The Express.
London, England, 1848-07-06 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

Nh! Palm—Before Yr. Justice Williams and a Common Jury.
TUWNOEND V. NEALE.—QUESTION OF' CKEDIT.—This was
an action by the plaintiffs, Mews. Townsend, paper manufac-
turers in Goswell-street, to enforde payment of a claim for
papering the Black Bull Inn, Holborn, kept by defendant.—
Mr. Lush, who appeared for the plaintiffs, stated that a per-
son of the name of Owen, a surveyor, called at the plaintiffs'
in December last, in Goswell-street, for the purpose of giving
an order for papering the Bull Inn, but plaintiffs were not
satisfied to execute the order without seeing defendant. A
person was, therefore, sent to defendant, to whom he gave
express instructions for the work to by undertaken upon his
own responsibility, but under the direction and superin-
tendence of Owen. Accordingly, the patterns having
be.ii selected by Owen, the rooms of the Bull Inn
were bedecked in the manner pointed out by him.—
Witnesses proved the lacta us above stated; and it
was further shown that defendant had offered to pay
the debt by instalments after a little time, and on such
occasion nothing was said by him as to any credit agreed
upon. Mr. Scotland was counsel for defendant, and con-
tended that the work, which was finished in February last,
had been done upon a six months' credit; that there was a
distinct agreement in a conversation between Owen and one
et the platntiffs, aab fit fhctime of the former selecting the
patterns, that the work was not to be paid for until six
months after it was completed; aad that moreover the plain-
tiffs' bill contained the grossest overcharges. Owen swore
to the conversation alluded to, and that lower MIMI were
agreed upon, whilst several surveyors gave it as their
opinion that large deductions ought to be made from
the bill sent in. The son of one of the plaintiffs was
called as a witness in reply, who stated he took the order

from Owen, and the prices charged were those mentioned at
the time, and the invariable pIiCCS charged for such work by
plaintiffs in their business.—The Julgo, in summing up, left
it to the jury to my whether a six months' credit wee agreed
upon ; if that were so, there was an end of plaintiffs' cue; but
if they thought otherwise, the question u to the amount re-
mained. Upon this subject the teatimony was conflicting.
It was entirely for them to determine upon the evidence
whether any or how great a deduction ought to be made
from the sum cued for.—The jury found (or plaintiffs for the
full amount—namely, damages 861. 17a.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

OLD COURT.
THE TRIALS FOR SEDITION.

THE Queer v. Furiseen.—The proceeding' in this case
up to the close of the prosecution, appeared in our
yesterday's immersion. The court having re-assembled
after a short adjournment, Mr. a:edema Allen called the
attention of my lords to several discrepancies that existed
between the words alleged in the indictment to have been
wislai ls z Fuuell, and those which Fowler, the reporter,
de to. The objections were overruled.
r. Serjeant Allen then proceeded to address the jury for
the defence. He said that he really felt a difficulty in
knowing how to shape hie defence, on account of the re being
charges against the defendant which he considered were
entirely dissimilar, and which would require a separate line
of defence.
Chief Justice Wilde here interposed, and said he was of
opinion that the learned serjeant need not direct his atten-
tion to the count charging a riot.
Serjeant Allen proceeded.—lle was obliged to his lordship
for this intimation, as it relieved him Isom a portion of the
difficulty under which he laboured. Ile had now to address
himself to the charge of being present at an unlawful amena-
bly, and if the charge of riot fell to the ground, he a; pre.
handed that this must also. There was no proof of any un-
lawful object in calling the meeting together, and it really
seemed as if it had no other object than the one stated in the
course of the evidence, that they were determined to have
the meeting on that occasion, because Finality John had
prevented them from meeting on the 10th of April, end he
submitted that there was nothing to show that this was in
the first instance an unlawful assembly. Then as to
the charge of sedition. The Attorney-General had done
him no more then justice when ho mid he was sure he
would not attempt to justify the speech alleged to have been
made on the occasion in question, in which the defendant
was represented to have recommended private assassination.
He felt equally the odious character of such a recommenda-
tion with any gentleman present, and his detentes was, that
no such statement was made by the defendant ; anti he
should show by satisfactory evidence that the reference to
assassination was never intended in the sense in which it was
now represented. These were, no doubt, most exciting times,
and it was very natural for men in their position to look very
unfavourably upon any attempt to create disturbance and
alarm and to excite the multitude, thereby endangering the
liberty and security which they enjoyed; but he en-
treated them not to allow those feelings to irtluence
their minds at present, and that they would, as tar as
was possible, endeavour to ascertain what was the real effect
of the speeches that were made on this occasion, and to eon
eider what would have been the conclusion they would have
come to respecting them, if they had been delivered at a time
when there was an utter absence of the present political e
citement. The learned serjeant then proceeded to comment
upon the speeches that had been given in evidence, and he
argued that in speaking of the government with contempt,
the speaker had not exceeded the bounds of fair discussion,
and he said teat if a government was net liked by any
portion of the people, they had • right to say so, and it they
pleased say, as in this instance, that they looked upon it with
contempt. What was the meaning of the word government
Did it mean all the convituted authorities of the country?
Certainly not. It only referred to the persons holding the
executive authority, and who might be removed any day by
• vote of the House of Commons. Such things were con-
Meetly said, and he did not know that even members of the
House of Commons had not said the same thing. The
learned serjeant proceeded at some length to comment upon
this part of the evidence, and then went on to refer to Wet
part of the case in which the defendant was represented to
have said that if the Queen forgot her duty to the people
they had a right to forget her; and he 'eked whether it was
a new doctrine in this country that the people had • right to
expel the sovereign if the sovereign did wrong ?
Why the very liberte, which they now enjoyed, and the pre-
sentj constitution of the country, were owing to the
glorious revolution of 11358. The very laws under which
they lived, the liberty of which they boasted, were obtained
by banishing from the country a sovereign who went beyond
the law. Could it therefore he denied that such a subject
was a matter for diecuminn ? He felt satisfied it could
not ; he believed that but for the Mate of political excite-
ment that prevailed, no notice would have been taken of the,
matter; or that, if a member of parliament had made such
matements to hi, constituents at a üblic meeting, they would
have been passed over without any notice.
The Attorney. General here rose and said, that if such a
speech had been made by any person, no matter what his
station was, he should have felt it his duty to prosecute him.
Serjeant Allen proceeded—Notwithstanding this, he be-
lieved he was perfectly justified in the observations he had
made, and that this portion of the speech did not amount to
the offence of sedition, and he again asserted that lithe peo-
ple imagined that the sovereign abused the law, they hod a
right to meet to discuss the propriety of expelling a sove-
reign who so acted, and he declared his opinion that hut for
the excitement that prevailed at the present, prosecution
would never have been heard of. As to expressing contempt
for the government itself, surely there was nothing in that,
for it was done every day, and in all manner of place.. It
might, for all he knew, be a very excellent government—he
would not give an opinion upon that subject—but it cer-
tainly appeared to him to present very much the ap-
pearance of a lame man upon crutches, who was
obliged to lean continually upon one side or the other,
and to rely upon the two extremes entirely for support, and
under these circumstances he considered that people might
very well consider themselves justified in meeting to discuss
the propriety of attempting to get rid of such a government.
H s then proceeded to comment upon that portion of the
charge which he admitted was of the most serious character,
namely the recommendation to commit private assassina-
tion; and be eiid he was instructed by the defendant to
deny moat positively that he ever made use of such an ob-
servation, and that he should be able to show by evidence
that it was never uttered. He urged the improbability
that a man who he should show enjoyed • respectable
position in society should have made such an odious
statement, and he said that the witnesses for the pro.
mcution must have misunderstood him ; and that at all
events, it the alleged speech was not altogether a fabrication,
that the witnesses must have misapprehended what the de-
fendant really said. The learned 'Admen then remarked
upon the expression, "base, brutal, and bloody whim.,"
being brought forward in the evidence to prejudice the case,
when every one knew that it was only • quotation,—that it
had been used by on eminent individual, a member of the
House of Commons, in spec king of the whirr eovernment,
who was not only not presecuted for using the is [premien,
but actually had an offer Iron that very government of one
of the highest offices in the state. In conclusion he
called upon the jury to acquit the defendant, end by that
verdict show their determination not to uphold one law to
the rich and another to the poor.
The following evidence was then adduced for the defence :
Stephen Flenem, examined by Mr. liuddlestone : Dep tied
that he was a journeyman carpenter. He was present at the
meeting in question, and heard Fussell address them. lie
beard the whole of his speech from the beginning to the end.
Ile said sonetheig about private aseaseierieo in reference to
the Empelur of .sus re', who, he eui 1, had been cempell.
to Hy fur tear of private atsamination ; but he did not say it
was a good way to get rid of bed rulers. He heard Fussell
say that he had five sons, and if they did not avenge his
wrongs he wou'd disown them; but he mid nothing at that
tile about private assmstuutiou. His attention was di-
rected on the following morning to a report in the news-
pap, r of the proevedings at the meeting, and he immediately
remarked that it was not correct. —By the Attorney-teener:el :
The meeting was convened by puhlic pemarda, which stated
that it would be held at all hazards. Wetness was a
ch rtist, and belonged to the South Ila.l district,
and paid the subciiptiau required from the members.
Bel-eyed that Londcn was divided into differ:ut chartist
districts, and they all had means of communicating with
each other, and the secretaries gave them notice of any in-
tended meeting. At times handoills were openly di•tributed,
but ion Awe). Each district had a delegate. The meeting
in question was placarded publicly. Believed that in every
district there were captains of different bands of chartists.
He wa• standing about six feet f.om the speakers, and there
were only a sew boys botore him. There wll3 very little
noise. before he talked 'shout the Emperor of Austria being
obliged to fly, Fused' was talking *bout the government,
and relit% that it ought to be chanced. Could not recollect
what was teed about the Queen, hut he knew that something
was said, and he believed he spoke in favour of royalty.
Heard hint speak of John Mitchel, and heard him
say that he was an injured man; but he did not re-
collect that he said anything about ita being the duty of
Irishmen to rise and revenge the insult. If Fussell had
recommended private assassination be should have
di-owned him. He could not say whether Fugal
referred to his five sons directly after he had alluded to the
Emperor of Austria. Witness accompanied the procession
for a short distance. There were a great number of people,
but he should not think there were so many as 40,000. lie
heard Williams speak of the aristocracy, and saw him
give the signal for the mob to fall in. Did not hear
M'Cartby say that now was the time for them to strike the
blow, but he was es near to him as he waa to Fussell.—Re-
examined He belonged to a reform association 27 years
ago. (A laugh.)
Michael Weeden deposed that he was also present at the
meeting, and he heard Fussell say that he had five sons, and
he would disown them if they did not revenge him if he was
served as John Mitchel had been by the government. He
also said that an apparently strong government might be
easily omelet, and added that althoegh the Emperor of
Austria was surrounded by military and police, the threat of
private assassination had made him fly.—By the Attorney-
General: Would swear that Fussell never used the words
private assassination in any other sense. It was a very quiet
meeting as compared with others ho had seen in Clerken-
well. 'Witness was a chartist, and belonged to the Finsbury
district, but he was not aware of the number belonging to
their lodge. Had known Fussell four or five years, and be-
lieved he had five eons.

George Wasey raid he was also at the meeting, and war
about tea yards from the van and heard Fussell's speech:;
and he asserted that the word " assassination" was only used
in reference to the flight of the Emperor of Austria.-By the
Attorney-General : He did not hear the words private assas-
sination made use of, and if they had been he was
confident he must have heard them. Witness was not