The Express.
London, England, 1860-06-02 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sittings in Banco.—(Before Lord Chief Baron Pollock,
and Barons Martin, Bramwell and Cliansell.)

filifillAL BEAMON r. 11/LEVE -rAPORTABIT 1111=11110N.
This was an action for shouter, tried last Hilary Term,
before Mr. Baron Bramwell, wheu tie jury returned a %er-
diet for the defendant.

Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., Kr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr.
Gray were counsel for the plaintiff ; Mr. Borill, Q.C., awl
Yr. Garth were counsel for the defendant.

The slander complained of was the speaking of certain
words by the defendant, our consul at .tleppo, mtlecting
on General Bernson's conduct as an officer and COMOIII3 ler
of the Bashi Bazooka, and imputing to him that he ha I e n-
&avowed to induce the officers and men to mutiny
in his favour and against the general officer who
had been appointed by Lord Panmtue to super-
sede him in the command. The defendant was
our civil commissioner attending General Vivian's
corps, who directed General filth ley to report to him the
state of General Beatson's troops, and at the same time he
wrote to the defendant to give General Shirley such informa-
tion as he possessed with reference to it. The defendant
accordingly wrote a letter containing the slander com-
plained of, and afterwards admitted its contents, and that he
would take the responsibility attaching to it. It was ad.
mitted that the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict unless the
defence set up was a valid one, viz., that it was a privileged
communication. In the following term the plaintiff obtained
a rule nisi for a new trial, which was subsequently
argued, and upon which the court was then called
to give judgment. The rule was obtained upon three
grounds—first, that the learned judge declined to compel
the production of certain documents; secondly, misdirec.
tine ; and thirdly, that the verdict was against evidancel
On the trial Mr. Baron Bramwell held that he was not
bound to compel the Secretary of State for War to
produce certain documents called for, which, if
he were to, would be injurious to the public service. The
court held in giving judgment this morning that as the
Secretary for War personally attended and stated that in
his opinion their production would be prejudicial
to the public good, that the judge need not compel
their production, but that if a subordinate was
sent with documents on a trial with an order only to object
to their production, as in the case of " Dickson v. the
Earl of Wilton," the judge could make and compel
the party so attending to produce theta. If in this
ease the learned judge had compelled the production
of the document., and an objection had been taken
to it on the other aide, the court would have granted a new
trial on the application of the defendant on the
ground of the improper reception of evidence, becau,o
seven of the letters referred to on the trial
were written before the slanderous words said to
have been spoken were uttered, and also that the
notes of evidence taken before the Military Commissionem
were not proved, and could not be received in evidence. With
regard to the other points of misdirection, and that the
verdict was against the weight of evidence, the court saw
no ground for disturbing them, and therefor, the rule
would be discharged. _

Mr. Baron Martin said he was not quite of opinion with
the court on the broad principle with reference to the
non-production of documents by the heads of public de-
partments ; but in this case he was of opinion the learoal
judge bad no right to order the production.
Mr. Hawkins salted the court for leave to appeal against
the decision.
The court said they would consider that point.

Rule fora new trail wait diathargel

THE POLICE COURTS.
(THIS DAY.)

WOREHIP43TREET.
• RESOLUTE WOMAN.

Pumas Mon, 17 years of age, well dreamed, but describing
himself as a labourer, waa charged before Mr. D'Eynconzt
with being concerned in a burglary and robbery at the house
of Mr. George Beale, residing in Oval Cottages, Hackney.
road.

The wife of the prosecutor stated that on the previous
evening site had occasion to enter the hones of a neigh-
bour, and on returning, after a brief stay, she was
astonished to ace the prisoner in the act of Fatting
out of the parlour window. When be haul de.
sanded she sprang upon and collared him, but while
struggling to retain her hold another man sprang from the
window and climbed up against her with such violence that
her grasp gave way and she staggered. Both men took ad.
vantage of this, and made off. A pursuit consequent
upon her outcry followed, hut they escaped. Sin.
gularly enough while in the Hackiwy•niad • few hours
afterwards she saw the prisoner, end immediately identi-
fying him, followed until she met a constable, when she
again seised the prisoner and charged him with having been
in her dwelling.
The constable in charge of the ease said that when given
into custody he merely said very well, or very good.
Prorecuttis, in answer to the magistrate's repeated gam.
tioning, swore most distinctly to the prisoner's identity, but
the accused positively denied that he was ut allconcerned in
the burglary.
Mr. D'Evncourt remanded him.