The Express.
London, England, 1851-02-08 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-YESTERDAT.

BAHCO, arras Tsau.—Eaveas Ma. Seance Parma,.
Ms. Aroma Wiamum, 4WD Ma. Jyrrica eau.
nICILARDSON V. WATSON.

This was an action of libel, tried at York, before Mr. Jus-
tice Wightman, in which the plaintiff, an attorney, claimed
damages againsti the defendant, the publisher of the York-
shireman newspaper, for an article inserted in that paper,
charging him with having been corrupted by Mr.
George Hudson, M.P., in certain transactions relating
to companies with which they were connected. The
plaintiff was one of the eolieitors to the York-
shire Union Banking Company, and the article in question
was headed " Union Bank.—i uriouaEsposurv,"aadaated,
amongst other things, that it appeared as if there existed
a charter for mismanagement, artifice, and defalcation,
in all joint-stock companies over which the plaintiff and
Hudson had any control, and that no person ought to be
trusted in any responsible situation who was connected
with Hudson, as be was a man not only corrupt himself,
but who corrupted every person who was narrowly con-
nected with him. The declaration set out the whole
of the libel, and denied the imputations contained
in it. The plea justified so much of the libel
as was contained in the two paragraphs above set
out, alleging as the grounds of such justification
a number of transactions over which either Hud-
son or the plaintiff had been engaged; that Hudson had
purchased iron at 61.105. per ton, and had sold it to one
company of which he was chairman at a higher rate ; that,
as chairman of another company, he had, together with one
of the other directors, signed cheques fur the price of lands
purchased by the company of Lord Tankerae and others,
and for the purpose of paying contractors, and had kept
the money in hui own pocket until compelled to pay it over;
that upon the occasion of the purchase of the Brandon
junction by the Newcastle and Darlington Railway Com-
pany, and the issue of 22,000 shares, Hudson bad appro-
priated 1,600 to himself and the plaintiff 100 to himself, the
shares being then at a premium, and that being chairman
of the North Midland, Hudson had sold to that company, his
own shares in the Hull and Selby at a premium. The jut 7
found that mismanagement, artifice, and defalcation
did exist in every company with which the plaintiff and
Hudson were connected, but negatived the fact of the
plaintifrs having been corrupted: Upon this finding the
plaintiff claimed to have the verdict entered for him gene-
rally, upon the plea of justification. And the defendant, on the
other hand, claimed a right to have that issue divided, and to
have a verdict entered for him asto the first part of theplea
which the jury found had been proved,rit., so much ar charged
mismanagement, artifice, and defalcation.
The cue was now argued by Mr. Atherton and Mr.
Brice for the defendant, but the arguments were of a purely
technical character, and it was admitted that the sole
question was one of cons.
Mr. Cowling was to have argued on the other aide, but
was not called upon by the court,
Mr. Justice Patteson saying there was no doet about
the ewe; the defendant himself picked out two par-
tinder parte of the libel and joined them together
and justified them, and that the court could not divide
• them; if it did so it would lead to a most tricky stem of
pleading. The plaintiff was entitled to the ver&et upon
the whole plea, for the part which the jury found to be
Proved did RA arareeerily involve the chewier of the
plaintiff at "ill ;• there might .be nfismanefententa artifice).
and eorruption eta every company with which thif plaintiff
was unne
es cteff and =ft set be imitlieseed-ia
The ~Antar