The Express.
London, England, 1863-08-07 00:00:00

F EXPRFSS, FRIDAY FVENING, AIGUST 7, 180.

objected to the deposition being read. The words of the
statute are, " if upon the trial of the person accused it shall
be proved by the oath of any credible witness that any per.
sou whose depnsition shall have been duly taken is dead,
or so ill ss not to be able to travel, it shall be lawful to reed
such deposition in evidence, kc." TIN medical certificate
could not be received, as it wee not made upon oath, and re-
cently at the Central Ciiminal Court (in a case reported in
9 Cox's Criminal Cases, 296?. Mr. Justice Bylea would not
allow a deposition to be read in the absence of medical evi-
dence as to the state of the witness.
The Lord Chief Baron said he would consult Mr. Justice
Wightman, and on Lis return said the deposition could not
be read. . . .

A polioeman was thee called, who, to prove the PM
against Monday, said, after he bad taken him to gaol, be
went and questioned the prisoner's wife, and subsequently
brought the wife to the gaol and there " confronted " the
three, and found that Munday had told • different
story to his wife to that he told before the
magistrates. These lies, no doubt, raised • strong presump-
tion against the prisoner, but the Lord Chief Baron sated
the witness by what authority he confronted the prisoner
and his wife in gaol He then called the attention of the mit-
ress and the jury to the illegality of such a proceeding.
" Whether wisely or not," said he, " the law expressly
forbids the examination of a prisoner, and when once he is
in custody, neither he from that bench, nor a magistrate of
any description, could put one single question in the way of
examination to a prisoner. Anything a prisoner says in
answer to a charge must be purely voluntary, and so jealous
is the law as to the strictobservanoe of this rule, theta magis-
trate is compelled, before ening him if he has anything to
my, to caution him that he need say nothing, hut what he
lays may be used. Here • policeman ekes • man on suspi-
cion, can get no evidence against him, so takes his wife to
the gaol, having first examined her, and then seta her and
two prisoners to contradict one another, and os those contra-
dictions comes into court with • ease, as he imagines, against
the prisoner. Such • proceeding was monstrous. Of course •
policeman is bound to make all inquiries before taking • pri-
soner into custody, but having taken him he grossly ex-
.eeds his duty and violates the law when he proceeds to
examine him." The only evidence in the case having been
obtained in this way, and considering its nature, the
learned judge cautioned the jury against placing too great
reliance upon it.
The jury Acquitted the primmer, much to the chagrin of
the "active officer" and the members of the police force in
court,

There were two other indictments against him, both of
which were tried, but the evidence being from the same
r 3licemao, obtained under similar circumstances, the same
result ensued.

NISI PRItB COURT.— (Before Mr. Justice Wiegman and a
Special Jury.)

MAIMS V. THE ORP:AT EASTMAN RAILWAY.

This wee an action against the company in respect of in-
juries to his cattle, caused. as was asserted, by unreaaoeable
delay in the course of a journey between Peterborough and
Thetford.

Mr. Keane and Mr. Hillam Mills were for the plaintiff ;
Mr. O'Malley, Q.C., Mr. Serjeant Tour, and Mr. Sulwer
for the company.
The particulars of the cue were most unintereeting, and
after a long trial the jury returned a verdict for the de-
fendant.

The last cause, " Bird v. Bugg," is an action involt ins a
disputed account, and of no public interest.
Mr. Serpent Toter and Mr. Drummond Davies are for
the plaintiff, and Mr. O'Malley, Q.C., and Mr. Keane for the
defendant.

This brings the summer assize for the Norfolk circuit to
• clove as far ss civil business is concerned.

The Lord Chief Baron, having sentenced some prisoners,
brought the business on the Crown side to a termination by
four o'clock.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.--Wkainci, Auo. 6.

CIVIL Sum —(Before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn.)

COX V. 11INET.-.40110N8 FOR LIBEL.

Mr. Seeds Cox, founder of the Queen's College, Birminy
ham, was plaintiff in an action against Mr Feeney, as pub-
Haber of the Birminaham Daily Poe.
Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., Mr. Serjeant Hayes, and Mr. Field
were enuaael for the plaintiff; Mr. Coleridge Q.C.
(specially retained). Mr. Fitz James Stephen, Mr. Willa, and
the Hon. E. C. Leigh appeared for the defendant.
. .

The plaintiff ws; a :inior surgeon of Queen's Hospital,
Birmingham, an institution affording " walking ex-
perience to a large number of young surgeons in the mid-
lead counties. He wee also the founder of the
Queeo's College School for Clinical Surgery,
Theology, and Engineering in the same town,
but chiefly for medical instruction. In the year 1859 Mr.
F. 0. Martin, government inspector of endowed schools,
made a report upon the coodition and management of the
college, based upon a formal inquiry made at the instance of
the charity commissioners. In the course of Mr. Martin's
investigations he obtained statements from various persons
connected with the college, and, among othets, from the
then principal, a Mr. Blunt, and this statement, in the form
of a letter to the Bishop of Worcester, a visitor of tbe col-
lege, defendant, or others connected with the Birtni aghast
Daily Post, obtained and published, not by itself, but iooor-
por•ted in the government inspector's report, of which it
formed a portion. Mr. Blunt's letter concluded as follows :
" General Complaints. —For many years the accounts of
the college have not been audited, and suspicions exist
that the funds have been improperly disposed of. The
list of governors contains the names of several persons who
are not qualified according to the bye-laws of the colliege.
The late Dean of the Faculty his illegally, and in defiance
of the repeated request of the mufti], retained the minute
books of the council in his possession, and still refuses to
give them up to his ruccessor. I complain of the arbitrary,
tyrannical, and overbearing conduct of Professor W. Sands
Cox towards all who presume to differ from him is opinion,
as well as of his complete inefficiency in every office which
he now holds in the college and hospital, and I pray your
lordship to avert the impending destruction of those insti-
tutions by at once removing him therefrom.—(Signed), G.
V. BLUNT, M.D., F.L.S., Dean of the Faculty and Pro.
fessor of Medical Jurisprudence in the Queen's College,
Birmingham."
The above formed the libel.

The we for the defence was that the words complained
of were published as far back es 1860, and that defendant
did not re-publish them until there was a public necessity
for it ; that the words were not those of the defendant, bu.:
Mr. Blunt, and Mr. Feeney was justified in inserting them
in his newspaper as part and parcel of the report of the
government inspector. It was shown that the college was
still in debt, that the endowments were totally uo-
productive, and that some of the resident professors
were unable to obtain payment of their salaries, •
chancery suit being now in progrees to refund one of the
heads of departments out of the Warneford trust, Mr. Cox
wanting the money to carry on the institution. The severe-
mentinspeetor had recommended Mr. Sande Cox to allow Lord
Redeadale to reorganise the iestitntien with respect to its
personal management, and his lordship had coneeoted to do
so. That reorganisation had sot taken place; and
it was contended that the people of Birmingham
had a right to be informed of the present condition
of • college of such extensive importance to
the town and district, and which was affected by
the publication of the report is question se • trustworthy
exposition of the causes which not only hindered the pros.
verity of the college, but threatened its ultimate dietetic-
tioe. A copy of the report was therefore procured and
published.
Mr. Coleridge quoted as an authority on the qualm
the late Lord Tenterden, and the judge expressed concur-
rence is the spirit of the quotation, viz.— "That a man hag
• right to publish, for the purpose of giving the public in.
formation, that which is fit and proper for the public to
knew."
The jury found a verdict for the defendant.