The Express.
London, England, 1867-08-23 00:00:00

ACTIONS AGAINST THE TA/Ii 07 RITTLAND TOR MALICIOUS

In the cause list there appears in consecutive order the
three special jury cases, " Pocklington v. the Duke of
Rutland," " Gee v. the Duke of Rutland," and "Cutts v.
the Duke of Rutland." The first of these came on for trial
about mid-day on Monday, and it then transpired that
besides the Duke of Rutland, Mr. Nesfield, the steward of
his grace's estates in Derbyshire, and a man named Ibbet-
son who formerly occupied Stonelow Farm, near Chester-
field, but ban now no fixed or well-ascertained residence,
were also defendants.

Mr. Seymour, Q.C. Mr. Maule, Q.C., Mr. Fitzjames
Stephen, Mr. Shepherd, Mr. Blackburn, and Mr. Cave for
the plaintiff ; Mr. Overend, Q.C., and Mr. Bristowe for
the Duke of Rutland ; Mr. Serjeant Hayes and Mr. Beas-
ley for Mr. Newfield, the duke's steward ; and Mr. Ser.
joint O'Brien foe Ibbetson.
The plaintiff in the first action was a contractor and
innkeeper at Sheepbridge, near Chesterfield ; in the second,
Mr. John Cutta, town clerk, of Chesterfield ; and in the
third, Mr. George E. Gee, a solicitor, who had served his
articles with Mr. Cutts. On the 30th March last year the
plaintiff heard that Stonelow Farm was to let. It was then
occupied by Ibbetson, but he had been engaged unsuocess-
fully in a lawsuit with the Duke of Rutland's game-
keepers and the duke's solicitors were pressing for pay-
ment of the costs by him, so that he was compelled to
leave the farm. Eventually, Mr. Pocklington (plaintiff)
took it, and paid 2041. 9a. 6d. for the property on the pre-
mises. Shortly after, the Duke of Rutland's solicitors and
vents distrained upon the farm for the costa due by Ibbot-
son, and that led to an action by Pocklington against
them, which resulted is his favour. On the 9th of No-
vember, however, Pocklington, as he was returning home
at night, was stopp on the Chesterfield road by a posse
of constables under the orders of Mr. Alsop, one of
the solicitors acting on behalf of the Duke of Rutland,
and apprehended on charges of conspiracy and perjury.
Owing to the way in which they had been mixed up with
the transfer of Stonelow Farm to Pocklington, Messrs.
Cutts and Gee were also made subjects to the same charges,
but they were merely summoned in the first instance. All
three were committed for trial at the Derby assizes, and
last March they were acquitted. Hence the prosecutions,
the plaintiff Pocklington alleging that he bad honestly
carried out his part in succeeding Ibbetson at Stonelow,
and that he had suffered greatly in his business as a con-
tractor by the persecution to which he had, without cause,
been subjected.
After a complicated trial the case terminated yesterday
in a verdict for the Duke of Rutland and his co-defendants.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

(Before Mr. Baron BramwelL)

THE TAILORS' STIIINE.

After the close of our report yesterday,
Mr. Keane, in his address to the jury for the defendants
for whom be appeared, contended that no offence bad
been established against any of the defendants that would
have justified their conviction upon an indictment like the
present, and that they could never have been convicted if
they had not been entangled in the meshes of an indict-
ment for conspiracy, which let in all sorts of evidence and
all sorts of statements. With reference to the misconduct
that had been alleged against two of the defendants, he
said that it had nothing to do with the picketing system,
and everything in the case tended to show that these pro-
oeedings were utterly contrary to the advice and direc-
tions of those who were the promoters of that system, and
at the same time he said that if such gets had been com-
mitted, a magistrate had full power to punish them sum-
marily.
Serjeant Parry also addressed the jury, and he com-
menced by complaining that the prisoners, who were only
committed for trial on Saturday last, should have been
compelled to take their trial at so early a day, and he said
that it evinced the feeling that was entertained by the
master tailors, and their determination to crush the
working tailor, by every means in their power. He then
proceeded in a most effective speech, for which, as on the
previous day, he was complimented by the learned judge,
to contend that there was no evidence to support the
charge of conspiracy, and that thedefendantswere entitled
to an acquittal.
Mr. Ribton next addressed the jury on behalf of the
remaining defendants, going over a good many of the
I arguments that had been adduced by the two learned
counsel who had preceded him.
Baron Bramwell then proceeded to sum up the case to
the jury, observing that as it appeared that some of the
gentlemen who composed it did not hear the observation,
he made in reference to the law open the subject on the
preceding day, it would be necessary for him to repeat
them. He then proceeded to state that the law of Eng-
land not only protected bodily liberty, but also the liberty
of the mind, and he therefore told them that if two
or more persons combined together for the purpose of
coercing the will or mind of another, and inducing him to
adopt a course of conduet that was not according to his
wish, and this object was sought to be carried out by
intimidation or moleotation of any kind, this was
an offence against the law. As some remarks had
been made in reference to the subject, in the course
of the inquiry, he would repeat what he said on
the previous day with regard to the system of picketing,
as it was termed. What be had stated was that the mere
watching of a house to see who was employed there, with
I the object of quietly arguing with such persons, and es-
deavouring to induce them to join the strike, was no
offence. On the contrary, the law permitted it to be done
but the moment any intimidation or violence was resorted
to, the proceeding at once became illegal. The learned
counsel for the defendants had all repudiated on their be-
half the acts of annoyance and intimidation that had un-
doubtedly been practised ; but he could not help observing
that those persons who had the control of the picketing
proceedings must have been perfectly aware of what was
done, and yet they did not appear to have taken any step
to put • stop to these proceedings.
The jury retired to deliberate upon their verdict at a
quarter to 5 o'clock, and in about half an hour they re-
turned into court sod gave a verdict of Guaty against the
whole of the defendants except Sherrocks and Stokes.
Sentence was deferred.
In reference to the case of Druitt, Lawrence, and
Adamson, who were convicted of a similar offence on Wed-
nesday, it should be stated that the jury strongly recom-
mended them to mercy on the ground, that they did not
believe that they were acting illegally at the time they
committed the offence.