The Express.
London, England, 1860-07-24 00:00:00

THE POLICE COURTS.

Darid Wens* Job;onwas---42aTne7amined on the charge
of writing and publishing defamatory and malicious libels
against Sir James Fergusson, M.P. for Ayrshire.
After the examination of a warder at the Home of De-
tention to prove the delivery of mane verses addressed to
Lady Fergusson, Sir James was examined.
Mr. Humphreys—Did you while in Scotland receive the
envelope and enclosure marked ABC from your wife, lady
Edith Fergusson.
Sir James—l did ;on the 20th of last June.
Mr. Humphreys—Now, I ask you, is there the slightest
atom of truth in the statement that you ran away from the
trenches before debutopol ; in the statement that you hays
robbed defendant of his patrimony ; is there, in fact, any
tntth in any statement that he has made concerning you?
Sir James—There is not the slightest ground whatever
for anything he has alleged against me. There iv only
this amount of truth in the whole; he rays in hie letter to
Mr. Disraeli, "There was not the slightest pretext for the
imputation, inasmuch as no one acquainted with the cir-
cumstances under which Sir James left the Crimea (reel for
the discharge of his parliamentary duties) so soon as fiOt-
ing became serious, &c.," and the only truth in that is I left
the Crimea because I had a few months before been elected
• member of parliament.
Mr. Humphreys—And von left, I believe, not only with
the consent but by the advice of your commanding officer?
Sir James—Yea ; and not only by his advice but also by
that of General Simpson and Lord Raglan.
This closing the examination in chief, defendant put the
following questions to the witness :
DefeWant—Do yon persist in your statement that I was
not Mrs. Nuinythe's brother?
Sir Jams—Y have since been informed you are ; but was
not aware of it till lately.
Defendant—When did you ascertain that ?
Sir James—Since the last time I charged you here ; while
you were in the House of Detention.
Defendant—Your uncle was married to Mrs. Naamythe's
daughter, my niece, was he not?
Sir .James--He was.
Defendant—You say von were in the Guards in the
Crimea ; what regiment did you belong to?
Sir James—The Grenadier Guards.
Defendant—Were you present at the battle of the Alma?
Sir James—l was.
Defendant—Did you order your regiment to leave the
field ?
Sir James—l did not.

Defendant—When the order was given to the Z3rd
Fusiliers, " Fusiliers retire," in consequence of their being
cut up ; did you not tell your regiment the order was meant
for them, end tell them to leave the held!
Sir James—l did not.
Defendant—Did you not try to make them retreat?
Sir James—l .lid not.
Defendant—Do I understand you to swear positively to
that ?_

Sir James—At so distant a period it is hard to say what
orders were given. I remember various orders coming down
the line ; but do not remember giving any such order. I
was not in a position to do so. I was commanding no one.
I was merely • subaltern in my own company. All I can
my is undoubtedly the Guards never did retire a single foot
on that day, either by my command or any one else's.
Defendant—Do you mean to my your men did not pre-
vent you retreatiog, and refuse to quit the field?
Sir James—Nothing of the sort took place. I do not
know why I should answer all these questions. Ido not
see why the Alma need be brought up.
Mr. Humphreys also objecting,
Mr. Arnold said he could not now put a stop to such
questions, as Mr. Humphreys had himself thrown open such
a large field for cross-examination. He (Mr. Arnold) would
have stopped such questions long ago, as being irrelevant to
the charge, had not Mr. Humphreys opened the door for
them by his examination in chief.
Mr. Humphreys said he had done so because he considered
every man prosecuting in a case of libel was upon his trial
as it were. He had, therefore, put such questions to his
client in order that he might answer anything asked of him,
and himself show that there was no truth in what the de.
fendsnt had alleged, and that he wished to court every
inquiry.
Mr. Arnold suggested that Mr. Jobson should reserve
his questions till the trial.
Defendant said he had only a few more to put, which be
preferred asking the prosecutor now.
The cross-examination was then renamed as follows :

Defoodant—Tioeu you did not leave the field of battle ?

Sir James—No.
Defendant—lf the privates of your regiment say you did,
is that true or false ?

Mr. Arnold—You cannot ask that ; it is not evidence.
Sir James—The only circumstance I can all to mind
which could have given rise to such an aspersion upon
my character was -my company was what was termed
the light company, and the order was given them to wheel
back to oppose some Russians who had outflanked us. I
remember giving the word "Front turn,* in order that my
company should not go too far, and should turn upon the
enemy, but I don't think such a trivial thing would have
been remembered. . _ _

Defendant—Did you not quit the trenches under the cir-
eumetences mentioned in the verses (one of the libels I am
charged with)?
Sir Jams—l don't know which of the verses you refer to.
Mr. Arnold—You must read the verses you want to draw
the witness's attention to.
Defendant then read as follows :
"This place is'nt Wife, the balls fly about,
Perhaps I shall catch a flea in my ear ;
He trembled on hearing a Russian shout,
And added ' Young Firrgasson shall not lodge here.'
With that he led home some bold fighting men,
As gallant as England ever sent forth ;
Men who would fight again and again,
Unless led by this vile cur of the North.
The gallant old Guards of England were thus
Constrained to retire when on conquest they reckoned ;
And what has been often the cause of a ' muss,'
Abandon their grog to the brave Fortpsecond."
Sir Junes-1 no answer that I never left the trenches
under any suck circumatancea
Defendant then read two or three more verses, and was
very desirous of going on with them, when
Mr. Arnold interrupted him by stating that, if desirous,
he could read them at his trial; and—
Sir James solicited him to draw his attention to any par-
ticular rem, and he would willingly answer it.
Defendant then inquired whether he denied the truth of
the contents of the verse& generally ; and Sir James an-
swered that he most unequivocally
Defendant—Did not your soldiers, as I have said in the
Verses, abandon their grog to the 42nd?
Sir James—They did ; they never retreated at all
I during the whole of the time I was in the Crimea.
Defendant—Did you not either cause these *ems to be
stolen from my lodgings or picked from my pocket?
Sir James—l did not.

Defendant—Did you inform Mr. Inspector Bray, of the
A division, in attendance at the House of Commons, that
you had got those verses?
Sir James—One day while in the house the inspector on
duty aims to me and said a person named Jobson was in his
room and wished me to be taken into custody ; I think
upon charges of theft and perjury. The inspector
said of course he would soon get rid of him,
hut wanted to know what was to be done, as he had been
there before several times, makmg • similar request. I
said, " I don't want to know anything about him ; he has
for • length of time given the great annoyance, and has sent
• copy of impnxper vanes to my wife, for which I intend to
prosecute him.
Defendant—Are you aware that I expressed my regret
at your wife receiving those verses? Did I not say so in •
letter to you
Sir James—l am not I received • letter from you, the
language in which was an aggravation of your former
offence.

-----
Defendant here put mayoral questions respecting his patri-
mony, to which Sir James moat emphatically replied, " I
never received 'farthing of yours in my life—not a farthing
of yours in any way whatever."
Defendant then put some questions relating to a letter
he had written to Sir W. Dunbar, when Sir James replied,
as before, that be understood from Sir William that he Lad
liken no notice of
' ' ' " " •

After some further questions irrelevant to the issue,
Mr. Humphreys said be would now uk for a remand, for
the depositions to be formally prepared.
Defendant interposed. He submitted that there was no
commode out against him. There was no publication of
what was termed libel but what had proceeded from Sir
James himself, and if he had thrown the document in ques-
tion into the fire when he received it, there would have
been an end to the matter.
Mr. Arnold said there mu the offence of two publications
of the libel, by giving it to the warder and of publishing it
to Lady Iseguason.

linportd.
Sooen—Weillndle. Amin 4.213
Menrition bop 1,246
Viand Maim bap 2,224
Foreign .... 12,211
.....
Corns—Wl. l2
Mocha
Ceylon
00004—W.1. bags 100
Foreign begs 214
. ...... 749

ht.cki

4,1117
12.916
4,616

24,823
177,434
9:1,Q0

{ sex'
mot
1 =Au

8,415 I, see,sas 11111,634
14 ' 4.10 I 641
150 3,042 1 3,556
2,351 24,091 42,511
254 8,052 110,862
101 0,637 1 4,236
1,031 34,462 ' 29,775

TALLOW.—Tbe tallow market remains without anima.
tion. There is a good spot demand, but very little doing
speculatively. From Petersburg the market is quoted
steady, at 50 re. spot, sod 493 August. The exchange,
351 to j, being rather higher. The make of town tallow
continues very short ; small parcels are to be had at
525. 6d. net auih, but there is but little offering. Our
closing prices are :—Y. C. on spot, 525. 9d. to 535. ; Sep.
tember to December, 525. 6d. to 9d. ; separately, 525. 9d
to 535. ; January to March, 53e. ; South Ameriasn, 535. ;
Lt pipes, 525. yellow ; palm oil, 455., fine Lagos ; Cocoanut
oil is firm at 47a 6d. Cochin ; 465. to 6d.anCflon ; Sydney,
425. 6d. to 445., leas 2) per cent. dia. ; ro fat, 21. 93d.
—(From the circular of Messrs. Smith Charles, dated
Monday evening.)

CORN.—Caa JrLr 21.—We had s limited supply
of wheat this morning, which sold readily at fully last
week's rates. Barley and oats in average supply ; prima
much the same as last week. Wheat, white, new and old,
221. 6d. to 245. ; red, new and old, 225. to 235. Barley,
new and old, 16s. to 16s. &L Oats, potato, 12s. to
12a. 6d. ; common, 10s. to lls. 6d. Rye, 16s. 6d. to
17s. Beans, 20s. Flour, per stone, In. 2d. to 2a. 4d.
Oatmeal, per stone, 2s. 4d. to 2s. 6d. Ryemeal, per stone,
ls. Bd. 13arleymeal, per stone, le. W.

CATTLE.—LrriarooL, JULY 23.—The supply is much the
woe am hut Monday. The demand very good, at rather
higher mow for beef and lamb ; mutton without altera-
tion. Beef, 6d. to 71d. per lb. ; mutton, 7d. to Bd. per
lb. ; lambs, 255. to 38s. each. Numbers at market—cattle,
1,601 ; sheep and lambs, 13,150.