The Express.
London, England, 1866-01-11 00:00:00

LAW iNTEILIGENCE.

(TBIS DAY.)

FIRST DAY OF TARE.
nu was the first day of Hilary Term. As the Lord
walla/ did not entertain the judges twit Qolllllles
rood at breakfast, it was expected that all the courts
ood meet shoddy after 10 o'clock, bat it was alma ILI
on all had assembled. The inclement weather bad
rob.* delayed the arrival of the learned judges at
restuinwter.

.t. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
•Itiepio Banco.—(Batonthe Lord Chief justioe, and
Justices Blackburn, Mellor, and Lush.)
cut:mamma:awe, s &C., OF HOLM-UPON•SPALDING.
$OOll v. CERTAIN JtSTICES OP THE EAST SIDING AND
Iss conwriTEE OF THE CATHOLIC REFORMATORY.
yr. Thompson applied on behalf of the churchwardens
oversews of the pariah of Holm-upou-Spiddigg, in the
Riding of Yorkshire, for a rule nisi calllntapon car-
jollities. of the committee of the Roman Caliche Re.
tory to show cause why a distress warrant should not
inset for the levyiog of the poor-rate. The reforsintoty
of certain buildings, and 117 sores of land allow:lag
7
*tr, &c., and employed about 200 prisoners. The land,
two cottages, occupied by two of the officers of the
titutioo, was rated to the poor, bat not the buildings.
justices were of opinion that the buildings were not
tie, and refused to issue the warrant of distress.
Role granted.

PEARSON E. NELL
lir; Pe"w
amuse waryvihdeforvelliairclearoallit ginbethesetpult,tilrando
bred for the defendant or for a nonsuit. The case was
*vd before the under•sheriff of Leeds, when the jury ab-
ed a verdict contrary to the direction of the learned
,sheriff. He moved on the ground that the verdict
perverse.
Rule granted.
The court than proceeded with the oases in the new trial
'd Mar.
THE NEW QUEEN'S COUNSEL.
Mr. Orippe, Mr. Davison, and Mr. Vernon Harcourt, the
tidy appointed Quesii's counsel, were this morning
ad within the bar, sad took their mats accordingly.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
(Before the Lord Chief Justios sad Mr. Justice Solids.)

BANMSTICE V. BOOTHKAII.
This was an action to recover damages for libel, and at
the trial at Liverpool the jury found for the defendant.
Mr. Temple, Q.C., now moved for • rule for a new trial
upon the grounds of misdirection, cad that the verdict was
against the evidence. The plaintiff was the clerk to the
Board of Health of Accrington, and in the month
of August last there was an election of a mem-
ber of the board. On that occasion the
defendant, a ratepayer, printed bad posted all over the
district • placard on which he stated that the plaiatiff, as
trustee to the estate of his brother, • former clerk to the
board, had sent In • bill for cervices rendered, and sub's-
quietly being ashamed of what he had done, and
tog afraid of being disgraced by the claim, he • with.
drew it by getting the matter referred to the finance
committee, and it bad never been heard of since.
This was the libel complained of, and in the course of the
met the plaintiff deposed that there was no truth in it, that
he had sent in no claim, and that it had, in fact, been made
by the accountant appointed in the course of some Chan.
coy proceeding. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case
Mr. Pickering, Q.C., for the defendant, submitted that
ger mast be a Donau* upon the ground that the state.
meet was a privileged communication by • ratepayer to
his fellow ratepayers and further, that ft was only a fair
comment upon public matters. Mr. Baron Martin, who
Flooded, said that he could not stop the use., because the
pry must say whether the publication was a libel or not.
The jury thereupon said that they were of opinion that
it was not a libel, and his lordship added that he was of
the same opinion. It was now submitted that what had
fawned amounted to misdirection.
lir. Justice Smith—lt could not be misdirection, because
the judge had not spoken until after the verdict.
Br. Temple observed that he could not bring before their
kniships all the modes by which a very demonstrative
Mg. might make his opinion very plain and obvious to •
jury. (Laughter.) He submitted this was a prima facie libel,
cad that it was not a reasonable comment, because it made
iadspindest allegations of fact.
The Lord Chief Justice thought that there was no point
of law involved in the facts brought before the court. The
judge, in answer to an objection, bad made an observation
in favour of the plaintiff, and thereupon the jury bad in-
terposed by saying that there was no libeL The court
saw no ground for superseding this finding.
Rule refused.