The Express.
London, England, 1855-01-27 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS. SATURDAY EVENING, JANUARY 27. 1855.

lab 3 intelligent,.

COURT OF =CHEQUER-JAN. 26.
Iti Ninlll6,lloollll TEE LOW) CEII. WON AND LIONS
PAW, ALlNgliallt, AND ILIMITIL
MOTLI 1111111M•No-JUDOMENT.
.

- ----...- -
This was as *atlas by whisk the plaiattt • Roam es-
tholie priest, sought to mover damages from Cardinal
Wiseman fer the publication ef a libel affeeting his shame-
ter. The cue ease on for trial before the Lerd Chief
Baron, at 'be last Gaildford senses, whoa a nonsuit was
entered. In the course of the trial it was proved that the
letter containing the libel had originally appeared in two
Fresh papers--the Minn, and the Assi de la Raligiosi--
frees the solemn of which papers it was copied into the
CatAolie flowiertl, published in London. It appeared at
the trW that the original letter was in the possession of the
Abbe Cosset, who had declined to give it up, and, there-
fore, is the abbe was beyond the jurisdiction of
the osert, it was proposed by Mr. Edwin James,
the iseneesl fee the plaintiff, to live secondary
evitiemes net sal, of the glistens' of the litter, bat of the
feet Oat It led Men written by the cardinal himself. The
learned Judge, however, refused with regard to the first
point to receive secondary evidence in proof of the
existence of the letter, whereupon the learned coun-
sel peptised to call the cardinal into the box. The
learned judge would not allow this course to be taken,
upon the established rule that a defendant could not
be called upon to criminate himself. The result of these
two decisions was, that the plaintiff was nonsuited.
Mr. Janes subsequently obtained a rale to set aside
the nonsait, and for a new trial upon the rejection of evi-
dence as to the existence of the letter, and the refusal to
allow the eardhsal to be swore as a witness. The rule hay-
ing undergone lengthened arguments some days ago, the
court took time to consider the matter.
The Lord Chief Baron now delivered judgment; and in
the outset said, that a rale for a new trial mart be made
absolnte on both grounds. His learned brothers were
clearly of opinion that a new trial ought to be granted on
both points ; and with regard to the second point, he willingly
bowed to that opinion. He might at the same time say,
that upon the trial he had been impressed with the belief
that the plaintiff was not in reality desirous to have the
defendant sworn to prove any particular fact, bat rather as
an abstract right ; and he eonfeesed at the time be thought
he was be 4 UMW the circumstances of the case, to in-
terfere, fee the paepsw of taking sere that a mere abstract
right was net laraei into anemias for insult or annoyance,
and therefore he bad declined to permit the defendant to be
sworn. His learned brothers' however, entertained a con-
trary opinion, and considered that he ought to have allowed
the cardinal to be swore, and then it would have been for
the cardinal to have objected to give such evidence as might
criminate himself. With regard to the second point, the
majority of the mut were of opinion that the rale should
be made absolute ; but ia that view he must confess be
could not give his coseurrenos. Looking at the whole of
the cionunstances of the case, the rule would be made &boo li
-
hits fora new trial.

Mr. James now rose to express his regret that Maas bad
prevented his being in court when the rule was argued ;
and he trusted he might now be permitted to vindicate
himself from the remarks which were made by his friend
tilmjeant She*, on that occasion. The learned serjeant
complained that he imputed disloyalty to the eardinel, and
that he had luta:dead an irrelevant topic is the course of
his speech merely for the purpose of offering annoyance and
insult to the cardinal. He begged to say that his leaned
friend, Mr. Lush, and he had ascertained at consultations
that the cardinal had, at a meeting of his clergy, directed
that they should not read the prayer for the Queen, and
that they were in a situation to prove this fact by calling
two or three witaesees who were catholic prima. That
warm it was his intention to take at the next trial. Know •
ing, therefore, that he was in possession of this evidence, be
felt that he was justified is havieg introduced the subject
into his speech. Moreover, he should prove that the plain•
tiff, who was at the time uadsr the jurisdiction of the car-
dinal, had refused to carry out this oemmand, and ever
since that time he had been compelled to submit to various
annoyances at the hands of the cardinal. He therefore now
contended that he was not properly subjected to the remarks
of his learned friend, the serjeant.
Bale absolute for a new trial accordingly.