The Express.
London, England, 1859-06-28 00:00:00

s•ucaadhl as a betting man, and local= permed of a ton•
siderabis sato of matey. lo 1357 he waked by accidist
into a jeweller's shop, in Great Qesen-street,
which wee at that time kept by the defendant, and bought •
Unlock. Thin led to a little con% creation, and afterwards the
partite beams intimate. Tbs defendant introduced the
plaintiff to Cremorue, and to theatres, sad there ware hill
traaaactions between them. the plaintiff was enabled to
take up his bill., and he also but the defendant waxy. Oa
April 13, 1869, the damndest gave the I.lsictiff an I 0 l 7 for
4901.; on the 4th of May the. plaintiff called at the defendsat's
shop, when the defendant nude out his claim for 137/. Ids. M.
for goods supplied, leaving duo the talent* now claimed.
In the course of the azaagaatios of the plaintiff it appeared
,hat a great mat of mounts were involved in the ease; and
than was also a cross action. In addition, it was imputed
that the 1 0 t i• question wee a forgery.
Under these circutettancee a supped= of his lordship
was accepted, and both actions were refereed to arbitration.

!HMIS V. N%ILKI:sSON.—LIII2.L.

This was as action fur damages for libel, and the only pint
was not guilty.
Mr. Rankine and Mr. C. Pollock appeared for the plain-
tiff, and Mr. Lush and Mr. Watkins William for the de-
fendant._

The plaintiff was a clergyman of the church of England,
and the defendant was the registered proprietor of the At-
(iota kigaisdard newspaper. The plaintifi hd been curate to
the Rev. Mr. Drummond, of Sr. Thomas's Episcopal Chapel,
Edinburgh, bat in 1864 their connexion tirroinsted in con-
segue:nos of some diopute which bad srisen. The merits el
the dispute were awed on one side and the other In grin;
and in 1868 the plaintiff published a pamphlet called "Truth
Vindicated." A review of this pamphlet wee written by the
Rev. W. W. Datican, and forwarded to the defendattes=
A eopy of this review wee also sent to the plaintiff by
Campbell, a contributor to the detendant's paper. fine was '
informed that it would he printed. The plalntiff at this time
was about to publish • third edition of hie pamphlet. He In-
serted among "Opinions of the Press" extract• from the
review forwarded to him by Hies Campbell. This review
contained some Aron remarks in reference to the Rev. Mr.
Drummond, but some of the epithets used were cut out be-
fore the copy was inserted fa the paper. The plaintiff having
made his extracts from the copy sent to him by Miss
Campbell and not from the paper, they were of course hoar-
mot, and on the 6th of Mar t an article was inserted which
imputed to the plaintiff that he had wilfully garbled the =-
trick. This was the Itbel complained of. The plaintiff's'
counsel, in cmclusioe, laid that his client only wished to
vindicate his charade:, and did net seek fir Isrge damages.
Under tbe.e circumstances It was suggested by the jay
that the parties could probably arrange their differencee.
The coues-1 en both sides endeavoured to carry out this
suegeetion, but after a good deal of discussion they failed.
The defendant's counsel said he was prepared to maks a
fall and ample apology to the plaintiff, and to withdraw any
imputation opal his character.
A question remained se to how the costs were to be paid,
and upon that the patties could not agree; and the trial oms-
serntly went on.
His lordship in gumming up directed the jury that if they
believed that the article Is question was written with the
honest intention of meintaining the troth, and that the strong
language was seed without any corrupt motive, then they
were at liberty to find for the defendant. In support of thin
ruling his lordship quoted the language of Lord Elknbo-
rough, who said that a plaintiff complaining of libel was
bound to show that the defendant was actuated by malice,
and that the defendant could theoherge himself by proving
the contrary.
Thejury found • verdict he the defendant.

THE WOLVERHAMPTON NEW WATERWORKS COMPANS