The Express.
London, England, 1863-12-16 00:00:00

tato intdligence.

COURT OF QUEEN'S M./CH.-Dm 15.

Atte:. Term Saltier at Not Priem at Guildhall.—(Bafarie
Lonl Chief Justice Cockburn and a Special Jury.)
UND'AT. St P.. AND °THERA V. LEATHLET.

use so active oo a marine liolicy of iusursore for a
total lies. The tlefeodent bed raid into court the cum of
ten glossas, bring at the rate of 7 per r.ent. ou the amount
usticreritten by biiu, and denied bis liaL lity loony further
sum. oo the fp maid that it was not a total Ilea. This was a
seuoilil trial. The first trial lasted five days, sod the pre-
/tut trial will io all probability occupy the court as may
if not more.
Tue S,dicitor.Generid, Mr. Dowdeswell, and Mr. Horace
12.0 pi were counsel for she plaintiffs ; Mr. Dovill, Q.C.,
Sir George liournen, sod Mr. Within Williams were
counsel for the defendant.
Fsidenre was called on behalf the plaiatiffa, and
the cue had not concluded when the court Nee.
SECOND COURT.
After Term Sittings at Nisi Prigs at OoildhalL—(Before
Mr. Justice Blackburn and a Special Juty.)
ktOGER2i V. BaI\TINCK, 11. P.
. . .

DAB was an action to recover compeuaation in damages
fcr personal injuries sustained through the alleged negli•
genus of the deferdant's servant. The defendant pleaded
net guilty, and further that the driver of the c..rriage was
met his servant.

31r. 31. Chambers, Q.C.. and Mr. Woollett, were counsel
for the ; 31r. M. Smith, Q.C., ant 31r. Charles
were counsel foe the defendant.

The plaintiff was a cht rainwater, carrying on business at
the East.,:nd, ar.d the defendant was a barrister and M.P.
for Taunton. _ _ _ _ _ _

The jury returned a verdict for the defoodant.
N'ILLIUIS r. LELrr.

This was as action for *lenders
Mr. Powell, and Mr. Keane were Counsel for the
plaintiff ; Mr. I'hilbrick was cousuel for the defendant.
The plaintiff is a chemist currying on business in Museum.
street, Bloomsbury, and formerly resided in Bayswater.
1e defendant is an upholsterer, carrying on business in
Pickering-place, Bayswater. Both parties were members
the Parcae catholic chart ..ea elan of the congregation
of St. Mary of the Angels, Bayswater. Connected aids •eat
congregation was a brotherhood known as St. Vincent de
Paul, established for benevolent purpoess. Plaintiff was
the treasurer of the brotherhood, and continued to hold
that office till February last, when he became bankrupt.
He then made up Lis accounts, produced his vouchers, and
heeded over the Wanes he had. In August plaintiff dis-
co, end that the defendant bad been to Carlton, in York-
shire, where plaiotirs father-in-law resided, where he
made the statement complained of to Mr. John Hessler,
of that place, between whom and the plaintiff a business
connexion existed. The slander complained of was that
"the plaintiff had made away with and appropriated
to his own use some of the money paid into his
bands by the fathers of the Bayswater congre-
gation—that be had never waceuoted for it or refunded it.
That defendant advised Hensler, to have nothing to do with
the plaintiff, for be had ruined two people, and would ruin
him if bedidbusioess with him. He might judge for him-
self. for the fathers of the brotherhood bad to take him to
task for the money he bad received, and he had Dot given any
account of it. Avoid the man, for he must be bad indeed
to do away with money belonging to the church." An apo-
logy had been demanded but refused by the defendant, and
as :ill theplaintiff wanted was to clear his character, be wee
ready then to accept an apology on the defendant undertak-
ing to pay the coats. It was still refused, and the use pro-
ceeded. Mr. Hensler was called, and it appeared that the
slander was part of a conversation between the defendant
and others in Hensler's shop relative to some hams
Hensler was about so send to the plaintiff, end
was said in confidence as • guide to him in his business
trenasctioon with the plaintiff. ii.mething was also said
about the plaintiff's wife having bad 100/. worth of dresses,
and a gold watch end chain, which had not been paid for.
Defendant advised Hessler not to send the goods, for if he
did be would never get paid for them ; that, as he had
become a bankrupt, Ileualer bed better deal with
him for ready money, then no harm could some of it.
The hams in consequence were not sent to the plaintiff.
Hensler's wife wee called in support of the plaintiff's
sod she said that twice during the conversation the
defendant said his communication was confidential, and as a
guide fur them in their dealings with the plaintiff. De-
feudant asked Hensler and his wife if they were cetholica
before he said anything about the plaintiff, and on roceiviog
an answer in the affirmative he made the coommunication.
Both buslaud and wife promised to keep the conversation
secret. The defendant was a stranger to them.
The defendant declined to sign an apology, because he
would not ray the costs that had been then incurred.
The defence was, that substantially the defendant
uttered the words complained of, but that the communi-
cation was made under the pledge of secrecy, and was
privileged, being, is fact, made bone fide to Hessler for his
protection. and not for the purpose of slandering the
plaintiff. He was asked b 7 the Howler's to give them in-
formstion, bat before doing so be ascertained they were
catholic', and that it would be kept sacred. The statement
was made in the presence of the Hensler's, Mr. Plows, since
deed. and a Kiss Oliver, who was not called as a witness.
The defendant was called. He said that what he stated
was at the request of Mr. Plows, who felt great interest in
the Hensler" • and on their promise of secrecy he made the
statement, honestly believing it was true at the time, and
on the faith of what be was told by Mr. Honcho, who also
added, that he and a person named Saunders would have to
go through the Bankruptcy Court in consequence of their
laving been mixed up with the plaintiff is bill transactions.
In cross-examination, defendant said he made no inquiries
about the truth of the statements made by flambe, with
whom he had only a slight acquaintance. He knew nothing
of the plaintiff personally.
His Lordship, in summing up, said that merely warning a
man spinet his intending customer might be privileged, but
anything beyond it the person making the statement would
be bound to prove or pay in damages, without calling on the
.tier side to prove lashes
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages 101.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Dzc. 15.
Sittings st Nisi PIM is London.—(Betore Lord Chief
Julies Erie and a Special Jury.)
Yohisrla T. MARC'S. —LIBEL.

This wu an action to recover damages for a libel, and the
plea was not 'Why.
Mr. Hannan and Mr. Byron appeared for the plaintiff ;
sad Mr,lilerjaant ffhee and Mr. Field for the defendant.

Mr. Manion, in opening the cue, said that the dream
*Mu were somewhat peculiar, and at the same
NM gainful, on account of the intimate relations
ebbe had previously existed between the plaintiff
soli the defendant. The plaintiff was a gentleman who
was known under another name to most of those pre-
sent ; for. though possessed of the highest talents, he had
always elmalc from giving publicity to his proper name,
and heves therefore known may " Alfred CrowquilL"
Hadar this gems be had acre:Med a great reputation for
drawings, which though mainly intended for the young
wen qualified to amuse persons of all ages. He had also
been a friend of 20 years' standing ef the ffeeedant, who
was ins humus, in au extensive way in Liverpool and in
London. and who lived in Eceleston-square ; indeed, the
plaintiff and the defendant bad been upon the most
intimate—he might almost say affectionate—terms. The
defendant had the misfortune to have a scapegrace MOO,
and this eon, being in difficulties, called upon the plaintiff
on the I:th April in this year, and uked for assistance.
The plaintiff at owe proceeded to the housed the defendant,
who was not at home, but the plaintiff saw Mrs. Francis,
and explained the temerity of a sum of mosey being at onee
provided for her son. The result was that the plaintiff him-
self advanced 20f. to him. A day or two afterwards the
plaintiff dined with the defendant, who expressed to him
hir gratitude for barter acted DA it was expected that the
old friend of the family would act ; and he retorted the
plaintiff the 201. The affair' of the sou were discussed, and
on the 21st April the defendant requested the plaintiff to
attend a meeting which was to take plate, and at which
the sou was to be confieuted with a person who was repre•
seated as a detective, rued who was in fact a discharged
policeman. At this meeting the affairs of the son were to
be investigated. The plaintiff went there, but the defen-
dant was not able to attend. The policeman accosted the
plainidf by raying, "Why I know you, don't you remember
when f wok you out rf such and such a spongier house;
Von are well known smear black legs, and moon." The
plaietitt of course detied these imputations very angrily,
bat, net ertheleu, the discharged policeman insisted that
the plaintiff was a notorious had character, and that it
wag moat likely be who had led the defendant's son into
dirmadion, and so caused all the trouble. The plaintiff
wax, of course. very angry at this, though if the matter had
been coaheed loth° idle talk of a discharged policeman he
would have taken little notice of it ; but on the 2:-ith April
the plaintiff found that the defendant had written to a
mutual friend a long detailed statement, in which be lent
the ioumtion of his name to the ridiculous charge of the a:-
policeman.
The horil Chief Justice at this periosi of the case nog-
gmted some amicable arrangement ; and this led to a cow
imitation at the bar, and afterwards the leading counsel on
both sides had au interview with his lordship in his private
room.

Mr. ltetjeant She,. on his retorts, said that he was very
happy to tell the jury that they would not be troubled
further with the case, which bad come to the hest possible
conclusion. They bad heard that the plaintiff and the
defendant had for many years been on the most intimate
term% ; the de:m.lmA had the highest opinion of the plain-
tiff, cod bad consulted him upon domestic matters of the
utmost &lamer and until just before the letter which
was complained of as a libel was written, it had
moaned his mind that the plaintiff was not deserving of
all the respect cod coed:bleats that had been reposed in
him. Oefortunately, however. the defendant's confidence
was disturbed by statements made by persona whom he
trusted, sad which atatements were founded upon photo-
graphs; and the photograph of the plaintiff wu pointed
out by the detective as the photography of •
pertom who hod been seal in places where the
defcntlant learned with deep regret that his son
had bees. Hs mind being disturbed by this state-
ment, the defendant wrote the letter, not to calumniate
the plaintiff, bat with the holiest purpose of giving
the plaintiff the oortnaity of trimitig the author
of the falsehood, and cousin him if he could. The
niumeat the plaintiff read the letter be detein,ined to put
the matter iu the course of legal inquiry, and in:
as t sn
no doubs he acted a gestlatuau ought to see. The
tiff punitively timid the troth et tike swamies MI