed the Judges, in l'evotir of the defendant, on the ground i' l , 4 t the latter Ma only said it. was a true statement , but also "'flowed it up by Stating that the plaintiff did cheat, and under t°ok to prove by his •plea the cheating, whiclathe,plaintiff ought to have denied. Mr. Atte Y proceeded to address the jury—The plaintiff in this case, lie 'said, was Mr. NV ili iain-Salmon, an Eimgraut Agent and Passenger Broker, in Bath -street, carrying on an extensive business in arranging for the conveyance of passengers to foreign countries. Ile was also a dealer in provisions, mid an agent for Messrs. Robinson, who.lere also Passenger Brokers. The defendant, Mr. Pattisson, was the proprietor and editor of the LivenPoot. Sr aNDS no newspaper, published in thistowu. It was his duty in this situation to see that what passed into his paper did not contain - any reflection on - Mr. Salmon, calculated to do him the deep injury that this would, if not vindicated. At one period it was supposed that the law, in extending the liberty of the press, wapiti put the mildest construction on the publica tion of statements of what had actually taken place. The course of modern decision had been to put the plainest and most ob vious meaning on the words. Premising thus far, he would pro ceed t o ana l yze th i s libel, end would state the ci rcu mst a n ces r kelyto affeet'the character of bii , client. It was quite evident that' the libel had been published upon an exparte statement and net after a full' and . searching investigation. He was quite as great an advocate for the full liberty of the press in all matters r.elating to subjects: of public discussion as any man. But he (.1.1(1 complain that an .expaite statement like this should-be pub. usher',. Ile complained that Mr. .Pattisson had taken upon uirnself, in th e p re li m i n e ry stage of - such a proceeding, to pre judge the matter by prefixing such a head as that of " Cheating Kinigrants" as though it. were done to express, even b e f ore th e Public had an opportunity of reading what was set down, that it was the conv i ct i on of M r. P att i sson that the plaintiff had been s t eating. The jury,-as Englishmen, were advocates for fair play. They would not say that the prejudging of a case in the man wer they had heard possessed'any point of that character of fair play. The law, though there was some doubt as to how far the report of a decree in a police court might be a justificati o n bad, yet deemed that any superadded comment on the part of the writer or editor was libellous. Mr. Pattisson had not added any comment, lint he had taken upon himself to pro- Uounc e his opinion definitively that the action was cheating. He did not come into court to ask them for vindictive damages, but Only to ask for such reasonable compensation as would 't"nd forth his client to the world at large with his character fully vindicated. The application in question was made by a Mr. Jones. The learned . gentleman here stated the nature aplication, which appears both in the paragraph, 'aged to p be libellous, and in the course of the evidence. Here was a case copied into a newspaper, on the statements of other People—yet was this head prefixed at once denominating the acti on cheating. The case was brought before Mr. Hall, the B ripendiary magistrate. There was the complaint of one party -against another, but a third party interposed, and did that unon 'Which 4he law looked with eminent displeasure. The libel - stated that the passengers were to be put on hoard " free of elpense." They would see that the charge rested principally upon this. He would however prove that Mr. Salmon was in re ality the p ar t y sought to be over•reached by the two people, instead of his having tried to overreach them. The learned gentleman bore 'recounted the presumed facts, which he ex pected to lie established by the evidence of his witnesses, oh a m ercing, th a t any pelSoam - 410 would try to overreach M r. Sal , would also be plausible enough to try to fix blame upon at 'ro iut tHhee7",..0...°11,4 prove , that Mr. Salmon was - never consulted two b y car the tw o men were charged, he would bring unmet by carry"'n: 'would prove that they fairly earned this Chat the Partiels-7-I..uggage and gqing for straw for the men. through not -clerk offerne(Clt pyin e g re th kept back from going with the vessel rgs and that Mr. Sherlock's' lhe m en s i lo , t° Pay 2s. fid.out of his own pocket, rather than . well as thet.ilc)i Miss their passage, he having' previously, as Pallnen, many times pressed the men to go on Ward' the boat whia - waS The- libel was most. invidis ouslv g„rd'e,tworded; therefore, it was that he had said the law re tie libels,shoui( according the plain meaning of the words: . show by evidence that Mr. Salmon was not at tha pier when the men were detained. It was sought in show that the ticket was changed, and Mr. Salmon, with the view of cheating the emigrants, changed fhe ticket. He would show he only did his duty in this; that emigrant agents were 'the'employed by ch ar t erers of vessels to procure passengers; that I.h agent first g ave a t i cket, and t h at a f terwards, on han di ng ttre money over to the charterers, the latter gave a ticket, which 'was handed tip the 'passengers, when the first ticket was, of c:n4rse, t o k en b ack. ' lbis was .the course of business. Would t hey look at the terms of that libel? It said that his client sub tgttuted one ticket for another for the purpose of cheating the !n nn man. W as it too much, if be s h owe d t h at a c h ange o f Itsket was the actual course of business, to ask them to send lortli his c li en t v i n di cate d to the world ? H e wou ld suppose any kthe gentlemen of the jury taking up this newspaper. He li new very well that persons who had business avocations did ° . l read attentively from tb e commencemen t o f a paper. They . y. skimmed over the surface to catch what was interesting. 4,',fr . ese would at o nce b e caug ht b y suc h a titl e as that— hf..4eting Emigrants!" Th e y wou ld l oo k ov e r it a nd that Salmon had baf.n doing this, add there was, he believed, i n ` one person in fifty who would not, on reading such a thing . !hat cursory manner, imagine th matter had been adju bele!ted upon. How often might the s e t/erecters of individuals A n lif4Matised if it were not for an investigation of this nature ? t ot ; ,was it not proper therefore that Mr. Pattisson should be ai_ • e u upon to answer for that stigma which he ha cast upon l'hey might, if they had pleased, have gone e 9list him in another way. They might have proceeded by a e47.inal prosecution. Mr. - Pattisson had pleaded a justification fi ca t !lry now appeared against him, and challenged that justi th," rt. 'Flie defendant had had the hardihood - to place upon r e,eord that the Plaintiff had received id from each of the men, lhtwhich he bad entered into an engagement which he' never ended to ftilfil. If he proved that-the boat was ready to take urea ass . ay, and tnat they were urged to go away, no one I t _ a ay that hi s client did not intend to fulfil his engagement. Hs plain as t h at t h e sun shone, that if the men had not ore.(l_ obstinately, they might at that moment have been at New t o hit 4 4 B - If the plaiatig lut,oolerl- to prove otherwise, he ought e anie l '"ooshl. these men. But they were in Ireland. If they th e and moved thsi Salmon had caused their detention, tr the - • if i t , We ' July sti. , ,,Thtiz e M r . S a lmon by their verdict. Pei ere 011, l erWise, ss.ald have to depend upon merely li t ,„ 1 „, evidence, -1.1,,,:,, were other matters which would he &At kfoie them. Court of Requests beet:, and the „ . eVidence of Mr. • Hall, the stipendiary magistrate, a gentleman whom he (toe learned counsel) highly respected. A more upright, or intelligent gentleman, never sat upon a bench. Did they think, that if Mr. flail bad thought the ease such as had been represented, that he Would not have put it fur indict ment at the sessions: But no such thing. Mr. Hall did nut decide upon it, but endeavoured to reconcile the matter by suggesting that Mr. Salmon shtmld return the money. In the Court of Requests ' to which the matter was afterwards taken, the parties obtained a decree against Mr. Salmon for £B. But, if Mr. Salmon had caused the detention by the charge for porterage, which the men refused to'pay, did they not think that the decree would have been given for the 7s. also? One word with regard to the words ” free of all expenses." Mr. Salmon agresd to pay the cartage, if it did not exceed a certain amount. Mr. Salmon never could have meantto pa' all the expenses that might be incurred by these individuals. This they would see when they *considered the smallness of the sum paid. The only question remaining was that of damages. He did not want any severe damages, but, as he had before stated, his'client wished his cha racter to be fully vindicated against the charge of obtaining money under false pretences. He would be content that they should tell Mr. Pat tisson by their verdict that he was not to make his newspaper a vehicle for slander. There were persons who showed their greatness of mind by laughing at the imputations cast against them in newspapers. Mr: Salmon, however, was a man in humble circumstances. II is character was all be bad to depend on; all that he had estimable; all that he held dear were to be nurtured by that character. Again he said he asked not .for vindicative damages, but for such damages as should show to thd world that Mr. Salmon had been ill used. The issues for the jury to try 'were whether the defendant (lid pub lish the libel, or whether the plaintiff had obtained ES under false pretences. . . The.learned counsel for the plaintiff proceeded to call his witnesses. William Horner stated that he was clerk with James and William Robinson, late Robinson Brothers. They kept the American . Packet Officce. He remembered on the sth of De cember last going to the shop of Mr. Pattisson and purchasing a copy of the Standard newspaper. (Paper produced.) He marked it. (The paper was handed into the coart.) Cross-examined . b,y Mr. WaTsort.—Mr. Salmon was clerk to Mr. Robinson. Was not a crimp, nor did he know what a crimp was. - Witness did not ply at the Irish steam vesseli to look out for emigrants. People came to the office or their own accord. Mr. Salmon had no people to run after passengers, but Messrs. Robinson had : they usually came to the office and said - that they wanted a passage. He did not know of any cheating that took place. Mr. WATsoN.—Have you ever had any complaint .again s t you? Witness: no; had not heard of any complaints of Mr. Salmon cheating. Had heard people had asked for money back from him. Knew Mr. Low, a lieutenant in the navy, by sight. He did not know of any sharp look out that was kept by Lieut. Lowe or Mr. Jones alter him. He did not know what Lieut. Love's business was.. He believed he was government placed here by tohear any complaints that might be lodged. He did nut see the two men alluded to, but he was on the Pier Head and saw the Roger Sherman sail. The bag gage of the two men was, at first, on board the steam-packet, and it was carried to the Pier Head. Ile bought the news paper on the fifth of December. He did not carry any letter from Mr. Salmon to the newspaper to be inserted. He - did not take au v letter from Mr. Salmon to the Stfindend.office with a request that it might be published. He had heard from Mr. Salmon that be had,published,a letter in his justification. He had never heard Mr. Salmon say that he - had written anything attacking Lieut. Lowe. He saw a person named Higgins at the Pier Head. Higgins was in the store that morning John Grierson stated that he was.a clerk with W. and J. Robinson. Mr. Salmon had been in their company. His business was to engage passengers for any vessel that Messrs. Robinson might have. (A paper was here handed up. to the witness.)• That was an authority from Mr. Robinson to Mr. Salmon to book 'passengers •by the Roger Sherman. Mr. Sal mon had an office iu Bath-street. It was common among emi gration agents to give tickets out of the ticket-book, and after wards, wheu the money was paid to the charterers of the vessel, to get a ticket from theme which was given to the passenger, and the fist ticket taken back. Cross-examined by Mr. WATSON. . . The witness here, iii reply to some questions of the learned counsel, repeated the course of business. Could not say that he had ever heard any complaint against Mr. Salmon. He had heard people complain. George Sherlock stated that he was a passenger broker and emigrant agent. In November last, he chartered a vessel for New Orleans, called the Roger Sherman. He entered into an arrangement with Messrs. Robinson,. brokers, .for booking passengers by this vessel. He was acquainted with Mr. Salmon, the plaintiff. Mr. Salmon was employed by Messrs. Robinson Brothers to book passengers. He recollected, on the ist of December last, Mr. Salmon ailing at his office and paying seven pounds. He gave him five shillings back. Mr. Salmon paid that for the passage of two men by the Roger Sherman. He gave him a ticket out of his book, which had included in it the names of both men, Kennedy and M'Farlane. That ticket would entitle them to a passage by . the Roger Sherman, and was also a receipt for the cash. - He would, however, have ac cepted Salmon's ticket. The snore regular course was, for the charterer to give a ticket. His own boat was there for the pur pose of carrying any men on board that day. Ile sent a clerk named Duffey to superintend the embarkation on the afternoon of the Ist of December. The vessel did not sailas was expected. She did not ia,il until Saturday. If the men had then gone on board there was a birth for them. Cross-examined by Mr. WATSON.—The Roger Sherman was about 510 tons register. There were about twenty passengers on board, but there was accommodation for thirty. Had been an emigration agent eight or ten dears. Mr. Salmon was a clerk for several years, and an agent two or three. When Mr. Salmon paid him the £7 he returned him 55., because he coin- , plained.that he was not making much money and times were hard, and he gave it to him as a gratuity. He should think about ten thousand emigrants sailed annually from this port. He could not judge accurately. He did not tnean to all parts. His business was confined to the States, and to the States he alluded. He knew Lieut. Lowe and Mr. Jones. They were appointed here to see, emigrants righted. They had not'been troublesome to him. Less so than to any man in Liverpool, They had not troubled him at all. He conducted his business in such a manner,as to be independent of them. Thomas Fay, stated that he kept a lodging and boarding house. Heremeinbered that he took two men to the plaintiff's office in Bath-streettheir names were Kennedy and McFar-. lane. Theienanaes were put down in a book. By Mr. WATSON.—There was a ticket written out and they got it. " jig ,, As it appeared that this ticket had been destroyed, it became necessary to prove that such was the case. Thos. Bruton called.—Witness stated that he was a porter. On Saturday' morning the 2d December, Mr. SherloCk gave him a ticket. Ile gave that ticket to the passengers, Kennedy and McFarlane, and got back from them the ticket which had been first given to them. He took it back to Mr. Salmon, who tore it to pieceS, and threw it down in Dennison-street. There was no writing on the back of that ticket which he brought back (a ticket produced and handed up to witness). That was like the ticket, but it was riot it: Cross-examined by Mr. WazsoN. Ile was a lodging-house keeper as well as a porter, but did not take emigrants exclu sively as lodgers. He was not in the employ of Mr. Salmon. He was a porter, hut Mr. Salmon never employed him. He knew how to read and write a'little. The names of Kennedy and McFarlane were on the ticket. They were on the pier Head of the Princess. Dock when he went.—The boat was at the out-side steps, as soon as he got the other ticket he went to Salmon's office, in Dennison -street, which was a public thoroughfare. .He gave this ticket to Mr. Salmon in the street. Upon his oath he saw Mr. Salmon destroy the ticket, and thtow it down in the street. He could not say how many pieces Mr. Salmon tore it into, but he was certain that he did tear it, and throw it upon the pavement, it might have been trodden upon by the passengers, hut he could not say it was. H e (witness) went away and Mr. Salmon stayed behind. He was not there when the - boat went. He was not there at the inves tigation before Mr. Hall, nor at the court of requests. He wa s otherwise engaged. He did not read the tickets which he go from the men. He could not say that IL contained the words t "Free from cartage-and all other expences." By Mr. MURPHY.—PIies for hire for any one. Thomas Fay recalled.—He took the two men into the office as before stated, and a negotiation took place. He saw a ticket written by Mr. Salmon's clerk, Walter Mac Intyre, but he (lid not read it, Mr. Salmon said that he would get the luggage carried for them as the cartage would not be more than nine pence or a - shilling. Mt. Salmon also said that he'had a boat in his employ, and he would send them from the Pier-head. Their luggage had to be brought from the Clarence Dock. They were to get it themselves, for he (Mr. Salmon) would have nothing to do with porterage. The men said they were going to America to earn money by their labour, *and they Would be their oven porters. He had three shillings and six pence, that was, the Men had paid £8 for their passage, and he received seven shillings for his coMpanion and himself - of which , his share was three shillings and sixpence. Cross-examined by Mr. WATSON.—He was paid the three shillings and sixpence for bringing the passengers to Mr. Sal. mon.. They gave him the seven s hilli ngs f or catc hi ng t h e men. ,Ele kept a lodging-house, and went catching men besides. He caught men for W,and J. Robinson and others. Was not before Mr. Hall nor at the Court of Requests. • Mr. WATSON proceeded to crosS-examine the witness at some length, respecting his having been at a certain public-house in Waterloo-road recently, in company with the plaintiff, but nothing material Was elicited. Walter APlntyre stated that he was formerly in the employ of Messrs. Robinson, but he was not so at present. He recol lected two persons named Kennedy and M . Farlane coming to him about a passage by the ,Roger Sherman, New Orleans. They were brought by the last witness' Fay. They were to pay £4 each. They said their baggage was in the steam-boat at the Clarence Dock, and they had arrived that morning from Ireland. After the passage were taken, Mr. Salmon said ; that probably the 'vesSel • would sail that evening, and they might have to go on board at three o'clock, but as he was not the charterer of the ship he would go down to Mr. Sherlock and get the ticket, and see what time theboat was to leave. Mr. Sal men had a bad leg, and he requested him (witness) to take them to Sherlock, pay the money, and get the tickets. There was nothing more said, but that Mr. Salmon said, " He would pay for a cart to carry the luggage from the Clarence Dock to the Pier Head, which would not be more than ninepence or a shilling—more than that he would • not pay." He told them that they would not surely be above their own business. That they might be their own masters, They said, certainly not. They were going to emigrate to look for work, Mr, Sal mon said they were positively to have their luggage ready; as carters are paid for lops of time for waiting, and he w ou ld not be answerable for more than 9d. to Is. Ile (witness) wrote the ticket; ther e was nothing. in the ticket about being " free of all expense." They were to have the luggage there before them on deck. He expected the vessel to sail that afternoon. Their luggage was taken first to Mr. Salmon's store ; it was after wards ascertained that the vessel would not sail till the follow ing morning, and Mr. Salmon allowed the luggage to be lett there, and said he would not charge any thing for it. Cross-examined by Mr. WATSON. —He attended before Mr. Hall, and the Court of Requests. He was etainined. He vas not in Mr. Salmon's employ now. He left because business was dull. He kept a lodging house. He did not ply on the pier -head. The men did not want to go on board that night. The examination before Mr. Hall took place on the Tuesday following. Mr. Jones was there. Mr. Jones, he believed, was appointed to prevent frauds upon emigrants. Mac Farlane, and the other men were there. Mr. Salmon was also there, with Mr. Davenport, his attorney. Mr. Salmon, he dare say, heard every word the young men said. Witness did not write a copy of the original ticket. He did notswear before the magistrates that he had written a copy of that ticket. He wrote a copy which was produced before Mr. Hall. He wrote that copy on the Monday following, from the check 'book. Did not see the original ticket again. He beard it was destroyed. Mr. Salmon told him it was either mislaid (Sr 'destroyed. He said he could not find it. Mr. Hall did not take down the examination in writing. Mr. WATsoN.—Did not Mr. Hall ask you if you had de stroyed the ticket ? Witness.—Can't remember. • Mr. WA:rs , iis: —Did not Mr. Hall' ask y ou if yOn suede a copy of the ticket ? Witne.s.—l think not. Mr. \V smoN.—,Did nut Mr. Hall say these words ? " Then d'OyniCiiiern"t7teirrentiary'oiri:re' bound to take' a copy of each ticket e " Witness.—l can re:011w After sonic further questions respecting Mr. Hall's examina 7 tion, the learned counsel asked, " did not Mr. Salmon tell you that. he had destroyed the ticket ?" Witness.—lie said he had mislaid the ticket. Mr. WATSON —Was a person named Mintyre called ? Wit ness—Not that I know of. Mr. Watson—Was it not urged on behalf of the plaintiff, by Mr. Davenport, that the voids •• free of expense." meant free of cartage but not free of porterage ? Witness—l don't recollect the question at all. He (witness) .was called before the Court of Requests; Mr. Salmon was pre sent. He heard the statements made by witness. There was a claim made for seven shillings. . Re-examined by Mr. MURPHY.—When Mr. Salmon could not find the original ticket, he (witness) made a copy from me mory. (A ticket was handed up to witness.) That was the copy: he prodirced that at the public inquiry in the court. — When Mr. Salmon was summoned he looked for the ticket, but could not find it, and he ordered hith (witness) to make a copy. There were more witnesses than one examined at the Court of Requests. Michael Thornton stated, that he was employed on the Ist of December to remove some luggage from the Clarence Dock to Bath-street. He commenced between ten and eleven o'clock. He was at work until -three o'clock. The reason why he was so long was, that the packet was not in hei. berth. When he gOt to the Clarence Dock.he had to wait till the porters came from dinner. They came at one o'clock; There was then a further delay. They had to open the hatches, and he had-to get the luggage out of the hold. He had another man, named Tom Bruton, assisting 'him •in carrying the luggage to Salmon's office door. They had a hand-cart. One of the passengers asked him to get some straw to make a bed. ' He had to go to three different places for it, and he gOt about 24 stones, which he carried to Mr. Salmon's store. This occupied about an hour. He was desired by the passengers to attend at seven o'clock next morning to take the luggage and the straw to the Pier head. He did so. He had two hand-carts, and they took thent to the Prince's Pier-head -north, where they found a boat wait ing. He then asked the men to pay him, They paid him 75., hut not until two hours anti a half after he had asked. Mr. Duffey was Standing on the Pier-head at the time, and he pressed the men three - different times to go on board the vessel. The boatmen also they came out of the boat, anti ask ed them to go on • board. Mr. Salmon was in the boat. That boat went away. They said they would not go on board, and he (witness) would not let them have their luggage unless they paid him. They got another boat after going up the town. This was an hour and a half after the first boat had gone. When they returned they paid him for tkiin porterage. They went in another boat. Mr. Salmon paid him for the hand-cart a few days after. If they had taken the luggage direct from the Cla rence Dock, is 6d or 2s would have been a reasonable charge. Cross-examined by Mr. WATSON. — Had no regular scale of charges. Was at present employed by Mr. Sherlock to solicit passengers. Was at that time in the employ of Robinson Bro thers.. The cart .belOnged to Mr. Byrne, an emigrant broker, and be borrowed it from Mrs. Byrne. He had been in the ha hit of burrowing it for the last seven years. Salmon paid him is 6d for the use of it, which he divided with the person who had assisted him. The ship was on her way down the river when they were on the pier-head. Themen made an agreement •on the pier-head, when they returned, to pay XI for a boat to go after the vessel, but the boat could not catch her. Was in Robinson Brother's employ at that time, (December,) but could not tell whether he had left them twelve months ago, three . quarters of a year ago, or one month ago—as he had no laming, and had a bad memory. Was never before a magistrate but once. The magistrate sent him to gaol for four months, but not to the mill. By Mr. MURPHY—It was not for going into a riot in the street and rioting—it was merely for looking on (laughter). Mr. - Duffey stated that he 'was a clerk in the employ of Mr. Sherlock. He recollected Mr. Salmon conaing,'to the office to pay money, and, also recollected Mr. M•lntyre coming. The 4 moneyas paid to Mr. Sherlock for passage money. - He re collected being at the Prince's Pier on the following morning for the purpose of taking the two passengers on board the Roger Sherman. He asked them repeatedly to go on board the boat. They were disputing with two men about seven shillings for porterage. He gave directions to the boatmen not to be de tained longer than would allow them time to overtake the ship. He offered to pay two and six pence out of his own pocket, rather than the men should miss their passage. He requested them to go on board more than once, and the boatmen did the same. They said they would-not pay one farthing . , they would rather lOse their passage They would have had plenty of time if they had gone on board the boat then. Cross-examined—Did not hear the men say that they . were to go on board free of expence. They said nothing like it in his hearing. He was a clerk to Mr. Sherlock and cash keeper also. Had never been brought before Mr. Hail on his own account far cheating emigrants. He had been once or twice before Mr. Hall; but not befoie any other magistrate of the - borough. lie hail been at the Court of Requests respecting detention money. By Mr. MURPHY.—Detention money was a shilling a day which they had to pay to passengers it the vessel were detained after a certain time. Jarites Callaghan said that he was in the employ of Mr. Byrne, and was on the Pier-head when the Roger Sharman sailed. There were two men (passengers) there disputing about seven shillings with porters, who would not let them go until the money was paid. Witness told them to pay, or they would lose their passage, and never get their money back again. Cross-examined. —'They were taken away by a person named Higgins, who said he would make mote money by them. James. Curren stated that he knew Kennedy and Mac Intyre, they lodged with him, and to the best of his knowledge they had returned to Ireland., Some conversation ensued as to the statements in the declara tioe, Mr. Watson intimating objections to several of the inuendos. His lordship said . there would' have been a doubt as to u hether it were ~u libel at all, if it bad not been for the words at the be ginning. Mr. WATSON said, lie appeared before them as counsel for Mr..Pattisson, the editor of a very respectable paper. if be had the power he should forbear to inflame their minds by allusion to the liberty of the press after the manner of his learned friend in his opening speech; and if he did so, he should not gain by competition with one of his learning and intelligence. His client, in the conducting of his journal, had been instigated by a wish to make it as respectable as possible. He did not spend much time in Liverpool, hut he had been in the habit of read ing it. and he thought every person who had done so, must be impressed with the certainty, that it was conducted in a gentle manly tone, and with much talent and inteliigence. He asked them to pause before they entertained the idea of visiting his client with damages on that Occasion. The whole matter rested on the part which had the 'words " cheating emigrants." His Lordship had already given it as his opinion, that there was no libel, with the exception of those words. The Jury knew that in the course of the year many thousands of indviduals emi grated to foreign parts through this port. No less 30,000 indi viduals annually came to this port for the purpose of emigration. Some of them came with just money enough to pay their pass age to that land where they expected to get employment for their industry. He might appeal to any gentleman in that box, if there were not numerous frauds committed on those unfortu nate people. There were individuals prowling about in every direction, crimps watching for them to catch them, and by every means in their power to take from them their earnings. It was very easy to arrive at the conclusion that those poor people were not difficult to be imposed upon. The legislature had done all in their power to prevent the evil of crowding too many passen gers in one vessel, by making certain regulations as to th e number of passengers that each vessel should carry in propor tion to her tonnage. They had also some regulations in other respects, which ;hewed that they must have acted upon some frauds ormerly committed. Tire government of the day had found the evil so crying, that th4y . bad stationed Lieut. Lowe and Mr. Jones to protect the emigrants passing through this port from imposition. It was the prevalence of these frauds that had, in point of fact,•given rise.to that which was the sub ject of their inquiries this day. The poor individuals were de frauded, they had to hurry on board the vessel, they crossed the Atlantic, and were never more heard of. It was for this reason that it was, useful for a public journalist to hold out a warning to those who were about to emirate, which might prevent their being imposed upon. He maintained that those who took in this journal would, if they saw a tearless exposure, have confi dence in them, and he thought the columns of a newspaper could not be better occupied, In the year 1837, not less than 3760 complaints of extortion had been made by emigrants and proved. But there were many more who were defrauded just when on the point of sailing—they went away and no inure of complaint was heard. This was a monstrous state of things, and one which was not to be tolerated, and would not his client be unworthy of public confidence as a journalist, if he feared, when it cause under his notice, to call black black. It was said that Mr. Salmon came before them to clear his character, and that he did not want vindictive damages. It was a curious fact, hut he wanted the jury to wash him white—he wanted-repara tion for his character, but after this action, if they were to wash him in all the waters of the Atlantic it would be unavailing. There was upon the record a declaration; placed- there by him self, admitting that the charges of cheating were just. The learned gentleman was proceeding to read the admission on the record, when His LORDSHIP said that the jury had no right to hear this, as they were not to be taken-as admissions having been made for a purp oseWAttN l aw. Mr.proceeded. Th e y h a d ca ll e d c l ever w it nesses for the plaintiff, and see chat the facts were. (The learned gentleman here stated. the course (if evidence fur the plaintiff.) They had seen that the plaintiff had paid Sherlock EG 155., and had charged the paSsengers• la His friend wished them to believe that this ticket was not' arked " free of expense;" that Salmon was not to pay the porterage but to pay the cartage. The Work was done by a man who was employed by Robinson, and who borrowed the cart, so that there ought not to have been any charge for cartage. He did not know the rates of cartage in this town, but the man said the 'cartage was about Is. 6d. Salmon's office was 200 yards from the place. What right then had they to charge seven shillings, when the - charge ought only to have been Is. 6d. There ought, according to the evidence, to have only been a charge fa i r the carriage from the dock to Mr. Salmon's office. But a demand was made for seven shillings just as the men were going on board. Was that not extortion ? If it were not he did not know what was. These poor men, it might very reasonably be supposed, were very anxious to get across the Atlantic, yet from the first to the last they had reso lutely refused to pay the seven shillings which they rightly de manded on exportation. This proved that it wits impressed upon their minds that they were to be put on board free of expense. , They would not pay the 7s. because they knew that it was an express stipulation .that they Were to be put on board free of ex pense. There had been a rambling statement of a person about a Mr. Higgins. That Higgins should be brought before them. Higgins took them away, and when they returned, finding that there were no hopes left, they had the 75., and after that they had to pay one pound for a boat to go aftet the vessel, but after all they could not overtake her. If they had not been right they never could have recovered the £B. They were taken be fore .Mr. Hall, au excellent and learned friend of his, but be, it seemed had no jurisdiction. This was a 'must curious case. One witness said that he saw the ticket torn up. in Denison street. Another said he had made a copy but the original was mislaid. It was stated before the magistrate that the original had been destroyed. Mr. Hall after cautioning him on some subjects, finding that he was a pensioner under government, recommended hint to pay the money or give a free passage to the poor men from whom he had received it. This was whole some advice. If they had not had a Court of Requests in the town, the money would never haVe been paid, and these men would have been deprived of probably all they possessed. He would just state why he laid so much stress upon the evidence of the ticket having been destroyed. On the day or the day but one after the hearing before Mr. Hall, Mr. Salmon called upon Mr. Hall anti showed him a ticket, saying he had found the original. Mr. Hall, Who was a most intelligent g entleman, and too old a bird to be caught with chaff, told - him to beware what he was doing. Was this an honest man, who came before them to talk about his character?---he whir had attempted to practise such a fraud as to make Mr. Hall belieVe that that was an original • document. The doeirment• which M'lntyre had produced was torn, and Mr. Miirphv had it ,, lted rif were in the private room that that - was exhibited, Wishing to put it.tvheti the jury thought.that .was the ticket shown to Mr. Hall by Mr. Salmon. 'They afterwards treat to the Court of Requests. There Mr. Salt - non was asked by - the Commis.. sinner tor the ticket, and Salmonagain replied that he had it THE LIVF,R.PuOI, STANbARTY " EMIGRANT AGENTS not-that it•WOS 'ThiS'isti's a sl range' state of thing's : did ❑ot understaou how this could exalt Mr. Salmon's charac ter. Had Mr: Salmon's character been deeply injured by his client ? It was true that public attention had been Called to his act, but could they doubt that fraud had been committed? But, suppose Mr. Salmon deeply injured—suppose any man felt himsblf so, would ❑ot. his first impulse be to ask the editor to allow his' paper to be 'open to a reputation. Did he do so? If he did, and Mr. Pattisson allowed it to appear, what did they think of him ? Mr. Pattisson, who had no ill will to any man in the course of his public duty— • The JUDGE said this was a subject which he never allowed to pass without remark. An editor of a paper had no public duty. It merely was a matter of private traffic. The learned Counsel having explained that by the words he . merely meant Mr. Pattisson's duty to his subscribers and read ers generally, went on to state that on the 19th of December, Mr. Salmon published, by permission of Mr. Putt isson, a vin dication of his conduct in the LIVERPOOL STANDARD. The learned gentleman here read the following letter from Mr. Salmonatother letter having previously appeared in the Albion:— " TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL• STANDARD. " Slit,—Necessity compels me once more to appear in print, for the . purFose of showing the public that I am not the man that smite persons (for reasons well known to themselves) would wish to make me appear. I allude to a letter of mine which appealed in the Albion of Monday, the 14th inst. wherein I proved, (satisfactorily,' i hope,) that two passengers who en gaged with me for New Orleans, lost their passage through no fault or inadvertency of mine, but merely through their own unwillingness to pay seven shillings porterage, which they, most unjustly, wished to saddle on me. . I have now to inform the public, that the same two passen gers have, since then, summoned me to the Court of Requests, and that the Commissioner has awarded in their favour, the amount of their.passage-money, together with the costs of court, but would not allow them the seven shillings of porterage, thereby exonerating me from the blame which these passengers wished to cast upon me, by,the refusal to pay seven shillings, in consequence of whirls they lost their passage. Now, if the Commissioner had awarded against me only the porterage, it would have then appeared, that the said porterage was a just debt against me, and that I was bound to pay it ; and, there fore, that they (the said passengers) had lost their passage through my unwillingness to perform my contract. Whereas, the Commissioner of the Court of Requests has seen that. I had no right to pay the porterage, and, consequently, that the two passengers should have paid it themselves. By a reference to my letter, in the Albion, it will be seen, that. these two persons had their luggage detained at the Pier-head for refusal to pay this porterage, add that they were desirous of making use pay it, though they have failed to do so. They have, however, com pelled use to pay back their passage money, by the deCision of the court. But when the reader bears in mind that this porter age lost theni their passage, and that the court conceives I should not pay it i •-it I.3llnws that they lost their_paSsage through no fault of mine, , aud consequently, that I ski - add not be a suf ferer by their delinquency. Yet the fact is, that-on Saturday last, two bailiffs called at my house in DeniSon-itreet, with an execution, (before balf-past three o'clock) to seize my furniture. The Commissioner, by exonerating me from the porterage, vir- . tually exonerates me from all. The porterage being the point in contentious, if that lost them their passage, I am not to blame ; consequently, I have no right whatever to refund the passage money, though I have done so, by the decision of the court. ‘! I have now to state, that the ticket which I got from Mr. Sherlock, was hand e d by th e passengers to Lieut. Lowe, who now refuses to return it. If Lieut Lowe. can show what right he has to that ticket I shall never complain ; but, as he has no property in it, and, as 1 humbly believe, he has no authority for holding it, 1 &elate; before the world, my sense of the in justice which he has committed towards me. • sent a lei ter to Lieut. Lowe for the afore-mentioned ticket on Saturday - last, and I got, f or a n answer , t h a t h e wou ld not give it up without an order from the magistrate or the clerk of the court. I then wrote to the Commissioner of the Court of Requests, begging that he would grant the same. I got, for answer, that, the money being paid, he could do nothing. There fore, whether it. be before or after I have paid the money, I have no redress, and I cannot get my ticket. Now, I leave the public to judge whether this is just or unjust. "Before concluding, I must mention that Mr. Jones, the as sistant to Lieut. Lowe, appeared in court, and whe n th e com missioner s u g ge s t e d that a passage might be got for those per sons, Mr. Jones said, that he "would not take Salmon's word." I should also mention that he (Mr. Jones) was not on his oath, yet he was allowed to speak; and, if he had been on his oath, he could state nothing but hearsay testimony from those two reckless characters whose conduct I have endeavoured to display in. its true colours. "After what I stated about this case in the Albion, after hav ing shown that they lost their passage through their own fault, after having shown that I am a persecuted man, not only by Lieut. Lowe, but by his coadjutor, Mr. Jones, will the public be surprised that I am forced to apnear in my own defence, and to expose the oppression that has been, most unjustly. exercised towards me.. I trust I have cleared my own character from every . attempt at fraud, (for such was the charge against me,) and I trust also that, I have shown that my conduct, throughout the whole transaction, has been, at least, as honourable and as creditable as that:of Lieut. Lowe. • • "WILLIAM SALMON. " 15, Denison -street, and 2, Bath-street. I . " Having given insertion to the above, we shall, of course, open our columns to any explanation which may be furnished by Lieut. Lowe, or any other of the parties alluded tu.—]E.L.S.' Mr. WATSON, as he read the letter, commented on certain parts of it. He did not know why, after such a letter as that, he had come into court. In the STANDARD of January the 12th Lieut. Low bad published a list of the number of emigrants which had embarked at this port. Upon this Mr. Salmon came for ward on behalf of the great body of emigrant agents. The letter spoke contemptuously of the accounts which had appeared in the public prints, and laughed at Lieut. Lowe and his efforts. It further said, "We have, in our unfortunate business, to deal with the very worst of characters—with the e;wourings of the human race—with robbers, runaways, villains of all sorts and descriptions, for whom the voice of public sympathy is invoked; but there is no commiseration for us, if we lose two or three hundred pounds by a ship. Not at all! This would not suit your business in Union-street. We are to be held up to the world as'swindlers I nothing less than downright "SWINDLERS'" Swindling Whom ? Men that are qualified to swindle us, after having, perhaps, swindled more acute people than we are. But the true statement of the case is, that we are and must be ex posed as common swindlers; and all this must be made manifest, in order that you may appear a most useful man. In truth, 1 pity the man who attempts to rise to eminence by such means." There was also a postscript, which ran as follows: " P.S..—As our business has been libelled by being called " a system of swindling that is a disgrace to our community." I hereby challenge you to produce a single case of direct swind ling, to name the persons who were swindled, where they en gaged their passage, and who were the actors or abettors in the crime. I have only one cause of regret in writing this letter, viz., that it makes you appear to be a man of greater import ance than you are; for any man in Liverpool can show an ag grieved passenger the way to the police-court. Perhaps it may be said, lam only breaking a fly on the wheel.'" This was•the case for the defendant, which would be proved. They had to take into consideration whether this was a libel or not. Whether there had not been a pretence made for the purpose of cheating those two poor men. He thanked them for the attention with which they had heard him. The defendant had been dragged into court. They would say what was right, he had confidence;, and if they should find that Mr. Salmon had acted like an honest man they would give him•their ver dict. If they gave a farthing damages, that farthing was like a grain of mustard seed, which, though the least of all seeds.shot out into large branches, in the shape of costs. • John Jones stated that he had been appointed by govern ment here, and had been in Liverpool five years ; Lieut. Lowe had also been appointed, and their office was to protect emi grants from the extortion and robbery of emigrant brokers. He was under Lieut. Lowe. About 32,000 emigrants embark ed annually from this port. There were a great many corn plaints of emigrant brokers, upwards of 3,600 having been laid before them in the year 1837. He recollected the two men alluded to being brought to them. He went to Mr. Hall's office and laid a complaint. He had been to Mr. Salmon's office previously, and requested him to give them a passage free of future expense, or return the money. The emigrants were with him. Mr. Salmon said he would not. He might take him before a magistrate if he pleased, but that was not his agreement. lie attended when the vase was heard before Mr. Hall. Mr. Davenport, the attorney, attended with Mr. Sal mon. The magistrate called for the first ticket, and Mr Davenport said that it had been destroyed. Mr. Hall decided that Mr. Salmon must return the money or find them a passage free from future expense. Mr. Salmon replied that that was not his agreement, and he could not do it. He took them to the Court of Requests, where the case was heard before Mr. Lowndes, the presiding commissioner. The parties were sworn and the men told t heir story. Salmon, and Mr. Jones, his attorney, were there. He (Mr. Salnion).was asked respect ing the first ticket. He said that he had destroyed it. The ul timate adjudication was that the money should be returned- The commissioner asked respecting the ticket two or three times before Salmon would give an answer. A demand was made for the 7s. but the commissioner took no notice of it. Cross-examined by M capury.—Was appointed to his office by the Secretary or State. But he was no: d€ pendent on the num - ber of complaints made for the duration of his office. Of the 3,600 complaints made, some were decided by Lieut. Lowe and himself, other's by the magistrates, or at the Court of Requests. Those decided in the latter way might be about 200. All the 3.600 were decided in favour of the emigrants- They received Pt hex complaints, but such as were marked frivolous were not included in the number stated. Re-examined.—They made regular returns to government. Had been in the navy thirty years. Was a Master. Thomas James Hall, Esq., stated, that he was a magistrate for the Borough of Liverpool. Recollected two Irishmen pre ferring a complaint before him. He heard the case, and ulti mately stated it to be his impression, that Mr. Salmon should return the - money or find them a passage. He remembered that be had a strong impression, that under all the circum stances he could not take cognizance of the matter. The ap plication was first made by two men named Kennedy, and MacFarlane. He issued a summons for the appearance of the parties on the following day. Mr. Salmon appeared with Mr. Davenport, a solicitor. He had the parties in the witness box, anti heard their statement. Mr. Davenport said that be had the copy of the agreement. He (Mr. Hall) asked where the original was. Mi. Davenport replied, my client says he has destroyed it. lie (Mr. Hal!) observed, that that was exceed ingly strange, that the copy should be kept, and the original destroyed. He asked what had become of the original, and why it had been destroyed ? The reply was, that it had been destroyed to prevent a confusion of tickets. He (Mr. Hall) observed, that it was a most singular proceeding for them to destrovthe original, which was the document usually filed by parties, and to keep a copy. He recollected that on a subsequent day, he believed two or three days afterwards Salmon called upon him. He was in his private room, early in the morning, before he went into court. Mr. Shuttleworth, the magistrate's clerk was present, and he believed that •Mr. Dowling, the commissioner of police, was there also. Salmon produced a document, which was in a very tattered state, and said he wished to snake a Communica tion to him. He (Mr: Hall) said, that behind the backs of the opposing parties he would rather not hear any from him: Sal mon said it effected his charactef materially, upon which he, Mr. Hall, told him he might prOceed. He produced a very tattered paper, which he said was the original ticket which he had found. H e, Mr. Hall, told him he was Much surprised, for said he, " I think one of your witnesses, when before me, the other day, stated tohne that that ticket was burnt." He Mr. Hall believed Mr. Salmon said that it was a mistake on the part of the witness, for he had since found the fragments. He looked at the ticket, and what he thought very singular . , discovered that that pa r t was wan ting upon which, according' to the evi dence of Kennedy, the words, " free of expense" would be written. He had Made au observation which tirade an irripres slim on his mind, because when Mr. Davenpcirt appeared, he argued without denying that the words " free of .eXpense" had been on the document, that they did nut. necessarily, include potterage. Cross-examined hy'Mr. Murphy.—Mr. Davenport never de nied that the words free of expense were on the ticket. (A. ti eket handed to Mr. Hall.) He should think that that was not the ticket - ptOduced in his private mirth. lie thon - gfatefterhe had heard the whole case, that it did notcome sufficiently within the jurisdiction of a magistrate.for him to give ir decision-, and therefore he recommended Mr. Jones to go before the commis sioner fur the Court of Requests. The ticket which was pro duced in his private room, seemed to have a lilt ger chasm in it than that which be held in his hand, an t was in more minute fragments. The copy which Mr. Davenport held up in court was entire. Mr. Hall, as be was about to depart, said he might observe to his lordship that he had nut come voluntarily to give his evi dence, ire was subptened. The papers were put in and admitted as read. This closed the case for the-defence. Mr. URPRY, in reply, said, his friend had, in the ffrst in stance, made an observation that was little complimentary to himself, and which was contradicted by the great ability which he had displayed in the - conducting of this case. He had spa ken of his havrtig, attempted to inflame the minds of the gentle men of the jury by allusions to the liberty of the press. He would ask them if he had alluded to one single inflammatory topic in the course of his address, and whether he did not give to the press and its conductors every praise, only suspending with respect to this paragraph, what must be the individual opinion of his friend himself. Let them look at the course of evidence set up in defence, and they would see that that which was inflammatory came from the other side. They charged Mr. Pattisson with having, by stamping that paragraph with his opinion, made it appear to the public that Mr. Salmon was a cheater of emigrants. lie was borne out by his Lordship in saying, that it was the animus in that paragraph, rather than the matter related, that poiuted the dart and entered 'into the feelings of his client. He was alive to thb many bless- , ings of the press, but he must agree with what had falleir from his lordship respecting the duties of the conductors of the press. His friend had travelled out of the narrow path which they were called upon to examine, and had talked of politics, the impression which the reading public would have of what he termed fearlessly calling things by their right names. But his lordship would tell them, that this fearless candour was no justification of which injured the character of another. It was curious, that they bad adduced in aid the fact of an officer having been established in Liverpool, for the protection of emigrants. He conceived that this was the very reason why Mr. Salmon would be cautious not to do anything of which complaint could be made, he would pause before h- cheated. His friend had also said, that the waves of the Atlantic would not wash the character of his client white. Though he had said his object' was merely vindication of character, and though he was still even in the face of what had been said, instructed to go for that, and not to press for heavy damages, yet, from the . course which had been taken in the case, he thought be was bound to insist upon ample compensation to mark the sense of the injury sought to be inflicted. He thought with respect to the number of cases of complaint that had been tendered as evi dence, the jury might conclude that Lieut. Low anti al r.jones, would admit as many as possible, in order to show their vigilance, and to swell the number of applicants. Mr. Hall's attention too must be distracted by the multiplicity of applicants, and the va riety of cases which continually occupied his attention. It could not therefore, be expected, that he could have more than a general recollection of what had occurred. With respect. to Mr. Da venport's admissiou, therefore, of the words free of expense, as stated to the learned magistrate, it might be that Mr. Daven port merely meant that supposing the words " free of expense" to have been mentioned, they could only apply to the cartage and not to the porterage. His friend had said that Mr. Pat tisson had made compensation by epening, his columns to the plaintiff. He contended that the conduct of his client in this, as in all other respects, had been that of a man of rectitude, who knew that his character had been unjustly aspersed. It appeared that Duffy had offered to pay 2s. lid. for the men, which showed that he wished them to g o in t he boat that awaited them, and it was in evidence that the Commissioner of the Court of Requests would not allow this su m , mr,6 i t enough that the celninns of the paper - were opened to Mr. Sal mon ? If a person were aspersed in a public paper, it would be expected that the editor should do something more than admit a letter—He would' be expected to write a leading article point ing attention to it. If that had been done he should have been ashamed of eomieg before a court of law. The learned SU DO summed up at some length, and con cluded hy stating to' the jury would have to say first whether the publication was a libel, ana, next, whether the plaintiff ever did commit the fraud allegecl In any case serious damages would not be called for. . . The jury consulted for about half ,an hour, without quitting the box, when they returned a verdict for the defendant. The JUDGE questioned them as to the find►ng on the issues, when the foreman replied that they had found that the publi cation was a libel, but that justification had been proVed. THE QUEEN V. MUSPRATT.-INDICTMENT, . . (Before Mr. Justice Coleridge, and a Special Jury.) Mr. Cresswell, Mr. Watson, Mr. WightmarL and Mr. Star.: kie appeared for the plaintiff. and Mr. Alexander, 1)r. Brown, Mr. Brandt, and Mr. Crompton for the defendant. The following gentlemen were sworn on the special jury: Mr. Henry Harrington Harland, Manchester,—Foreman. Mr. Wood Gibson. Salford, Merchant. Mr. John Hoyle, Bury, Merchant. Mr. William 'Edmondson, Ardwick, Merchant. Mr. Jonathan Nixon Rawson, Salford, Merchant. John Clegg, Esq , Oldham. Mr. John Gandy Walton, Ardwick, Merchant. Mr. Samuel Lomax. - Andrew Bannamer, Esq., Tidsbury. Mr. James Burt, Ardwick, Merchant. Mr. John Newsam, Chorlton-upon.Medlock, Merchant. Mr. Oliver Ormerod Walker, Bury, Merchant. The declaration stated that James Muspratt was indicted on the prosecution of the Mayor, Alderman, and Burgesses, for creating and maintaining a nuisance in the Borough of Liver pool, and to this indictment he pleaded not guilty. Mr. CNEsswEi.t., in opening the case, said the inquiry into which the jury were about to enter was one of great interest in the town, and, indeed, he might say of interest in other towns, for it was an inquiry into the extent to which it was lawful for any person in pursuit of his own gain, and in carrying on trade, to interfere with the comforts and the property of others. Mr. Muspratt the defendant, on this record had for some time past carried on a large manufactory in the north part of the town. The population not only of that part but of other parts considerably removed from the site of the works, imagined rightly or wrongly that they had sustained a very serious prejudice in consequence of the works, which were so .carried -on by Mr. Muspratt, and at the instance of the inhabi tants of the district, the corporation of the town had deemed it their duty as in some sort the guardians of the welfare of the town, to institute the proceedings which had called for their attendance that day. The works carried on by Mr. Muspratt, and by several other gentlemen in the same neighbourhood, were for the manufacture of alkali. For this purpose two pro cesses were necessary, first that of manufacturing sulphuric acid and using it with common salt in manufacture what was called salt cake or black ash, that being used instead of Kelp or Span ish Barrilla, imported from foreign countries, and used in the manufacture of soap. He understood that the processes by which this article was manufactured was so conducted as to dir charge into the air from the lower partof the works of sulphurous acid gas, and from the high chimney in which the other pro cess was carried on, a large quantity of muriatic acid gas. No person could pass within sight of this chimney when the works were in operation, without observing not only a column of black smoke, the product of the coal fire below, from the chimney, but also a white vapour which looked like a cloud of steam also issued front the chimney, carried along in clear weather, still remaining a compact body, not much mixed with the air on either side of it. He understood that that vapour which they saw come originally from the chimney in the form of muriatic acid gas, but speedily combining with the water of the atmosphere, assumed the form of a vapour, lost the gaseous form, and was then driven along with the wind, being heavier than the atmosphere, and ultimately descended, and where it did produced tho consequences which he should describe. In the first place with respect to vegetation. He was told that it withered and destroyed vegetation wherever it fell. The leaves curled un and became shrivelled and embrowned by it, and timatelyfell ; and if it continued in that direction a sufficient length of time they would crumble to dust. On metals it hada very peculiar action. Brass was speedily tarnished by it; a red or rather a bright rust was produced by it on all metallic substances. Fenders, fire-irons ; and every polished arti cle was speedily rusted by it, so much so, that in half an hour after any metallic substance was submitted to its action, they would find it was entirely rusted. To the senses it was, particularly disagreeable. There was a pungent acrid taste which was extremely irritating to the lungs, produced cough as soon as it was inhaled, and smarting about the eyes. In short, it irritated wherever it came iu contact with the mu cous membrane. They might imagine this was a source of great annoyance and loss: Mr. Muspratt having erected an exceedingly high chimney, the effect of that we, felt where the same gas, from a lower chimney, would not be perceived. Because, of course, as this gas was heavier than the atmosphere, the place where it fell would depend upon the height from which it was discharged. in damp, hazy weather, when there was more moisture in the atmosphere, it fell more speedily. In such weather they would find, that this vapour had been traced to parts comparatively n?arr Mr. Muspratt's chimney. His ehim - nev was in Vauxhall road, and in such weather as d e had de scribed, they would find the gas perceived in Scotland-road, Beving,ton-bush, St. Anne-street, Cazileau-street, and that dis trict of the town. In clear weather, of course, there was less moisture fur it to combine with, and it was carried further; and then, instead of falling in that district he bad described, it descended as far off as Everton; and he was told that Ever ton, from being the favourite residence of the wealthier inha tants of the town who there had escaped from the smoke and denser atmosphere of Liverpool, had suburban villas near Liverpool, the trees flourished, and it was an exceedingly ageeable residence to those who could escape from Liverpool for a short distance. Unfortunately for their property upon the remission of the duty upon salt which was exceedingly high, this manufacture of alkali had sprung up and from this time it had been speedily increasing to the great encroachment of those engaged in the trade, and much to the annoyance and impoversh ment of all in the - neigourhood of the works. They would find from a large body of evidence from Everson,. Netherfield-lane, and the not th road that the trees had perished under its influence —that the evergreens and shrubs and truit trees; and when they came out , in the spring were destroyedand ail prospect of their coming to perfection was gone at once. The small shrubs with ered away and if any frail formed, it became embrowned and fell off perishihg before. With respect to those lower down in the town they there go to a different class of sufferers. They there had a number of tradesmen in different lines of business— many dealers in stnallwares, thimbles,needles, pins, and articles of that description. He dared say before the day was over they would have articles of various descriptions which had been expo sed to the influence of this, muriatic acid gas he could hardly call it, because it came down in the shape of mnriatie acid. They would find that the butchers' meat, on the outside, became blackened and slimy, and they were obliged to tut it off; in short, there was hardly a tradesman in that part of the town but suffered whenever the wind was such as to affect the vapour to his premises. With respect to the fields in the neighbour hood, they would find that its effect was the same. He had several Cow-keepers to produte before them who had fields in that district. '1 hey would tell them that whenever this vapour fell it corrupted the grass, which became brown ad d withered . The cattle refused it, or if, drivenliy hunger, they did eat, it in jured the health of such beasts; they got out of condition, and they milked very badly ; and they would find that all this seriously affected the value of property in that neighbourhood. He believed there were instances of fields letting formerly for £l2O and £l3O which now scarcely produced £9O. They would find houses of £6O value reduced to £5O and £4O; Others of £3O to £25. In short, lie did not know any descriptoin of pro= perty which was not reduced in value, unless it were concerned in carrying on nuisances of this description. Now, when he had proved to them, by a multitude of witnesses of this deleterious matter .issuing from Mr. Muspratt's, certainly they would say, is hat possible answer could be given to this indictment. Why he had do doubt that an atgurnent would be urged, viz. that it was ad extensive concern—that Mr. Muspratt had gone to great expense in building his works, and that therefore it would be exceedingly hard to say that Mr. Muspratt Should not carry on his trade there. They would see at once the impos.i bility of that affecting a verdict of this sort, because if that wet e right, a man had only (however ingenious his %iorlis might be) to expend a large sum in proportion in what no human being could interfere, and then say that lie had invested so much money in these works, it would be cruel to stop them, and "therefore let me make my profit and every thing else ruined -1. it;,,, a-7 by them." That vea's the sort' or result to - retro h such' atr • ' merit must lead. What, because a speculator chose to s a large shin of money- for his own gain, ass it to injure ~,„: 1 7k- fortune and interest of every persun areuird him ? The uex • argument was, that it was a large trade, that the cheapness of ••!/V•gH -- ' the alkali encouraged the manufacture of soap, and that soap was productive of great benefit to the people of Liverpool, be.... cause it produced large returns, and there was so much more capital brought into the instil, and that trade was made to flou rish by it. Neither could that be an answer. To a certain extent the ease and comfort of citizens most be sacrificed: for the more general interest of the state;' but to assert that any individual because he introdueed a new, be it au extensive trade in the town, was therefore to interfere in' destroying the comfort and property of all around him was a system of ethics that certainly could not be tolerated for a moment. Certainly he should think that the science of politi cal economy, if it taught so, that any person for the sake of in creasing the trade of a community, might, for the extent to be shown in this case, injure the property of others, was a most mischievous doctrine, which ought nut to be encouraged. There *as an other topic of which they would hear. If was stated that in !hat district were other rival nuisances. They' wodld hear of limekiln works, and carbonic acid escaping from them. They would hear of horse killers, and tanners, and others, and they would hear of sulphureited hydrogen, and various other dis agreeable odours issuing from various places, but what had they to do with Mr. Muspratt? If all made a minor or a gwater smell, was that 'any reason why Mr. Muspratt should be ellowed' to make a stench that was in itself a nuisance? It never could be. But it would he' said, perhaps—they had some reason to suppose it from placa-rds on the walls, which bad met then:l .: for the last few days—" We know that this is a most kindly' gas, is this muriatic gas; that it is extremely beneficial; that but fur Mr. Muspratt and his fellow alkaliers the town of Liverpool would be poisoned. (Laughter.) In short, that it was the happiest thing that ever was invented, that Mr. Muspratt discovered, and those who assist him; by ma nufacturing alkali he actually saved the lives of thousands ' every year." Why, if he made that out, he would, instead of a verdict of guilty against him, have a statue erected to him on top of the highest of the chimneys of his works. (A laugh.) Atter a few more observations, he called on the jury to prevent thv injury caused by this muriatic acid gas,'byputting a stop to its manufacture in Liverpool. Mr. Edward Tyrelf, snperintendant of police, was then ex amined. He knew Mr. Muspiatt's preMises, at the north end of Vauxhall-road. It had two chimneys, one was, he should say, 200 feet high, and the other about one third lower. He had seen white vapour coining from both of them. frequently. The white vapour affected his health; it produced a smarting pain in the eves, and a difficulty of breathing: He was affected with sickness after inhaling it. He had often seen people running coughing,, and endeavouring to get out of the way of the vapour. He had observed the vapour in the immediate neighbourhood, and also at Everton. Evertor% was a • Mile and a half from the manufactory. He lived at Rose-hill, which was half a mile from the manufactory. The vapour corroded metallic articles in his house. A frame of glass which he brought from London 2 years since, was now turned almost bronze. It tarnished the fender, pro ducing a blue colour on it which, if not wiped off, turned to rust. It made the walls of the house damp, and changed the colour of the paint, making it a sort of mottled colour. It also made the walls, which ought to be stone colour, mottled. He recollected tracing the vapour on Tuesday evening, the 28th of March last, about half past 6 . o'clock, to Mr. Muspratt's chimney. Ile could trace it so as to see where it went, into Vauxhall-road. Mar bone, Great Crosshall-street to Standish-street. Standish-street was about a mile from the works. The vapour was then very bad. It was a hazy night; It caused a prickling of the eves ,and coughing. - Several persons were with him, and traced it with him. Cross-exainined by Mr. ALEXANOER.—IIe went with the intention of tracing, ttw smoke. They lost scent of it some times, it was•rather too high. George Bowes Taylor.— He carried on the business of a draper, in Byrom -street, and had been there ten years. He had seen the white vapour proceeding from Mr.• Mospratt's works. It tarnished the metals in his house, appeared like a sort of damp smoke on the glass, anddamaged his goods, taking the colour out of prints. Cross-examined.—He noticed the white vapour on the evening of. the 28th Nuve►nber last; it affected his eyes and breathing very touch. He traced the vapour to Mr. Muspiatt's with the police, whom he met accidentally. Mr. Edward Lunt examined.—He lived in Burlington-street, and was a bricklayer, and had lived there eight or ten years. He had frequently seen the white vapour issuing from Mr. Niuspratt's chimney. It injured the health of his ch►ldren, and he was obliged to remove them into the country. It caused in them the sensations above descr►bed, tarnishing also all kinds' of metals in his house. It got into his room at night, and be had been obliged to get np and light a fire in his bed-room, its order to consume out the gas. It was a very great annoyance' to him. _ _ Crosi-examined.--It affected his wife in her breathing very much, and also his children, and he was obliged to have medi cal advice in consequence for thew. Joseph Birch exaiuined.—Lived at Beacon's Gutter, in Kirk dale. _ Mr. ALEXANDER . objected to the witness's evidence, because' he lived out of the boundary of the old borough. He contended that the municipal act which enlarged the boundaries of the borough, did so for the purposes of the act, - namely, for political. purposes, and nut for other purposes. His Lotdship overruled the objection. Witness examined.—When the vapoui cause' toWardS his' house, he had been obliged to shut the doors and windows. When the wind was in that direction, it came rolling just like snow across a field. It hada gfeat effect on bhth hini and his' family. After the vapour had passed across a field, it destroyed the grass and the hedges, the shrubs - and the trees, - ttlrniog the leaves uf ayellowish known colour; it turned the glass of a black, sooty brown. Cross-examined.—There were extensive brick-fields between' hint atol the alkaline works. He tented a field for Xlooa-vear, which used to rent for a-year. Henry. Lathatn, of Collingwood-street rtepOSed to similar effects produced on himself and in his house by the vapour. He had been obliged to lower the rent of some of his property in consequence. Cross-examined.--He had traced the vapour to' Mr. Mus pratt's out of curiosity. Mr. Samuel Holine examined.—ls an architect and builder. in the town, and the proprietor of houses at the north end of the town, and was well acquainted with property generally in that part of the town. He knew Mr. Muspratt's works, and bad frequently found inconvenience from the vapour issuing fioni them—coughing and prickling of the eyes. He had frequent occasion to visit some brick kilns adjoining, and was often very glad to get away from them in consequence of the vapour. ke imagined a vapour issued from the lower' part of the works, though he had not actually seen it. He was well acquainted with brick making. The smoke from the brick field did not produce the same effect as the vapour from Mr. Nluspratt's chimney. Since the alkali works had been erected property had greatly de creased in value in that. neighbourhood. Four houses of his had done so. It damaged the garden of some relations of his at Everton. He was the executor of a widow lady, who pos sessed some flour warehouses in Vauxhall-road, which were much depreciated in the rent in consequence of the vapour. When parties came to take houses they beat the landlord down in the rent because of the alkali works. . . Cross-examined.-11e did not know any other particular instances of the rent being depreciated—he spoke generally. He knew of 100 to 126 manufactories of various kinds in a circle round the alkali works. Lime-kilns, brick-kilos, tanneries, soap manufactories, &c. &c. Edward Byrne examined.—ls a slater and plasterer, and lives at Rose-hill. The vapour turned plaster casts' brown; prevented the paint to his house . drvioc, and it had been soft for twelve months; injured the healtft of his children till hews& obliged to send them ink() the country. Hinted the knives when placed on the dinneriable, so that when he sat down the . upper side would be quite dirty and rusty while the under side was bright. Turned his steel watch chain in a night the colour of red rust by morning; made it look more like cast iron than steel. He was obliged to pay £2O a yearyfor a house for his aunt, in the cnuutry, her healt h declined so in consequence of of the vapour. Cross-examined.—He had " promiscuously" met Mr. La tham, and the police, on the 20th of December, and traced the vapour to Mr. Muspratt's chimney. A great number of witnesses were then called to prove that vegetation at Everton had decreased within the last ten years, and gradually getting wors e and worse. For the defence, it waswasendea voured to be proved, - that this was owing to the not to be attributable t o the alkali works solely. A number accumulation of smokes fro m various manufactories, and wag of witnesses were examined to prove the depreciation of the value of property at Everton, in tonsequence of the mu riatic acid gas, which it was endeavoured to be proved by the defence was owing to the accumulated smokes from the various inanufaCtinies. A number of gardeners were exa mined to prove that the vegetation of the gardens' at Ever ton suffered greatly trom the vapour—that the hedges, and the grass, and flowers, and the fruit-trees all gradually curled, garden snit the withered,aves o f died where before they had flourished with luxurian c e—th a t tahfteetrrethese would vapolir next had dayl) ee b t e i todbisseerreed to be d mla and blighted, and would fall off; and the fruit withered and be came blighted. it was endeavoured to be proved for the de fence, that this was owing to the blighting effects of the west wind, and not to the vapour it brought with it. A nurriber of cowkeepers were eXamined, to prove that the' vapour destroyed the grass, and the cows would not eat t,nd if they did it made them sick, and refuse loud; that they would not drink the water over which the vapour had gone; that it was a scum on the water, and that the cows got out of conditimi and gave less milk. Several respectable inhabitants of the neigh.: bourhood of Everton were called to prove the depreciation of the property there in consequence, which for the defence was endeavoured to be attributed to other causes, and to the annoyance and discomfort the nuisance occasioned them ;amongst others Charles Elorsfall, Esq. was examined, and on his cross examination said the palm oil trade had been greatly increased in consequence of the improved manu facture of alkali. Mr. Rogerson, surgeon, was examined as to' the component parts and qualities of the muriatic acid gaSs. The Mode of is being given out was in the manufacture of salt cake by pOuring out a quantity of sulphuric acid upon common salt. Salt was a com pound of muriate of soda, and by pouring the sulphuric acid upon it the muriate was separated front the soda and came from it in the form of a gas, which united and formed a compound of sulphate of soda. This gas driven up the chimney and poured out iii the form of a white vapour from uniting with the vapour of the atmosphere. It was highly deleterious in a condenSed form, killing both plants and animals, but he should think bec.ame itinoxious in the proportion of 1 part of the gas to 1500 of the atmosphere. Though, then, it was not good for the health; as producing a hurtful stimulant to the lungs. When in a condensed state it greatly injured the conjunctiva, a mem braise of the eye, the mucous membrane of the nose, the mouth, the throat, and the lungs, and Sometimes of the boweli. lie was cross examined at great length as to his knowledge of the proportion of the admixture of the gas with the atmosphere, and generally answered that he had not ascertained the knowledge of these facts. The case was here adjourned, at a quarter to seven o'cloCk, till to , doy. We have been, of course. obliged, very greatly to cur tail the immense mass of eiidende, in order to bring it at all within oar Unlit'. The trial appeared to excite notch interest in court. Fst.sE Rnsioun.—lt has been very generally reported through the town, that the unf.rtunate man, Hill, is to be executed on Saturday. We are authorised to state that the ruusnurs'are utterly unfounded, no order whatever having been given on the subject. MECHANICS' INSTITUTION.—We are informed Ma! the direc tors of this valuable institution, with their usual spirit and proper feeling towards every class of the community. have re solved on fitting up their spaciona Hall in the new Building. allotted for the Museum, as a Gallery of Sciettee, for the Obi- , bition of models of new intentions in mechanics, as Well as for specimens in nature, as illerstrations of every bran Ch. of natural philosophy. PoVEltlY AND Carsiit.—Any one May if be please send a round of beef to Newgate, where it will be readily received and promptly devoured; but if the same person were to send a • ling's worth of bread and cheese to a union workhouse it would be refused adinittance, and his benevolence stiguiafised at im proper. • ltioN. - -The item conveyed doWn the Monmouthshire Canal' rind tram roads during the year ending 31st Dec., was f43,2P8! tons, while that conveyed down the GlamOrganshire canal in the same period was 123,2.3-1 tons, being a olfierenre of 19,974 tons in favour of the Manufacture of Monmouthshire. APPROPRIATE NAlily.-11 i au account of some recent kr , tivities at Aberdeen, it is stated. ilta4 " Governor Grub toot 04 twain,.