The Express.
London, England, 1853-12-08 00:00:00

Thojery retired. and Oiler deliberating for •Aunt ton Kai
antes, rewind, and give a verdict for the pinanttff. It
hail been agreed that the amount of dana.ges should be
ascertained by a reference.
Lord Campbell refused the applicatim of Sir F. Kelly to
On execution, as he thought thqt, whichever way the ver•
that had been, it could not ba dwurbed.

Verdict awe plaintiff.
TIM 411:1112!

This was an indictment instituted by the Society for the
Suppression of Vice against the defendant, for the publica-
tion of obscene publications and indecent prints. The de-
fendant pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Watson ►nd Mr. Cis:keen appeared for the plaintiff;
the defendant appeared is person.
The purchase of an indecent publication at the defend-
ant's shop, 7, West-steers, St. Martin's lase, on the 'Jth
November last, having bees proved,
Mr. Duneombe addressed the jury, stating that the
witness Taylo►, who had purchased the book in question,
had made repeated applications to hint before be consented
to sell it, and had offered to pay almost any sum for it.
Lord Campbell left it to the jury to say whether the
charge bad been proved.
The Foreman of the jury said they found the defendant
guilty, big recommended him to mercy.
Lord Campbell (with much warmth)—To mercy ! Ou
what ground ? Let me hear the ground on which you re-
! commend him to mercy. For Ood'a sake—for the sake of
trial by jury, let me not hear such a recommendation.
Some of the jury said they had not concurred in the re-
commendation.
Lord Campbell—Recommend to mercy a man who is
selling poison ; lam shocked by what I hear.
The Foreman said some of the jury considered the de-
fendant had been entrapped into the sale.
Lord Campbell deferred passing sentence until the nest
case had been disposed of.

THR QUIRE!, C. CANNON.
This indictment was of the same nature as the preceding
one. The same learned counsel prosecut..l.
As the defendant admitted his guilt, fornall proof only
was given of the offence.

The defendant was found guilty.
The defendant in the first case, Duncombe,then addressed
his lordship, and handed in an affidavit in mitig.ti et.
Evidence was then given on the part of the prosecution
that Buncombe bad been convicted of the same offence
some years ago, and that 94 prints, 64 books, 573 song.,
and 6010 s. weight of letterpress of the same abominable
character had been seized at the shop. At Cannon's there
had been seised 3,205 prints, and 24 books.
Lord Campbell then passed sentence upon both defend-
ants, who, he said, had been convicted upon the clearest
evidence. If Duucombe had, in truth, been entrapped
inertly to sell one of these abominable publications, and this
had been a solitary offence, as the jury seemed at first to
have imagined, there might have been some ground for
mitigation of punishment, bat it now clearly appeared that
they were both regular dealers, and bad been so for years,
in this abominable traffic. You are (his lordship continued)
sellers of poison. You are corrupter, of the morals of the
youth of this country, and you try to earn your bread by
this most detestable traffic. The moral guilt that you have
incurred is, in my opinion, much greater than if you were
actually geilty of housebreaking. But, as the law now
stands, you are only guilty of misdemeanour, and you can
only be punished by imprisonment and hard labour. For
this offence the sentence of the court is, that you be teepee-
lively confined in the House of Correction for Middlesex for
two years, end kept to hard labour.
The defendants were accordingly removed in custody.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-YESTERDAY.
'mums wr SII PRIV/ IN SUOMI crux 3CIPTICI

/KIM L•Y ♦ COMMA, JVIRT.
YILNE S. SULLY MID OTHERS.

The plaintiff in this ease until recently kept • betting-
office in Craubourae•strest, at.d he sued to recover damages

for a libel, which had been'published in the IVeekly Mies,
attributing dishonest practices to him. The libel was con-
tained in an article signed " Flibinite," in which a letter
from "A Dupe" was printed and commented upon. The
" Dope " stated that he had been to the plaLtilre and
asked the odds against Hangerford for the QneesesPlate at
Leicester; that he was told 4to 1; that he took it for a
crown, and got a ticket for That he presented it for
payment, but that the plaintiff would not pay him, but said
that it was 'or the Bedford race, at which place the horse
was not entered. This alleged conduct "Flibinite " de-
nounced in the strongest terms, hinting at the virtues of an
ash stick, anti alluding to " a host of others whom betting-
house keepers had fleeced in the same manner."

The defendants, in answer to the action, pleaded, firstly,
not guilty; and mcondly, they &everted is justification that
the statement was in substaara true.
Mr. Edwin Jamey Q.C.,. and Mr. Cooper. appeared for
the plaintiff; and dr. Sameant Byles and Mr. Tomlinson
were mussel (or the defendants.

The following evidence was Nivea :
Thomas Waugh said, I was manager of Mithe's Betting
Office, and I made out the ticket referred to in the libel.
Baron Rothschild's horse, Hungerford, was to run for the
Queen's Guineas, at Bedford, on the 2lst of September.
In the morning of that day we were betting 4 to 1 against
him, but afterwards it was evens. lie was also to run at
Leicester the day after the Bedford race, and the ticket I
gave to the plaintiff by mistake omitted to state the race
upon which it was given, but the bet was made upon the
Bedford event, and was so entered in the book at the office.
The bet was made by a person named Hodson, who betted
55., and took the odds 4to I. At this time we were betting
even upon the Leicester event.
Cross•examined—The office was shut up last week. I
will swear that the entry of the bet in the book was made
all at one time ; and that the mention of Bedford had not
been put in since. I omitted to put Bedford on the ticket
in the hurry of business, having taken 80 or 90 bets within
the hour. Hungerford did not run at Bedford, but he ran
and won at Leicester. The day after the Leicester race,
Hodson offered the ticket ; but, I said, I would tot pay it,
as the het was on the Bedford and not the Leicester race.
Mr. Rogerson, the clerk of the course at Bedford, proved
that Hungerford was entered but did not run.
Henry John Milne—l am the plaintiff. I have shut up
the office, and have returned all the money which I have
received upon future races. Oa the 21st September, the
odds were 4 to 1 against Hungerford en the Bedlord, and
on the Leicester race it was even betting; and, in some in-
stances, 2tol in his favour. I have been a draper at New-
castle-on-Tyne.
Crum-examined—l am nothing now; paid Waugh my
clerk a eatery of 2001. a year.
Mitchell Morley was called, but not questioned by the
plaintiff's counsel. Is cross examination be said, he being
out of business, and knowing the plaintiff, was generally at
the " office," though he had no particular duties there. He
was not a touter nor • tipper,
The Chief Justice—When I was at Westminster school a
tipper was a gentleman who came and gave a boy 6s. (it
laugh.)
Joseph Andrews'Etches said , be kept • betting office next
door but one to the plaintiff.% and he understood the libel
to refer to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was always ready to
pay if any body called for money, and his name was over
the door. Witness bad been a corn merchant at Newcastle,
and so knew the plaintiff. The betting office business was
very profitable, hut he did not know that a person who had
kept a betting office for two years had made 30,0001. Ti•
owner of • horse at the C 00000 witch made 30,0001. on the
race. Witness bed returned to the public all the money
he had received upon future events.
Mr. Sergeant Bytes then addressed the jury for the de-
fence, and said that Mr. Hodson had sent • written state-
ment to the Weekly Times, and detailed the facts of his
case as stated in the 'Heine libel. The paper had always
been opposed to betting-offices, and when this statement
was received the defendants did their best to get him jus-
tice; and he submitted that the article complained of in•
stead of being a libel, was • just, necessary, and praise-
worthy exposure. The learned eerjeant then commented
upon the evidence which had been given, and detailed the
Teets which he should be able to prove in support of the
plea ofju-tilication.
John Hodson was called, and he said—l live at No.
4, Leigh street, Red Lion-square. On the 21st Septem-
ber last I met a person named Reece, who said
"If you have it. to spare, I can put you up to a
_good
thing, I have a letter from Leicester which says that Hun-
gerfurd will run for the Queen's Plate to morrow, and he
sure to win." This was opposite Milne's, and I went
there and asked the man bellied the partition the odds
against Hungerford fur the Queen's Plate, at Leicester,
and he said 4to 1, and I took it for a crown, and got •
ticket for '2ss. Bedford was not mentioned at all. On the
Saturday after I saw by the paper that the hone had won
at Leicester, and I went for my money, but the man re-
fined to pay it, and said the money was betted upon the
Bedford race. There were three persons there who put
some impertinent questions, and one of them
said "D— you get out" —that person was Milne.
I threatued to go to the County Court for a summons, and
I went, but they would not grant me • summons unless I
knew the christian name of Milne. I went to the " office "
to try to get this name, sod I met • man who, I think,
kept • betting office, coming nut. His name is Nicholson,
and he laughed at me, and said, "Oh you'll get nothing
the place belongs to Etches." Upon this I gave up the
idea at a 61111111101114 and I wrote • letter to "Flibinite," of
the IVeekly Times, instead.
Crossmiminined —1 have an annuity, and I have also a
commerion teem Hill and Co., of Olugow, to sell ale and
whisky. '1 as last pe. on whom I can recollect 'Kling any
to was named Hodson, and that was about three months
ago. I bet occasionally, but only two or three crowns a
year, un my own ace tout, though I sometimes male bets
tor other pen, us. I have heard that Reece has a com-
miesiou (runs the (Acne of the 2nd Life Guards.

It wa% admitted that the hone iluagerford wet at
Leiceatar.

The Case: Justice, in moralising up, said that what had
been published was no doubt a libel, and upon the atcond
plea there was no evidence to justify two portions of it.
Reference war made to " a host of others whom they have
fleeced in a similar manner," and that was not justified. It
was also alleged that the bores was not entered at lteelfoid,
hut it had been proved that it had been in fact entrrcd.
When he was law officer of the crown there were betting
lists, and he was successful, with the aasiatanee of some
newspapers, and among others of the one in question, in
putting them down; for having discovered that they were
an illegal thing, and that those who kept them were rogues
and vagabonds, be took proceedings against them such.
Atter the Running Rein case, the late Lord Bentinck had
obtained a committee, and it will thought advisable to alter
the statute of Anne, which made betting illegal, and simply
to enact that bete should not he recoverable in a court of
justice. Thus, persons who kept lime ceased to be rogues
and vagabonds, and the law officer was disabled from pro-
ceeding venial than, and the " offices" Spoken of sprang