The Express.
London, England, 1849-08-21 00:00:00

SPORTING.

TATTERSALL'S-MONDAL
EBOI HANDICAP.
5 to 1 apt Lord Eutintaa's Glen Paddle (t).
7to 1 Mr. E. Cart's Gloe`Je.
7 to 1 Umtata Harcourt's Mlle:dale.
10 to 1 Mr. Pedley's Coekernsouth.
10 to 1 Mr. B. Gresn's Wedow.
14 to 1 bit J. ILawkWs Yernhill (t).
16 to 1 Mr. Nelan's Blucher (ti.
30 to 1 Lord Glasgow's Mite Whip (t).
As little as 4 to 1 was taken once or twice *bent Glen Saildel, and
6 to 1 about Ellesdale.
EBOR BT. LEGER.
3 to 1 offered co Elthiron and Honeycomb.
BT. LEGER.
7 to 4 on Lord Eiliaton's The Thing Dutohman.
15 to 1 apt Mr. A. Nichol's Nanny kirk.
15 to 1 Lord Stanley's Unel.
The only bet, to oar knowledge, was 50 to 25 on The Eying
Dutchman.

THE CISAREWITCIL
2,500 to 25 each kid apt Wendeydale, The Cur, and Horn of
Cisme.
10,000 to 5 laid apt Surplke winning the Cararewitch, and Fuer).
man the Cambridgeshire.
DERBY, MO.
20 to 1 apt Lord J. Scott's Cyprus (t).
20 to 1 Duke of Bedford's John o'Gront (t).
2$ to 1 Mr. Bowels Bra to rote.
30 to 1 Sir E. Balkelers Moulton.
U to 1 Lord .I. Soott's Wiadhratad (t).
1,000 to 30 Mr. Japes's Widow (t).
BS to 1 Duke of Rialmood's iftmpue.
The roo.n was very thinly attaaded. sod betting dull In the ex-
treme.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
NORTHERN CIRCUIT.
LIVERPOOL, ATMORE 20.
Nisi Pares Corar.—Nstrom Ma. hence WHINTMAA.
STANPISLD V. BOWLS/L.—ALLEGED LIBEL.
This was an action for libel. The plaintiff, Mr. Stanfield,
was formerly a barrister on the Northern Circuit, but os now
• banker and magistrate at Burnley. The defendant, Mr.
Sowler, is the proprietor of the Manchester Courier, sod toe
alleged libel was published in that paper on the 21st of April
in the present year. A p!ea was put upon the record that
the statements complained of were true.
Mr. Martin and Mr. Atherton appeared for the plaintiff ;
Mr. Serjeant Wilkins, Mr. Crompton, and Mr. Sooner, for
the defendant.
Mr. Martin stated the case at great length. Habergbam-
eaves, where the plaintiff resides, formerly formed part of the
chapel ry of Burnley, in Yerkskire, but by an order in coun-
cil, in 1842, it was constituted • separate and independent
district for all ecclesiastical purposes. The inhabitants of
Burnley, however, still claimed • right to appoint the church•
warden and sideman of Haberphameavee, and to a xercise
control over the rate to be levied, and repeated disputes
between the two places were the consequence. Mr. Stan-
field was appointed by the Htherghsithaves people to
go, accompanied by some of the inhabitants of that
place, to the vestry meeting held at Burnley on Euter Tues-
day in 1848, to move a resolution negativing the right of the
Burnley ratepayen to interfere with them. This he did ;
but the Rev. R. M. tiles:en, who presided on the occasion,
refused to put the resolution ; and Mr. Stanfield then pro-
posed that the meeting should be adjourned till that day
twelvemonthe. The rev. gentleman also refused to put that
motion, when a resolution was submitted calling upon him
to the ahair, and appointing &Bother person in his place.
Thbgave rise to a scene of unusual uproar ; the police were seat
for, and the church cleared. A report of Ws proceedings
(which, Mr. Martin contended, was evidently coloured, and
drawn up by some friend of the Rev. Mr. Masters) appeared
in the Bede bion Standard, It reflected upon Mr. Stan-
field, stating that he had gone to the place, accompanied by
chartists and dissenters, to upset the meeting, and that,
although a magistrate, he had stood quietly by whilst
all the uproar was gotug on, and cries were
beard of, as applied to the reverend chairman, " Pull
him down," " Seize him by the neck," " Throttle him," &c.
This report was copied into the Manchester Courier of the
date named, and comments made upon it in a leading
article, which formed the subject of the present action. It
was somewhat as follows :—.• We have elsewhere copied
from the Etaclebvths Standard a report of the disgraceful
proceedings at Burnley Centrals. The chief actor appears
to have been Mr. George Stanfield, formerly • barrister on
the Northern Circuit, but now a banker and a magistrate.
A short extract will show the conduct of Mr. Stanfield, to
rival in virulence any of Mr. ight's followers in Rochdale.
A series of Wean prop.sitions are made to the meeting
by Mr. Stanfield, to which the Rev. Mr. Masters, I
the excellent incumbent of Burnley, with manifest pro-
pristy, refused to listen." Here part of the Blackburn
paper's report was quoted, and the article continued. " Mr.
Stanfield's position as • magistrate and banker would be.
speak his nspectabilii. As for his degree of barrister-in-
law, we suspect it was always honorary, in every sense of the
word; and although a member of this circuit, he was a
silent member, beseg one of the brie fleas fraternity."
(Lmeglitar.) Mr. Martin here digressed to remark that be
di OM think any man cared about being called " • briefiess
bookfier:" unfortunately many were in that position ; buthe
the taps for those who had briefs it was as hard • mode et
earehe ens's bread as could or. (Laughte The r.) Th came
the pet of which Mr. Stanfield especially complained
mei memory does not fail us, he is the person who, a few
smith ago, at Lancaster, broke faith with Mr. Baron Alder-
son, and drew down the just rebuke of that high-minded
and able judge, by failing to bring into court a certain
deonseent which he had promised his lordship to
✓e_ for, and sending instead a stupid note to the judge,
fall of ignorance, presumption, and disrespect. This Mecum.
ethos must be well known to the bar of this circuit."
Every word of this Mr. Martin said he would prove to be
utterly false. The real circumstances were as follows :—Two
ow were indicted for conspiring to cheat the Yorkshire In-
wane* Company, by sending in • claim for loss larger than
bad been actually sustained, by a fire in a mill. Mr. Stan-
field was • banker, end as such there had been deposited
whit lin by one of the two men the title-deeds of the policy
sifithusthe as part security for some advances made. Mr.
itealleld received a request from a party interested not to
give it up. The trial came on at the winter mixes in 1848,
before Mr. Boron Alderson, at Lanorer. Mr. &infield, in
compliance with custom, attended the assizes as a magistrate,
and whilst sitting in the magistrates' box something took
place concerning the policy. He was not there under any
aubpmoa. He was asked if he had such • document, and
he said he had. The rest would be best told from the short-
hand writer's notes.—Mr. Bliss (who was fur the pro-
secution) asked, Did you inform the prosecutors that
you held the policy of insurance ? Mr. Stanfield :
e., 1 saw Mr. Gray, of Yore, the attorney for the
prosecutors, and told him.—Mr. Bliss: Are you sure that
was seven or eight mouths ago ? Mr. Stanfield : I will not
my to • month.—Mr. Bliss : Vies it before the last assizes ?
Mr. 8 &afield : I believe it was: I only bad ene interview
with Mr. Gray, and the time will probably be known to him.
—Mr. Bliss: Have you the policy here? Mr. Stanfield:
No.—Mr. Baron Aide non (in an aogry manner) : Do you
them here, sir, • county magistrate, to defeat the ends of
criminal justice ? Mr. Stanfield . Certainly not, but to fur-
ther it.—Mr. Bliss: Were you desired not to bring the
policy ? Mr. Stanfield : I was.—Mr. Bliss ; Who desired
yon? Mr. Stanfield: The defendant's attorney.—Mr.
Baron Alderson: It was a most improper thing to do.—Mr.
Bliss: Where is the policy? Mr. Baron Alderson: In!
Burnley, of course.—Mr. Stanfield: No, it is in Lancaster.
—Mr. Baron Alderson: Cio and fetch it sir.—Upon this Mr.
Stanfield left the court. Now he (Mr. Martin) contended
that Mr. Boron Alderson had no right to giveanysuch order.
He had no right to address the gentleman in such a tone. Mr.
Baron Alderson being a judge he should like to speak of
hint with revise, but judges lead sometimes the Mona/ of
short temper. Mr. Stanfield would (Mr. Martin contended)
have been Justified had he said, " My lord, you have no
power so to order me." By the law of England there was a
mode laid down to compel a mea to produce a document,
by the service of a duces teem, and that was the only mode
whereby a man could be ethipelled to produce • docu-
ment. Mr. James, who appeared fen the defendanta,
said, at the time, "My lord, if I had the document
here, I would not peeduce it," and he cited an authority that
was utanawerable. New, Mr. Stanfield was a magiatrate
and a banker, he was also an Englishman, and he thought

that he was addressed by Mr. Baron Alderson in • way that
the judge had no right to do. He went away, and after due
consideration sent the following letter :
Lancaster, Feb. 11, MS.—Your lordship was pleased to impute to
thle morning, in opea court, a desire to defeat the ends of justice,
end to threaten as.. I came to LlllCifiter without Batman* from any
ore, as I thought. to promote the ends of justice, not to defeat
it. I shall not be
a shilling whichever way the case may tura;
and I shall not submit, my Me* to suet treatment or imputations. I
therefore declare that I shell not give my further attmdanoe at the
ageism
Mr. Martin asked was he not justified In speaking
in such a way ? The man was an Eng'', hman ; he
had his rights: and he appealed to the jury it
any of them, under like circumstances, would not take
the same course. He begged to state openly and
publicly that he would have done so; if he had @efficient
presence of mind be would have refused at the time to pro-
duce it ; and if be had been weak enough to leave the court
without such a declaration of refusal, he would have written
just such a letter a, that which had bean read. So far from
its being " a letter full of ignoranze, presumption, and die
respect," it was, he maintained, a proper letter to writs. Be-
fore leaving. Mr. Stanfield made no promise. Whore was
the " faith " that had been " broken" then ? Why were
these allegations made; what had the circumstance to do
with the squabble about Burnley church. Mr. Stanfield
felt keenly the imputation thus cast upon him, and he bad
family connexions and friends who, perhaps, deemed it of
more importance than he did himself. Mr. Stanfield did
not wish by the present action to put money into his pocket,
but it was necessary, for the sake of his character, that it
should be brought. The article in the Manchester
Courier continued :—" As but a limited quantity of law
is requisite to manage a pariah vestry, Mr. Stanfield, as a
barrister, might have been 'apposed to have had sufficient
fur that ; but he had not enough,_ for he was corrected by en
attorney who was present. What are we to think of a well
dressed demagogue who countenanced brutality towards a
reverend gentleman who is tsteemtd by all classes but the
bad ? Really such proceedings on the part of a man profes-
sing to belong to the church ere painful in
the highest degree." Mr. Martin concluded by read-
ing some correspondence between the plaintiff's solici-
tor and the defendant, prior to the present action, in which
the latter admitted that the article complained of had not
been communicated by any third party to the paper, but
that it was editorial. The proprietorship was also admitted.
A great many witnesses in support cf plaintiff's case were
then examined. It was elicited in crass examination that
the malcontents at the Burnley vestry.meeting did comprise
a considerable proportion of dissenters and chartists.
Mr. Berjeant Wilkins bad just commenced to address the
jury for the defendant when our despatch was sent.