The Express.
London, England, 1858-05-03 00:00:00

tab, imetligince.

lIIWTROPOLITAM 00171 It 00171 MM
&halm days appotatod for tho roma male.
Owatonna, DWICSD-ternoc.—Mooday, 11117 3; WW2WU. ;
hid's. T.
Maar Mon, Marylekaisroad.—Monday, May and four followtog
"Larmt-n, Old ausitroad.—Monday, May I ; and 'Monday. &
VALI. Boroudh— ruceety. May 4, and too &A-
p.: benreil NeriZtd—TUNdin My
Ilursadab &
WILIIISWOSTII—T11•4•7.
oarLanus, Golldbad. Idings—Voaday, May , Tuesday,
May 4; Wodnasday, May b. FOUL& May 7.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.-MAT 1.

(811dap fa Samm.--Before Lord Campbell sad Justices
Me and Crompton.)

IX AAAAA DAVID VIICICHART.APZLICATION PDX A

CRIMINAL INFORMATION.

Mr. Edwin James said he was instructed to move for a
rule calling upon a person seined Carter, who carried on the
Devisees of a stationer and news agent at Riekmanawortb,
Hertfordshire, to show cause why a criminal information
should not be filed against him for publishing a libellous
account of the proceedings at a coroner's inquest, held in
February last, sod on which he acted se • juryman.
Lord Campbell—l suppose you move on the ground that it
was an mine account P
Mr. James—Yes, a garbled and untrue account. I make
the application on behalf of Mr. David Urquhart, who was
formerly secretary to the British embody at ConMentineph,
and also M.P. tor the town of Stafford. Mr. Urquhart
madam at Riverbed, near Rickmansworth, and on the 4th of
February lest a child of his, between 12 and 13 months old,
died. In his hoses Mr. Urquhart had what was called a
Turkish bath ; it wee Dodd with hot air, and was in use in
his badly, sad there wen affidavits to show its perfect pro-
. The child died hem convulsions, mated by teething.
gar
tislitid been placed in the bath occasionally, sad Mr. and Mrs.
Uniuhart stated in their affidavits that their other child
was subjected to the same treatment. It appeared
that the death of the child created great sensation in
the neighbourhood where Mr. Urquhart resided. An appli-
cation having been made to Mr. Cobb, of St. Alban's, the
surgeon, who attended the child, with a view to an inquest
being held, Mr. Urquhart wrote a letter to hint, setting out
all the circumstanoes connected with its death, and on the
4th of February Mr. Cobb replied by letter, thanking him
for the full details he had given, and stating that as the child
appeared to have been placed in the bath for waiter, treat-
mint, he did not think aa inquest was necessary. In oon-
sequence, however, of certain oommunications which were
made to the coront4, an inquest was held on the sth of Fe-
broszesat was adjourned to the Bth, and again to the 12th
it . Upon this inquest Mr. Carter sat, and being
11:ent the paper In which the report in question ap•
—the Buckinghamshire Advertiser, and the Uxbridge
osornal—he took notes of the proceedings, and sent them
to that newspaper for publication. Burnouts spread through
the neighbourhood that the child had been
killed, and I believe Mr. Urquhart was almost charged
murder. Mr. Carter took a most prominent part on the in-
quest, end the affidavits show that the reports printed in the
paper wen prepared and sent by him. My friend Mr.
Hawkins was retained to attend the inquest on the part of
Mr. Urquhart, and it to nearer, that I should direct the
Mention of the court to the mode in which the inquiry wee
conducted by the jury.
Lord Campbell—With a view to show that the account is
untrue, bemuse that is the only oonarlaration that can enter
into our addl. _ .

11r.Jamea-1 shall show that every pump of the im-
portant orearommination of the vitiation who were called to
smart the gorge was suppressed, and that a most unfair
mdmit amount of the imam* was given. The state-
immas seas by them in cross-examination conclusively
mewl diet lbe child died from 'Ware' calms, and yet the
whole of them have been omitted.

Lord Gumplell-1 have laid ft down that a word-tor-word
report is not esomeary, but that a report should be substan-
tially true, and there may be band in suppremion as much
Y i 0 f unntion. —

Mr. James proceeded to my that Mr. Westmeath, Mr.
Urquhares solicitor, attended the inquest, sad wrote down
mos. accurately what actually took plea, and he sat oat his
notes in his esdavit, and swore to than' accuracy. Oa War-
saw to these t would be found that the account la the
newspaper weeded and unfaithful, and there could beno
doubt that it had been written to enbeerve the views of some
of the jury in reference to Mr. Urquhart. The amount
stated that the jury found a verdict to the sand that William
Urquhart died, but that the evidence was usisatisictory as
to the cause of his death, and added that the pry highly tan_
eared the treatment of the deseseed. The pay, it seemed,
refused at first to allow Mr. Hawkins to crose-exatalae the
witnesses.

Mr. Justice Erie said he believed that in point of feet
nobody had a right to consider himself accused before a
weeper, and therefore Mr. Urquhart was not called upon to
defend himself.
Mr. Jamie said it was usual in modern times for counsel
to appear before coroner's juries, and in the present instance,
the max assumed the character of a charge of manslaughter
against Mr. Urquhart.
Lord Campbell—We cannot interfere in regard to the
13•12110/ in which the inquiry was conducted. The only
foundation for your motion must be that the account in the
newspaper was untrue.
Mr. James said the account was incorrect in stating that
the treatment of the deceased was highly censured by the
jury, their verdict simply being that the child died, bat
that the evidence was unamisfactory as to the cause of death.
He need not state that the cam had been the source of
pest misery and unhappiness to Mr. and Mrs. Urquhart.
Mr. Weetmacot stated In his affidavit that there was
peat etcitement on the pert of the jury, that some of them per
-
smelly brought forward witnesses, that they browbeated those
who gave evidence favourable to Mr. Urquhart, and openly
charged Mr. Urquhart with the death of his child, and
threatened to send him before a magistrate. He farther
said that they declined to receive the evidence of Dr. Todd,
ea eminent physician, who had been brought down from
London to see Om child. The report complained of con-
tained thaws words : " The body presented a very sad eight,
being covered with scars and blood ;" but there was sot a
word of truth in that statement. A witness explained at the
inquest that the small scar which appeared on the child wee
caused by its being put in hot blankets when it was seized
with convulsions, and this piece of important evidence was
'nepotism omitted from the newspaper report.
Lord Campbell observed that the description of the body
was not like a mow account of a judicial proceeding.
Mr. James said he further complained of the report be-
muse It did not give the eternization of a witness named.
Ertington. This witness said she believed that the treat-
ment did the greatest benefit to the child, and that the elder
child was subjected to similar treatment, viz., cold water and
a hot air bath, and it was a most healthy child, and never
had any illness. The witness added that the deceased child
had milk at six o'clock in this morning up to its death. The
jury improperly assumed that the hot air bath had been the
cause of the child's death.

lir.-iustice-71;1;—The witness is reported to say in her ex-
=hullos in thief, as it appears in the newspaper, that she
never saw Mr. Urquhart ill-use the child, and that the child
eesseed better whenever it took a bath.

Yr. Jsmrs .aid Mr. Urgahtrt was moot onxioos he he
fullest inquiry, but the jury refneed to allow either !dm or
his wife to Le examined. The learned mussel Una sated
that the report omitted the answer which =oar whom
gave to a juryman, to the effect that Mr. Urquhart Imo mat
Wid I. the child all the time she was In his minim

Mr. Justice Erie said he found that she stated in her ex-
amination In cbief, as it wee given by the newspaper, that
Mr. and Mrs. Urquhart seemed very fond of the child.
Mr. Janis then pointed out some other omissions in the
report, and said be had the affidavits of both Mr. and Mrs.
Urmthart, who denied that there was, from beginning to
esd, ea ill-treatment of the child on their part, or anything
ing to it. The death of the infant was a mourns el
Mrgr7;trat possible grief and sorrow to them, and In tisk
afiklavits they gave a fall history of its illness. Time were
also the stildints of several other pusnne who bed met the
bath, end were perfectly well sogoatntsd with it. It appeared
that the child was put into the bath at • tewpsestems not
higher than the temperature which well be poked b
w
rap in blankets—about 96, ths scary warmth
otmatiMaa body. Under them dresmstenoes the learned
esumml submitted that the repot is quoin s was a garbi•d,
=••• borrow among et Ur massy awl int he woo
I So a i lor • arbdral idamailua.
_ _ _ _

Led Cempheil bra se babe Own we se pawed hr ery
norlelee against either Mr. er Um Umbra, sr ire they
towed the child with pod ~ha, Heim, mil holder-
are. bat at the same time be was clearly of globs het
there wee no ground for the application. If the,. la hem
a pearl, rnaliciona amount of the coroner's inquest,
the aellience that bore against Mr. and Mrs. trrqdmattilij
suppressing the evidence which bore in their favour, teVal
have thought it most libellous, sad would not have
expeeming his opinion that a criminal informatics emphtle
he grestett, but Mr. James had not at all made oat =
tine. The only thing he (Lord Campbell) could
was the statement that "the body premiell a wry eel
sight, being covered with scars and blood." That wee cer-
tainly wrong; bat when they aims to the erkbece, and
compared the account given in the newspaper with the report
of the evidence as presented to this oourt arra oath, it
seemed, although it was not verbatim, to be perfectly fair
mid bona Me ; and therefore he thought they could wiping
• rub, in this caaa

Mr. Justice Erle said he wee also clearly of opinion, on
reeding the account, that there wait not the smallest ground
for the excitement which prevailed against Mr. and Mrs.
Urquhart. The whole tenor of the evidence showed that
they were persons who were engaged in the most honest and
aihetiowate meaner in the endeavour to alleviate the ill-
mss of their child ; but the matter the court had
M inquire into was whether there wee any ground for grant-
ing a criminal information by reason of the malice which ap-
peared in the statement in the newspaper. If the amount
woo Into, of course titers would be no ground for ths
sad it maned to him to eft substantially both
stated by the witnesses in their examination fa
olliefted in their arcas-exannuation No one was charged

before the coroner, It being hie dury only to inquire v-rho
IMO end if there weeany onus for regret In the
Kew of ele enen1111111111111111111; hletiOli punned at the *seek ;warp Kr.
Umingl weed leers hint (Kr. Judo, Erie) foe saying
thrd be bellied that rb sr; the fallow inveeti4petion,
sett Orbs wiry WWI& for dry to thole who had wle•
&Imp ea to the anus of death, end thus maim the KWh
to saw& eat deer, was the beet way to ably onetime% to
=tidy tam pimp* sad to restore himself to his parr pal-
tios la the 0011111116 of his nalghboan.
Kr. Judos Crolnyto =of the same opinion,
aggilostios vas