The Express.
London, England, 1860-07-17 00:00:00

THE POLICE COURTS.

David Weaves Johan' was further examined, charged
with publishing a libel upou Sir James Fergusson, P.
for Ayrshire.

Mr. Humphreys, jun., appeared for the prosecution, and
stated that he was now in a position to prove the publica-
tion of three distinct libels. Firstly, the publication of
certain verses (referred to on the first examination) to Cap-
taM Hill, Governor of the House of Detention, and also to
Jody Fergusson ; secondly, the publication of another libel
to Mr. Disraeli, and the publication of a third libel to Mr.
Honruan. It wee not absolutely necessary in law to dis-
prove • libel, lint he would state that ha should can Sir
James F to prove that there was not the slightest
truth in what the defendant had said, and he would also
call Lord Arthur Hay, Assistant Adjutant-General in the
Crimea, to speak to Sir James's conduct there.
Mr. Arnold did not see the necessity of doing so.
Mr. Humphrer observed that he merely publicly stated
it in ceder that it might be known that the defendant had
said and written what was wholly false. He would call
Lady Edith Ferguson), Mr. Disraeli, M.P., and Mr.
Horemen, M.P., and Captain Hill, to prove the various
libels.

Captain Frederick William Hill, governor of the House
of Detention, was then called, and identified an envelope
and paper addressed to Lady Fergusson, at 27, Chatham-
street. The paper was headed, " Song dedicated to Lady
Ferguson, and to be screamed six weeks hence through all
the streets of London. Tune, ' Have you heard of a jolly
young waterman r " and contained a number of venni of
• most low and scurrilous description, inipulMg gross
cowardice to Sir James Ferguesoe while in the trenches be-
fore Sebastopol, and corrupt motive, to Mr. Paynter, the
magistrate, by whom Mr. Jolson bad been committed for
bending • threatening letter to Sir James, one of the figura-
' Live expressions used being " buying a beak."
Captain Hill then repeated at length what in substance
has been already detailed in his information on oath pre-
viously published, that as governor of the gaol the envelope
and song were brought to him froe prisoner while under
imaffnement there upon the charge of threatening Sir James,
when he restored them to the accused, stating that be could
not forward them. Mr. Jobson pressed him to let them "O
as directed, and mid he did not see why they should not be
sent. Witness replied that he would not permit this packet
to be sent, us the content, were most offensive, particularly
am being addressed to • lady, adding, that whatever differ-
ence might exist between him (Mr. Jolson) and Sir James
Ferguson, his lady ought not to be included in it. Witness
had no hesitation in saying that the sung and envelope were
both in the accused'. handwriting. Had seen a great deal
of it.

Mr. Arnold wee of opinion that this was not • publication
of the libel to Captain Hill, as be had not received it from
the defeudatit. it merely coming under his eogunance in the
course of his duty as governor of the gaol.
Mr. Humphreys differed with his worship, but said he
would endeavour to supply the defect by producing the
warder to whom the accused gave the letter.
Mr. Jobson questioned the witness at some length to show
that all atters written by prisoners were inspected by him
or his deputy before they were allowed to be sent out se
directed, and having received an answer in the afErmative,
contended that as a prisoner had no alternative, it was an
involuatuy publication of anything he wrote. Mr. Job-
son then inquired whether the governor bad not re-
ceived a letter from him since his release from custody?
The governor replied that he had, and gave the pur-
port, which was that lie had lost the letter and song
a/luiled to, amongst other papers, out of his pocket, and
that he would be obliged to Captain Hill, if it fell into his
hands, to forward it to Lim, as, upon consideration, he was
glad the communication was not sent, as it contained severe
redactions upon Mr. Pander, the magi which he
should not now like to publish, as Mr. Paynstrate, ter seemed
diz to act fairly towards him.
Cyd Edith Fergueson was then called, and was about to
be sworn, when—
The accused said he objected to her giving evidence, as
it was contrary to our law for a lady to interfere in • pro-
secution in which Ler husband was concerned.

Mr. Arnold informed him that he WAS quite mistaken in
his view of the English law. The lady was a competent
witness for the crown. . . . .

Lady Fergussoo then stated that she received the packet
or envelope and song produced by post, at 27, Cheehatn..
street, on the 19th of June.
The original envelope containing the song hal boon en.
cloned in another, and upon the latter being shown to
tale Hill he said he did not think it was the•
handwriting.
Mr. Jolson put some irrelevant questions to her ladyeftip.
and was stopped by the magistrate.
Mr. Arnold then remarked that he must repeat then we
no evidence of publication of the libel to Captain Hill. nee
the slightest of the publication of it by the Accueed to Ledy
Fergueion,
Mr. Humplirove urged that the libel was in the accused's
handwriting, and was published in being scut through the
poet. He had no doubt lie should be able to ptodoce cams
so chow that such had been held to be publication by the
writer.

After some further legal discussion, renewed at the close
of the case,
The Right Ron. Benjamin Disraeli, M.P. Grervenor-
gate, Park-lane, was then called, and said—ina the 2nd of
June lag I received • this letter and envelope, !narked
" F. G."

Defendant—Have you been morn accordbxg to your
creed?

--
Witness— Certainly.
Defendant—How is you were not sworn according to
the Jewish persuasion, with your hat on!
Witness—l am a Christian, as you know and therefore
do not put my bat on while taking the oath:
Mr. Humphreys bore objected to the right hon. gentle-
man being insulted.
Defendant (to Mr. Disraelij—Have you not, since the
removal of the Jewish disabilities, returned to Abraham's
bosom! . .

Mr. Arnold mid he really must put a stop to such ques-
tions ;it was too late to ask them now. If the defendant
had wished to question the validity of the oath the witness
had taken he should have done so sooner.
Defendant—Then I will put this question to the witness.
Do you consider the oath you have just taken binding upon
your conscience?
Witness—l do. _ . .

Defendant—That is sufficient ; under those circumstances
it matters not whether you have abandoned or adhere to
your ancient faith. One more question. When you receive
• communication on parliamentary business, asking you to
discharge • duty, or undertake anything connected with
that duty as a representative in parliament, do you consider
yourself justified in showing that communication to the
party implicated?
- Witness —lt depends upon the character of the person
from whom each communication is received. In the pre-
sent instance the parson who wrote this letter had been in
the habit of seng me letters, some of a threatening
character, some of a scurrilous chara...-ter, all of a most ab-
surd character, and I, therefore, under the circumstances,
thought it proper to give the communication to the person
most interested in it, and accordingly gave it to Sir James
Ferguseon
Defendant—May I ask to whom you just now referred as
the person writing the letters Z
N 1 ituess—To yourself.
Defendant—You are getting exceedingly scurrilous in
your remarks.
Mr. Arnold—Be quiet, sir. You Lave brought a very
proper rebuke upon yourself.
Mr. Humphreys—Have you any more questions to put to
the witness ?

Defewdant—l could put many more, but am not allowed.
(To witness.) Have you ever written to me in answer to
my letters?
Witness—Never. My secretary may have acknowledged
the receipt of any communication sent.
Defendant—Did you not write to me while in New York,
thanking me for cutting up Lord Palmerston in the Fir
York liepalican &Tirol
Witness (with a smile)— I never did.
Defendant—Now, be caution', for I have letters at home
with the Exchequer seal upon them, which may be fetched
in half an hour. Do you persist in saying you have never
written such letters to me?
Witness---I never wrote to you in my life.
Defendant—Have you never authorised your secretary to
write to me? _ _

*itnes;Never. I never authorised any one to write ;
but it is possible secretaries may have acknowledged the
receipt of your letters.
Defendant—lt is not likely your secretary would, upon
his own responsibility, have written to thank me for cutting
up Lord Palmerston. Is not your reason for coining here
against me my having written long and biting articles upon
yourself
Witness—Not that I am aware of. I only know your
name by yqur having written various letters to me.
Defendant was then putting another offensive and imper-
tinent question to the right hon. gentleman, when
Mr. Arnold again saul he must put a stop to such
questions.
Defendant then wished to know what Mr. Disraeli was
called to prove, and what the charge against him was, for
be could not see the object of the evidence that was now
being offered.
Mr. Arnold said the present charge against him was send-
ing a letter to Mr. Disraeli containing a libel on Sir James
Fergusson, and Mr. Disraeli had been called to prove the
receipt of that letter.
Defendant asked whether the previous charge of writing
the verses had been abandoned?

Mr. Arnold replied it had not.
Defendant complained that he was totally unprepared
for this charge. He thought the charge against hini was
publishing a libel in the verses, and that Mr. Disraeli had
been called to prove finding the verses in the street ; and
such, on reference to his commitment, would be found to be
the charge on which he had been remanded.
Mr. Arnold intimated that since the last hearing two
other charges of libel had been preferred against him.
Defendant protested against say charge being brought
against him without his being communicated with upon the
subject.
Mr. Arnold informed him it was not at all necessary to
adopt such a course.
Defendant repeated that these charges bad been brought
upon him in an unexpected way ; he therefore felt himself
entitled to a little latitude in asking questions of the wit-
ness'''.

Yr. Arnold said he might ask anything pertinent to the
cue, but must not travel into matters quite foreign to the
question.
Defendant said, then he would ask whether the sending a
letter to any person in parliament, asking him to discharge
his duty by inquiring into another one • conduct, was im-
proper
. Arnold replied—Certainly, if the letter contained a
libel. . .

The letter sent to Mr. Disraeli having been identified by
Captain Hill as Iring in the defendants handwriting, the
parts containing the alleged libel were read.
After some conversation, Mr. Humphreys called
The Right Hon. Edward Horsman, M.P., Richmond-
terrace, who said—On the 11th of Juno I received the en-
velope and letter produced, marked "H. I. J." I pee it
to my secretary, whom I directed to answer it, and it sou
afterwards forwarded to Sir James Fergusra
Cross-examined by defendant—l am conceeted with the
Camperdown family by marriage. lam aware you after.
wards called. When f saw Sir James was before that.
The question put to Mr. Disraeli was here repeated, and
the right hon. gentleman answered—Sir James had told me
that he had been very much annoyed by the writer of this
letter (the one I hold in me hand), and under those cir-
cumstances I did consider it 'air to hand your communica-
tion to him.

Mr. Henry Robinson, S, Manchester-bulldinp, was then
called and said—l am secretary to Mr. Muumuus. In the
third or fourth week in June defendant called with respect
to the letter Mr. Horsman produces, and asked ins whether
I had answered hie communication, to which I replied in
the affirnuttive. He then desired me to tell Mr. Horsman
that he (defendant) would not have troubled him upon the
subject hart be been aware that he was connected with the
Campertlown
In answer to a further question from Mr. Humphreys, as
to whether Jobson had admitted writing the letter, witness
replied that it was inferred they were speaking about a letter
which he had himself written.
Captain Hill having again been called to prove that the
letter addressed to Mr. Horsman was written by the de-
fendant, the portion containing the alleged libel on Sir
James Fergosson was read.

This concluding the evidence, a very lengthened legal ar-
gument occurred, in the course of which 31r. Arnold thought
the larguage in the last letter relating to Sir James exces-
sively weak compared with the &bums levelled at everybody
else, and observed that it was a question for consider'.
tion if a man went to a member of parliament complaining
of wrong, and soliciting him to take up his case with a view
of redressing it, whether it was not a privileged communi-
cation. This oomplaiut involved a certain amount of detail,
and it was in explanation that language which certainly
could not be justified was used,

Mr. Humphreys 'quested that if there had only Seen
one letter sent avowedly for the purpose of seeking redress,
much would not, perhaps, have been thought of it, but this
was not an isolated case, and without the slightest founds-
lion for such aspersions defendant was libelling Sir James
in every direction.
Mr. Arnold pointed out that the law now gave Mr. Hum-
phreys the opportunity of ulna before a judge, who would
take the whole scope of the matter into consideration, sad

that coupe.

Mr. Humphrey* hoped, in the event of his producing the
warder required from the House of Detention, the magi-
strate would consider a sufficient cane made out to send the
whole of the charges before another tribunal, where the
judge would determine the point of law in question.
Defendant declared he had not been guilty of publishing
any libel. Letters were all inspected by the prison officers,
as was well known.

Mr. Arnold replied that if a man knew that, and sent
libellous matter that war, he published it. An assertion
of a grievance was a very different thing to an imputation
of cowardice, which no man had a right to make against
another. _ . .

--••
Some further argument occurred, in which Mr. Hum-
phreyibaaid that in indicting the amused. there would be •
count charging him with writing as well as publishing a
libel, a•d bwthought both indietmenta could be sustained.
Mr. Arnold said he would conoder the matter ; and de-
fendant was remanded fur a x erk, stating that be was
unable to tind the boil, small as it is in amount, required.