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

ILITIMI AT PIM PAWS AT

HAILIWILL P. !WALLET.-LIBEL.

Mr. Serjeant Wilkins, Mr. Bramwell. and Mr. H.
Browne appeared far the plaintiff; and Sir F. Thesiger, sad
Mr. Barnard for the defendant. .

Sir F. Thesiger, for the defendant, the printer and pub-
lisher of the Mffning Advertiser newspaper, said he was
auxions, in the fullest and most emphatic manner, to do
justice to the plaintiff, by consenting to • vesdiet in his
favour, and publicly acknowledging that there was no
foundation whatever for the charges which had been made
in the article which constituted the subject of the present
action. The charges, however, had not been gratuitously
made by the writer of the article in question, who wu
actuated, nut by private or personal, but public motives. In
March last some articles were published in the Morning
Advertiser on the subject of the law for the protection of
women from personal violence. Two or three arti-
des had already appeared, when a report was pub-
lished in the Times newspaper of some proceedings
at one of the police courts, by which it appeared
that the wife of the plaintiff had complained of
cruelty and oppression on the part of her husband. The
report in question appeared in the Tunes on a Tuesday,
but the Morning .Idoertiser did not insert it until the tol-
-1 lowing Saturday, when the article in question also appeared
following up previous articles on the same subject, urging
the necessity of a new law fcr the better protection of
' females from brutal violence. The case of the plaintiff's
was quoted as an illustration of the necessity of • change in
1 the law. The gentleman who wrote the article—t bar-
rister—did not know the plaintiff, and the police report
not having been contradicted, he treated the charge
against the plaintiff as true, and used the case as an illus-
tration of his arguments. Subsequently, however, pro-
ceedings had taken plate in the Consistory Court, by
which it appeared there was not the slightest foundation
for the charges which had been made by the plaintiff's wife,
and that the plaintiff was a gentleman of great respecta-
bility, and had treated his wife with kindness. There was,
moreover, reason to be believe that the unfortunate woman
was labouring under some mental aberration.
Under these circumstances the plaintiff was justified in
adopting the course which he bad taken, and the ma-
' nagers 01 the newspaper were only anxious to do complete
justice to the plaintiff, and to withdraw all imputation on
his character. They were willing also to consent to such
an amount of damages as should indemnify the plaintiff
against all costs.
Mr. Scrjeant Wilkins, on behalf of the plaintiff, accept( d
the apology, end was glad to be spared the necessity of dis-
closing a series of domestic transactions of the most painful
character. Ile had most carefully gone through the care,
' and was satisfied that there was not the slightest ground
for the imputations which had been cast on the plaintiff.
Under the direction of the learned Judge, the jury then
found a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, Os.; and this
case closed the present sittings in Middlesex.

SECONDARIES COURT.-YESTERDAY.
1111101.11 NIL ItCONDMIT
HARPER V. WILLIAM.

This was a writ of inquiry to assess damages in as action
for an assault.

Mr. Serjeant Miller and Mr. Miller appeared for the
plaintiff. Mr. Locke for the defendant.
It appeared that on the day after the race for the Derby
in May last, the plaintiff and the defendant mit at the
Canonhury Tavern, Islington, which they were in the
habit of frequenting, and some conversation of a speculative
character took place as to the probable losses of the
Leviathan of the betting world, Mr. Davis, on that event.
Some angry words were exchanged, the defendant taking
the initiative, and subsequently the differences being
smoothed down, they tossed for a glass of brandy and
water. &dispute then took place es to whether the defendant
bad calVd right, the coin tossed with being a smooth worn
sixpence. It was referred to a third party who de-
cided against the defendant, who thereupon lost
his temper, and said they (the company presew)
were all a pack of fools and thieves together. The
plaintiff retorted, and when the defendant was about to
leave the room the plaintiff stood ep to prevent him and
said be should not go until he had apologised fur the bad
names he had called him and his friends. The defendant
refused to make any apology, and on the plaintiff persist-
ing he seized a poker and struck him across the bridge of
the nose, the effect of which stupified him, and he was 1.-d
home. A doctor was sent for' under whose care he re-
mained some days, and the bill for his attendance amounted
to 121. Ids. 6,1.

The medical man was called as a witness, and be stated
that the blow caused concussion of the brain , that serious
consrquerces might result from any future injury on the
tame past of the face; and that tho plaintiff'■ mtmory
would be affected fur the remainder of his life.

Mr. Lucke, in addressing the jury in mitigation of
damages, did not justify the assault, and urged that the
plaintiff had to thank himself fur what had taken place.
One was as bad as the other, and the plaintiff had no right
to prevent the defendant leaving the room.
The jury assessed the damages at 201.

COUlyr OF BANKRUPTCY.—YEsTasui.
111011 111. COMMISSION= YOSIBLANOVI.
IN DR BLAME AND COPE.-ACCuMNODATION DILLS.

His Honour gave judgment on a disputed proof which
had been tendered against this estate. The bankrupts,
being in but a small way of business, had aficepted largely
br the accommodation of a Mr. Wilson, who fillet and
compounded with his creditors ; and the party who now
sought to prove, Mr. Frew, was the holder of one of those
drawn by Wilson, accepted by Black and Cope, for
his accommodation, and indorsed by Wilson to the bolder.
The facts is the cue were admitted; and the only question
was, ',nether the rule in equity in respect of compositions
with accepters of accommodation bills, differed from the
rule at law—that rule being that such composition die-
charged the sureties. In support of the distinction the
leading case was " ll:parte Glendenning," decided by Lord
Eldon in 1819, in conformity with his previous judgment,
when Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, in " Laxton v.
Peat "(2 Camp. 185). That judgment was a peculiar one,
and it was evident that Lord Eldon did not rely upon the
soundness of the doctrine, but upon his finding it esta-
blished. In "Fusions v. Pocock" (5 Taunt., 192) it bad
been held by Chief Justice Mansfield that " Lexton
v. Peat" was not law; and Lord Eldoa himself seemed
ultimately to have assented to that view in a cue before
the House of Lords, " Bank of Ireland v. Beresford" (8
Dow., 234). Notwithstanding this, "Esparta Glenden-
ning" bad continued to be considered as an authority is
equity, and especially in the equitable jurisdiction in bank-
ruptcy; but about 1831 or 1832, the then Master of the
Rolls sent the case of "Harrison v. Courtauld" to the
King's Bench, in order to determine whether " Fentum v.
Pocock" was still held to be law; and the:resul was that
I the common law judges (Tenterden, Parke, Taunton, and
Patteson) concurred with Lord Eldoo, Sir J. Mansfield, and
Sir V. Gibbs, in overruling "Layton v. Peat," and sup-
porting IFentum:v. Pocock." Had the matter rested
there, he should certainly have tome to the conclusion that
the authority of " Ezpezte Glendenning" was over-
ruled also; but a more recent case confirmed that
view beyond dispute—the case "Manley v. Boy-
cott," (2 Etas and Blk., Q. 8., p. 46). Thinking
that this last ease put an end to all question, and that the
maxim," Equitas sequitur legem,' was good, and most
especially good in dealing with negotiable securities, which
were not only matters concerning persons in this kingdom,
but also all nations dealing with us, he held, that the
greater simplicity, and the less technical distinction there
was respecting such transactions the better. Sir V. Gibbs
had concurred with all the other judges in reprobating ac-
commodstion bills; and in his judgment in " Kerrison v.
Cooke." he said, "I am sorry the term accommodation
bill ever found its way into the law, or that parties were
allowed to get rid of the obligations they professed to con-
tract by putting their names to negotiable securities."
Every one concerned with the practice in that court must
concur in that opinion. Adopting that principle, and rely-
ing on the authorities be had cited, the proof must have
been rejected, had the indulgence been given to the acceptor
of the bill ; but, as it was the drawer of the bill from whom
a comeueition had been accepted, the proof must be ad-
mitted.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.-YESTEBDAY.