The Express.
London, England, 1860-06-16 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEA&-JU 15.

Sittings at Nisi Prins in Ifickikeez.—(Before Lord add
Justice Erie and a Special Jury.)

FARM r.
This was an action against the Daily Telegraph to recover
damage' for two alleged libels published in that paper, and
the only plea was not guilty.
Mr. Ribton and Mr. lawrenoe appeared for the plaintiff;
and Mr. Edwin James and Mr. Manley with for the de-
fendant.

---711reTplaintiff was a marine storedealer in business in
Bromell a passage, High-street, Clapham ; and on the
14th September, 1859, a report appeared in the defendant's
newspaper, headed " GM.all—Encouraging Servants to
rob their Matters. Alderman Humphery, at the close
of the public business, drew oar reporter's attention to the
following extraordinary handbill, which he said had been
extensively circulated in the neighbourhood of Clapham, a
system which he stigmatised as most pernicious in its
effects, se offering great inducements to servants to rob
their masters and mistresses. Ile mentioned the matter
in order that the publicity of such an insidious proceeding
might put the masters on their guard against such practices.
The handbill contain, such • number of unheard-of per-
quisites that we give it in extenso." The plaintiff's bill
then followed ; it principally consisted of an enumeration
of a great amber of articles which the plaintiff purchased
in the way of his trade. The following day a lengthy arti-
cle appeared in the paper, which contained the following
Footmen, kitchenmaills, boys in buttons, foolish
fr:Cre scallions even ; are you aware that the philosopher's
stone awaits your acceptance, that the sands of Pactolus
are eager for your trams!, that you may sweep up gold dust
with far greater eras) than your housewife by brooms chase
tea-leaves over carpets, that nuggets of unquestionable size
and in preternatural plenty are to be had for the asking at
that dirty little den of a shop round the corner ; that all
your fortunes may be made in five minutes. Servants, then,
listen to the words of wisdom," &c.
A good deal of difficulty was experienced in proving the
publication of the libel. The attorney'■ clerk had lost his
copies of the newspapers, but another witness and he had
purchased a copy of the paper at Clapham. A copy of the
handbill was also produced.
Mr. Jams submitted that it was n to prove the
purchase of • paper at the premises of the efendant, or to
produce the copy from Somerset-house.
After some discussion, the point was reserved for the
Court.
The plaintiff was called, and examined and cross-examined
at some length as to the mode in which he carried on his
business.

In the meantime a clerk arrived from Somerset-house,
and produced the copies of the paper deposited there.
Kr. Edwin James addressed the jury on behalf of the
defendant, but called no witneeses.

The I ord Chief Justice, in summing up, said that the
plaintiff was not entitled to recover damages, unless he
showed that the defendant was actuated by malice ; but by
malice he did not mean any private ill feeling, but that the
defamatory publication was put forward without the oc-
currence of any of those circumstances which the law con-
sidered justified the publication. Ile particularly drew the
attention of the jury to the fact, that the alleged libels con-
tained no reference to the plaintiff at all as a private indi-
vidual, but simply drew attention to, and commented on,
the supposed tendency of a bill issued by the plaintiff.
Without the slightest imputation upon the plaintiff, he must
say that the plaintiff earned on a business which was likely
to place him in doer proximity with thieves ; though he had
knowledge of persons in that business who had been always
ready to render every assistance io the police. It was im-
portant, on the one hand, to allow our press all proper
liberty, but on the other, it was the duty of juries to take
ears that the limite of propriety were not exceeded. It was
entirely within the province of the jury to say whether these
publications were libellous, and if so, what damages the
plaintiff watentitled to.
The jury found a verdict for the defendant ; and on the
application of the defendant's counsel, his lordship certified
for a special jury.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT.—JuNz 15.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Nichols.)
11 THOICLIS COIDZY.

This insolvent, an elderly man, well known as an &dyer.
twins hone seller, was opposed by Mr. Snood for Captain
Philip Pinckney, at Amesbury, Salisbury, on the ground of

This was the insolvent's " fourth " appearance in the
mine character. In 1832 be was before the court, and on the
complaint of Viscount buratto was remanded for 9 mouths
for fraud. In 1853 he petitioned under the Protection Act,
but did not get his protection till 1858. He again petitioned
under the 'Prison Act in 1858, and in Feb., 1859, on the
complaints of several gentlemen, who became acquainted
with him through advertisements, he received a judgment
of six months. At the time of his last appearance he was
supposed to be in a dying date. He had, however, recovered,
and in October hat, through an advertisement, he sold to
Captain Pinckney a horse, described as • "good hunter,"
with • warranty, for SOL The horse was returned in a few
days, sad the insolvent promised to " send his draft." Out
of the 301., the insolvent said he had given 241. to • livery
stable keeper, who was now dead.
Mr. Sargood described the insolvent as being connected
with others in victimising the public through advertise-
ments by gelling unsound horses.
Mr. Commissioner Nichols said he was bound by the en.-
deuce, and as neither Captain Pinckney nor his servant had
by an examined, be could not say that a case of fraud had
been committed. Neither could he import into the present
application his pest history in the court. As the evidence
stood lie was bound to discharge the insolvent. He was
accordingly discharged.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Bramwell.)

Rre Bennett, 40, was indicted for wilfully, malicioualy,
and feloniously setting fire to a house, with intent to de-
fraud the Pinknix Insurance Company.
Mr. Baron Bramwell summed up the e►idence with great
clearness and impartiality, and the jury, after deliberating
for a innsidemble time in the box, expressed a wish to
retire. . .

They left the court at twenty minutes }not Ave o'clock,
and in about three-quarters of an hour they returned into
court and found the prisoner Guilty, but recommended her
strongly to mercy.
Mr. Sleigh Informed the court that about two years ago
the premises of the prisoner's husband were destroyed by
Are, and the prisoner made a skim of 220 f. upon the County
Fire-office, but tbe circumstances were so suspicious that
the claim wits resisted, and it was eventually compromised
by the husband receiving the sum of 901.
Barra Bramwell, in passing sentence, aid that he agreed
with the verdict, but he at the same time thought it was
proballe that she was merely the instrument of another.
His could not, however, treat such an offence lightly, and
the sentence upon her would be that of four years' penal
servitude.

THE POLICE COURTS.
GUILDHALL. _

Henry Cooper, a biio;;;;(1shoe manufacturer, of 10a,
Great Cambridge-street, Hackney, and Pownall.termes,
Dakdon, was charged under the Bankrupt Law Consolida-
tion Act of 1849, with obtaining goods on credit within
three mouths of his bankruptcy, under the false pretence
of aiming on business in the culinary coarse of trade, with
'Meat escheat and defraud hiscrediton.
Mr. Turner, of the firm of Sole and Tamer, of Alder.
manbury, stated that the creditors, on learning that the
bankrupt bad left his home, traced him to Liverpool, where

they found he was on the eve of departing for New Z..,
land, having taken a passage for himself and his brother on
board the horthern Bride, from which vessel he was takcel
with money in his pomession to the amount of about :vvv.
Goixla marked with the initials of the name he had le,.
sniped were also found on board to the value of about 700 f ,
and brought away, so that the estate would probably pay'
20a. in the pound ; but the creditors nevertheless felt it
was a case which ought to be prosecuted under the Matta.,
as a fraudulent bankruptcy.
Evidence was given of the purchase by the bankrupt of
goods to the amount of 30f. within the last three Dimities
and the further hearing was adjourned.