The Express.
London, England, 1862-04-05 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME ClRClllT.—Kniaarox, Aran. 4
OWL SlDl.—(Bears Lord Chief Justice Erie and
• Special Jury.)
WALDRON V. LONG AND ANOTHER.

This was an action brought by Miss Harriet Waldron, the
daughter of lady Janet Waldron, against the Morning Poet
newspaper, to recover damage. for a hlul published in that
paper in the month of January but.
The defendants pleaded " Not guilty."
Mr. M. Chamber., Q.C., and ldr. Ifoll were counsel for
the plaintiff ; Mr. Lush, q.C., and Mr. Hannon were for
the defendants. .

—This action•;rose out of a case that was disposed of at the !
Westminster Police-court two or three months ago, in which '
Miss Caroline Norton, the Deice of the Hon. Mr. Norte's,
sought to recover from the present plaintiff • dog, which
she alleged she had lest to her, but which Mir Wakkoe !
represented bad been given to her. The proceeding created
some interest at the time and it will be remembered that I
upon the hearing Miss Norton swore that she only lent Mies
Waldron the dog in question for • short time, as she ex- '
ported to go to C.mfu ; and the latter swore parley* that
upon one occasion, while they were is • cordage together,
Ifir Norton gave her the dog, making use at the
same time of the remarkable expression, "I, Caroline
Norton, give you, Harriet this dog." It was admitted
by Mir Waldrea that in the first instance the dog
had only hash teed in her charge by Miss Norton to be
' taken care of w • she watt to vied a relation at Woolwich ;
but she awned that whet Miss Norton expected to go to
Corfu, fancying that the deg would be an irscumbraeoe to
her, she gave her the aahnal, under the circumstances
stated. It appeared that Mir Norton did not go away as
she evmted. and that she was anxious to have the dog
restored to her; but Miss Waldron insisted upon retaining
it, and after a good deal of squabbling the case came before
Mr. Arnold, the presiding magistrate at the Westminster
Police-court, the charge against Mies Waldron being that of
unlawfully detaining • dog the property of Miss Norton ;
sad after hearing the evidence of - all the parties, the roarik-
trate dismissed the charge. A few days afterwards a letter
appeared in the Mortally Pose, which was signed "A
Looker-m," and headed "Spinsters and their Idols,"
which spoke of Mies Wilde= as the "all spinster," and
Miss Norton an the "war" young spinster, referred to
the dispute about the dog, and steed that it appeared that
spinsters of *certain age, failing a human admirer, appeared
to make idols of fancy dogs, and that " • dog's life" in such
• case was very different to that which was generally under-
stood by wok an expression, as they were the objects of
011/111•011 and affection which were in ordinary cases lavished
upon human beings. The letter went on at some length,
and in humorous terms, to comment upon the dispute
between the two ladies upon the subject of this
dog, sad referred to • case where • poor man
had bees eseeseced to six months' imprisonment, upon
very slight evideace, for having stolen a dog, and commeated
upon the different manner in which the magistrate had
treated the awe of Mies Welchem. This was the libel 1101b-
-021601 of ; sad apes Mr. Hod, the solideor to Miss Wl=
applying for • eseaseadea the sharp. that were
to be contained in H spinet that lady, • promise was gives
that an explaestioa abouthlasser, end ea the Moeda, day
• second &Male wee aNee Merwing Peet, whisk
was also made the el none.
The publication at
_alleged Ilbeis woe admitted, and
they were read, and thh dated the ewe for the plaintiff.
Mr. Lush, in a Memos epeesh, on Waif et the de.
(imitate, urged that the seeks was Gus of a mosttestapere
character, and that Mies Wahhea Ind ao eta to Memo bat
herself for bags their' before the 'suns, sad the defend-
ants were perfeelly *Med to the eibeertutiows they had
made in referees, to the sleighed Wilds". The 'Adele that
wee complained al was art publiehed with any intention to
impede to Miss Wilshire that she had been guilty of per-
jury, sr of dog stealing, which was alleged to be its
object, bat was merely a few bantering comments that
pullwen applicable to both ladies, with • view to
show that it was a subject to be regretted that persons
in the position of gentlewomen, which those ladies un-
doubtedly were, should have made themselves so ridiculous
and become parties to a public inquiry of snob • nature.
He denied that the article complained of was in any way
calculated to injure Miss Waldron, and he said that the only
thing that was at all likely to injure her was her own con-
Berton with the proceedings before the magistrate, and be
urged that if Mile Norton had forgotten that she bad given
her the dog, which appeared to be the ground upon which
the magistrate dismissed the complaint, it would have beets
much more seemly on her part to have restored it, than to
have twisted upon retaining it at all hazards. He con.
eluded by again expressing his opinion that the action was
oese of the most trumpery character, and he called upon
the jury not to encourage such actions by giving any
damages.
Lord Chief Justice Erle having summed up,
The jury almost immediately returned o verdict for the
plaintiff—Damages one farthing.
Mr. Chambers applied to his lordship for • certificate or
order to addle the plaintiff to costs, but his lordship add
he could not 'Fart the application at present, sod med
consider about it