The Express.
London, England, 1852-11-05 00:00:00

Nem a report of the ore, which he represented was that
which had already appeared in the Sea/fords/tire .Idre rater,
and which osutaxned a statement to the effect that " Mr.
Croshi,, of Stafford. appeared to support the defence, but
was rebuked by the learned sourael for the intoxicated mats
in which he appeared, and told to stand dawn.' This was
the Abel complained of in the declaration.
Mr. Charles Chester Mort, editor of the Shuford:Aire
Advertiser, proved that the report published In the .Sun
was not the same as that published in his paper. lie knew
the plaintiff to he a high:y revectablo tradtrin In, and
could nut hultere that there was the least round for the
imputeition cast upon him by the report in the sun.
in cross-examination, the witness said the imputation
could not injure the plaintiff in the estimation of thou, who
knew him, but of wane it would injure Lim in the opi-
nion of those who did not know him.

Mr. James Keith, clerk in the Data office, stated that on
the 23r1 of February the defendant came to the °face sad
presented to him some manueeript copy, headed " Im-
portant Decision." He (defendant) asked him if he could
get it inserted in that day's publication. He said ho did
not know, and inquired if there was anything objectionable
in it, and whether it bad been before published. He re-
plied that there was nothing objectionable in it, and that it
was a copy of a report which had already been published
in the :•tojrurcishire Adrertiser. He said t!,e manuscript',
he produced was a correct copy of the report In that paper..
Witness asked him if ha bed a copy of the paper in which
it had appeared. He answered that lie certainly had got
one, but he required that for another purpose. lie then
asked him to write at the bottom of the manuscript the name
of the paper ho had copied it from, and he accordingly
wrote on it, " Staffordshire Adrerlieer." Witness said he
could not promise that it would be inverted, but would send
it up-stairs. He said ho would take fifty copies of the paper
if it was inserted. The report was publish, oin the Sun of
that evening, and according to the defendant's order, filly
copies were sent to Messrs. Swain andto.
The defence was that the defendant bed not acted from
motives of malice, but front an over valiantness, as servant
to his father. Mr. Swain, senior, had not authorised or
sanctioned his son's conduct in procuring the publication of
this report—it was done in his absence and without his
knowledge.
Mr. Swain, senior, was then called—He stated that hi
son, the defendant, was merely a servant, not • partner
with him, and received two guineas a w., k ns an assistant.
The defendant acted in this matter without his knowledge
or ant hority.
The:Deputy Under-Sheriff, in leaving the case tothe jury,
said the imputation contained it the report was, no doubt,
one that was calculated to injure the reputation of a re-
spectable tradesman, and the defendant Fad admitted, by
nut pleading to the action, that that imputation was an
improper one. It was entirely for the jury to say what
damages ought to be given under such circumstances.
I The jury esteemed the damages at 601.
The following '.were called upon to surrender under
penalty of outlawry :—George Spitler, Frederick Anger-
stein, Edward Thomas Das, EAred Adelson, Algernon
Ma4sinelterd Porter, B. F. C. Giddies, Henry H. Gridln,
John Harman, and Henry Bradley.