The Express.
London, England, 1866-03-06 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.-rCus,oan, lawn &

The commission of assize for the canalyol Essex wen
opened to-day. There are about the usual number of
prisoners for trial, but the treat majority of the caam ap-
pear to be of an •ordieary character. The °ply charge of
public interest is one matelot a farmer of having abet at a
gentleman concocted with the county as he was following
the hounds across his land, which appears to have created a
good deal of interest in the county. The cause list will not
be published until to-morrow (Tuesday) morning, and it is
not expected that there willbe many causes entered.

MIDLAND CIROIJIT.—WARvaci, Mince 5.
Nisi Palos Couirr.—(Seten Ma. Justin Shea)
FILL V. anima.—Llß=
Mr. I)igby Seymour, Q. 0.. and Mr. Fit:lames Stephen
for the plaintiff ; sad Mr. fierjeuit Hayes and Mr. Field for
the defendant.
Mr. B. Seymour, in opening the case, remarked that the
libel complained of was singular in many respect. on ac-
count of its character and the relation formerly subeistieg
between the plaintiff and defeadast ; the circumstances
under which the libel was spoken and subsequently printed.
At the time the libel was spoken the defendant was the
vicar of Cabbington, sear Warwick, and the plaintiff, a far-
mer, was one of his parishioners, and held his glebe farm.
The defendant entered his living is 1855, and °optioned
the duties until last year, when he resigned. Ia 1860 the
plaintiff did not pay his rent punctually, and • rumour to
that effect was circulated in the village, and plaintiff woe
told by the vicar that it must have arisen with his butler.
The defendant thee directed plaintiff's attention to a to
affecting the chancier of • married woman living is a
cottage on the glebe, farm, and told him he ought to in-
quire into the matter, which the plaintiff refused to do.
At another interview, the defendant demanded an apology
from the plaintiff for " coutradicing his vicar," which was
refused, and the plaintiff received notice to quit the farm.
The libel wee uttered from the pulpit by the defendant on
the 24th Sept., 1865, and was as follows :—" But some
men will say—some of the many strangers now present wOl
ask, is there not a cause for all this opposition!
I have not come into collision with • angle men is the
parish on any subject of business save a fanner tense at
the glebe farm, with whom I bad sever an implement
word, aid for whose convenience I had 'pest • large sem et
mosey, and to whom, ea his landlord, I had sever refused a
favour until he insulted me. This rasa told me in my own
house, without any provoostioa es my part, that he per-
posely did sot stop, but rather sneoursged the els of adul-
tery under the roof of my own cottage, beanie lee buoy
that by so doing he should annoy me. These are his ova
woods. 'gave him eves7opportnnityof riszactiaginich words,
but as be refused to do ss, and persisted is' his iniquitous
work, I tuned him out of the farm. 'The Lard e be-
tweet him and me.' That same wicked, yisg farmer, aided
by a neighbouring one, as I am informed, is striving to
empty Cubbington Church at this vary moment, by helping
to put falsehoods into the Leamington newspapers against
me. `The Lord judge between him sad me.' * The de-
fendant bad printed and circulated the sermon containing
the libel, and had to-day pleaded "not guilty, and a justifi-
cation," the latter plea being in the declaration stated to be
that plaintiff had told him "he purposely did not stop, but
rather encouraged the sin of adultery, because he knew by
DO doing be should annoy the defendant.'
The plaintiff corroborated the entrain, of the leaned
eousesl.
Sedan. Hayes, on the part of the defendant, coat robed
that the defendant was justified in saying what he dide lad
that as the plaintiff had published various letters in • lewd
newspaper, athenteg the character of the defendsut and
his wife, he weld only be actuated by vindictive f=
in the present action. He admitted that the nv.
man bad spoken more warmly than he himself sea maks
moments approved.
The defendant and several witoesaes were called, who con-
tradicted the statement of the plaintiff in various parties-
less.
The jury returned • verdict for the plaintiff, with as.
farthiag demagog. The case lasted the whole day, sad
excited considerable interest.