The Express.
London, England, 1847-04-06 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—MINOSTON, Aran 6.
thvu. Sim—Before Lord Denman sad a Special Jury.
CHADWICK v. HEHACATH.—LIBEL.—Thie was a writ
of inquiry to assess the damages for a libel upon Mr.
Chadwick, the chairman of the North Wales and the
Richmond Railways, published in &Tapeslls's Rail-
way Journal on the 13th June, 1846. The defend-
ant pleaded that he had not been actuated by any
malice in publishing the libel, and that he had apologised
for it in conformity with the 'haute, and paid 51. into court
as compensation. The Court upon demurrer held the plea
to be insufficient, and the present writ of inquiry was issued
to assess the amount of damages to which the plaintiff was
entitled. The facts were stated thus:—While the plaintiff
filled the offices of deputy chairman to the North Wales
Railway and chairman of the London and Richmond, a
negotiation was entered into for the loan of 20,1100!. to the
South-Western Railway Company by the North Wales
Company, the latter not being able at the time to use their
capital or their works, owing to some parliamentary diffi-
culties, and the South-Western were to pay 4 per cent.
for the use of the money, the shareholders in the North
Wales scheme receiving the same amount of interest upon
their deposits. The South-Western Company repaid the
money, and the amount, with an additional sum of 5,0001.,
was then advanced by the North Wales to the Richmond
company, at an interest of four-and-a-half per cent. This
transaction formed the subject of the present inquiry, for it
seemed that soon afterwards a letter appeared in Ilerapatli's
Journal, professing to be signed by one Evan Griffith,, a
shareholder in the North Wales scheme, and in which, in
very offensive terms, the plaintiff was charged with misap-
propriating the money of the shareholders, and instead of
employing their funds in furthering the works of the rail-
way, that he had lent it to a failing scheme, where it would
probably all be lost, and at the same time suggesting that the
plaintiff had an interest in the contract' upon the Richmond
railway, and that the transaction was for his own personal
benefit. Immediately upon the publication of this letter,
application was made to the defendant for the address
of the writer, and it then appeared that there was no such
person as Even Griffiths, a shareholder in the scheme, In
existence, and, in the next number of the defendant's journal,
he expressed his regret that the letter had been inserted in
the hurry of business, and also at the offensive observations
made use of. Some further communications took place he-
tween the plaintiff's solicitors and the defendant, and the
latter repeatedly offered to insert any statement of the real
circumstances of the transaction in contradiction of the
libellous letter; but this, it appeared, did not satisfy the
plaintiff, who required that the defendant should state,
from his own knowledge, that there was no foundation for
the charges that he had made, but this be declined to do ;
hence the present proceeding.—On the part of the plaintiff
the libel was put in, and evidence was also given to show that,
so far from there being anything injurious to the interests of
the shareholders of the North Wales Railway in the transac-
tions with the Richmond Company, they were highly ad vaota-
geous to them, and they were enabled to receive a dividend
of four per cent. for their money, which would otherwise
have been locked up at the banker's, and not bare yielded
any profit. It was also shown that, instead of the Richmond
Railway being at that time a failing scheme, the shares
were at a premium of 61. upon 101. paid, and by the subse-
quent arrangement and amalgamation with the South-
Western Railway Company, each shareholder received 201.
for each share, upon which only 101. had been
paid originally.—Serjeant Shea, for the defendant,
said that, though his client admitted he had incau-
tiously published an unfounded charge against the plaintiff,
ket it was impossible for him to contradict it, as of his own
nowledge, particularly as immediately after the publication
he received a communication from the solicitors of Mr.
Bulkeley Hughes, M.P., who was the chairman of the com-
pany, the plaintiff being the deputy chairman, in which he
was called upon to contradict the statement that he (Mr.
Hughes) to whom the charge was supposed to refer, had had
any share in the prosecution of the loan to the Richmond
Railway Company, and that, on the contrary, he had pro.
tested strongly against that step being taken, and had in-
structed his solicitors to take proceedings against such of the
directors whom they might consider had been guilty of a
breach of tram In the transaction. Eventually, however, a
letter, written by the secretary of the Richmond Railway,
giving • full contradiction to the charges, wee inserted in the
defendant's journal. Moreover, at a public meeting of the
shareholders of the North Wales Company, the defendant—
who had made a purchase of shares expressly for the purpose
of enabling him to address the meeting—publicly expressed
his regret at having inadvertently admitted the aftack upon
the plaintiff.—Evidence, documentary and pare!, was then
put in to prove the statements refereed to by the learned
counsel, and the letter to which he alluded as having been
written with the sanction of the plaintiff, embodied ,
a distinct contradiction of the charges that had
been made against him, and it was proved that
this was immediately inserted in the journal of
the defendant—Lord Denman, in summing up, said that
with regard to the publication of the libel, the defendaat
had no defence, for he had no basins ,a to invert • letter from
an anonymous person making libellous charges ; and, if he
did so, he was responsible to the party aggrieved. He had
pleaded that he had made a sufficient apology, and the letter
that had been reed, which was seat with the knowledge of
the plaintiff, certainly put a different complexion on the case
with regard to that pica. The jury would, however, look at
all the circumstances, and say what damages the plaintiff
was entitled to for the attack that had been made upon his
character.—The jury, after deliberating for about five
minutes, found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 501.,
including the Si, paid into court.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—MONMOUTH, Aram 3.
Caow, Mum—Before Ur. hrtiee Mask.
Lvwcz Law.—Sorry Cote, John Robins, and 19 other
men, were indicted for a riot and assault on one 11.icitsrd
Price, at the parish of Llandenny, on the let of April, 1848.
On the day in question all the prisoners, except Cole, went
to Price's house about 10 in the morning, and took him out
and tied him on a hurdle, and carried him to Cole'. house,
and there tied Mrs. Cole on the hurdle by his side, and
exhibited both through the parish all day, as persons who
had been more intimate than honest neighbours ought to be.
In the mune of the procession, Cole joined the rest, and
sanctioned the imputations on his better-half. The pair
were released from the hurdle about eight in the evening.
Price's witnesses stated, in crossAmemination, that he seemed
to like the joke. The prisoners were **quitted of the riot,
bat frond guilty of assaulting Price, and sentenced to a
week's imprisonment.
The civil business being over about one to-day, Mr. Fer-