The Express.
London, England, 1861-07-31 00:00:00

WEDNESDAY EVENING,

TIN GALWAY MAIL BYEAM PACKS?
COMPANY.

Mr. .101 in Orrell Lever, M.P. for Galway, yester-
day appeared at the Westminster Police-court to a sum-
moos obtained against him by Mr. Gimp O'Malley Irwin,
charging him with unlawfully and maliciously publishing
• ontun defamatory libel of and concerning the said George
O'Malley Irwin, contained in a printed pamphlet addresmal
by him to Alexander Murray Dunlop, M.P.
l'he summons had been granted by Mr. Ingham, but
the case was heard by Mr. Dayman, and several other sum-
monses, evidently of a speculative character, had been ob-
tained to compel the attendance of witnesses for the pro-
secution, and included amongst them Meson. Roebuck,
Nottlicote, and Butt, M.P.'s.
Mr. Sturgeon, barrister, conducted the prosecution ; Mr.
Sleigh appeared for the defendant, instructed by the firm
of Valance and Valance, of Essex-street, Strand.
Mr. Sturgeon said that the complainant in this case was
• gentleman of the Irish bar, who sought redress for • mali-
cious libel which bad been circulated to his prejudice. His
client, Mr. Irwin, bad had some dealings with the defend-
sat, Mr. Lever, in respect to the Galway Mail Steam-packet
Company. A dispute arose between them which ended in
en action in the Court of Exchequer, brought by Mr.
Irwin, in which he gained a verdict for 1,0001. The came,
however, bad since been again tried, when Mr. Irwin, having
declined to receive 5001. in liquidation of his claims, bad
submitted to • nonsuit. After the trial of this action, it was
to be regretted that the defendant published • pamphlet
sad circulated it freely in the lobby of the Home of Own-
swam Mr. Lorin was not aware of the circulation of this
pamphlet until, two or three days afterwards, happening to
call on Mr. Bett,M.P., Meow • mpy of it in his room. He
was not permitted to take it away,but only allowed to make
an extract, and in that way be proposed for the me
meat to show the libel. If there had been only
one pamphlet published it would not so much
have mattered, but there had been many. Mr. Roe-
buck had been placed on the list of witnesses with a hope
that he might have a copy of the pamphlet. A notice had
also been served upon the defendant to produce it ; there
were also other witnesses to call who might have it. All
had been done oe the part of the prosecution to produce the
pamphlet, in the absence of which, if not produced, hemro-
posed to give at the moment the best evidence be could to
connect Mr. Lever with the circulation of the malicious
libel upon Mr. Irwin of which he complained. It was diffi-
cult sometimes to show the exact motives which induced
malice, but there had been a great deal of warmth occa-
sioned from the evidence given before the contract com-
mittee, and also perhaps a feeling that there had
been • loss of subsidy in consequence of the evi-
dence given by the complainant. The libel com-
plained of contained imputations of • very serious cha-
racter to a puma of birth, education, and rank ; and
although he had truly been unfortunate at one period of
life, he had sought every means of obtaining redress and of
being restored to his former position, and was not the im-
postor he bed been represented.
Mr. Irwin was this sworn, and said—l am a barrister of
the Irish bar. I have bad tranantions with Mr. Lever
regarding the Galway Mail Packet Company. I first became
acquainted with him in March, 1858. I was not introduced
to. him by Golan' Ormsby. I sent a parcel by him to
my nephew, on board one of his ships at Gravesend. It was
in March, 1858, that I bad dealings with the defendant. I
have beard him libel me repeetedly. I can prove it.
Mr. Sleigh—You as • banister must know, car, that what
he said is not • libel, but if anything slander.
A discussion arose between the two barristers, and
Mr. Sleigh having repeated that the extract was not admis-
sible in evidence,
Mr. Depicts concurred that it could sot be received.
Mr. Roebuck, M.P., was thin &led and examined by
Mr. Sturgeon as follow.:
Mr. Stargeon—Do you know anything of • letter dated
the 20th ot August, addressed to Mr. Alexander Dunlop,
M.P„?

Witnesrl know nothing whatever of that letter.
Mr. Ellergeon—Or pamphlet! I think it was a pamphlet.
Witness—l believe it was • pamphlet, and not a letter,
written by Mr. Lever—
Mr. Sleigh was her. objecting, bat was overruled, and
Witness einatineed—Written by Mr. Lever, but I know
nothing oi it.
Mr. Sturgeon—Did you ever see it!
Witness—l have • sort el recollection that Mr. Lever
gave me • pamphlet, bet of the contents of that pamphlet
I have no recollection whatever. I did not pay much heed
to it. I bare uo idea when it t• It went into my waste-
paper basket, or Heaven knows where. I have not looked
for it, and I do not intend to look for it.
Mr. Sturgeon—Yon had • notice to produce that paniph.
let, had you not?
Witoeu —I had • notice, which I thought • very imperti-
nent one.

Mr. Sleigh—Were you present in the Rouse of Commons
lately, when, in the absence of Mr. Lever, a petition was
presented against him containing insinuations of every de-
famatory nature?
Witness—l was; and gave my opinion both as to the peti-
tion and the petitioner.
Mr. Sleigh—That petition 1 believe the house refused to
motive.
. .

Witsess—They did not refuse to receive it, but they re-
fund to set upon it.
Mr. Sleigh—l believe on that occasion certain members
of the Mime expressed themselves in anything but a com-
plimentary miner with regard to the petitioner?
Here Mr. Sturgeon interfered, protesting spinet the
im-
portation of any irrelevant matter into the case, sod Mr.
Hayman coinciding with the counsel for the prosecution Mr.
Sleigh eat down.
Mr. Sturgeon then stating that he had concluded the
amminatiou of Mr. Irwin,
Mr. Sleigh commenced a lengthened crowrexamins-
tire as follows : The first interview you ever had with Mr.
Lever was in March, 1858, I think ?
Whams—Yes. in March, 1858.
Mr. Sleigh—You then introduced yourself to him on
board one of his own vessels, did you not?
Witness—l never introduced myself to him. It is false,
indisputably false.
Mr. Sleigh—l am calling your attention to the first time
you spoke to Mr. Lever, and I ask did you or did not in-
troduce yourself to him without any invitation ?
Witness—l might have, I think it very likely I might
bath inquired about him, and asked him to take on board •
panel for me, directed to Galway, to Colonel Ormsby, my
mirth. He did tithe it for me, and it was very kind of him.
Mr. Sleigh—Will you answer my question? Did you
introduce yourself to Mr. Lever?
Witness—Yes, I asked him to take the parcel.
Mr. Sleigh—That is an answer at last. Now, did you
not on that occasion proffer your services to him for the
purpose of carrying out the Galway Mail Packet Company?
Witness, instead of answering the question, here
very excited, and adverted to all manner of unintelligible
tide's, when he wee interrupted, and
Mr. Sleigh, again addressing him, said—As a gentleman of
the bar you ought to know better than to fence with ques-
tions in this way. I ask you again, did you not proffer
your services to Mr. Lever with relation to this company?
Witnees—Certainly not is your answer, sir. You are
stating what is utterly false and untrue.
Mr. Sleigh here reminded the witness that be was in a
court of justice, and &tired him to behave decently.
Witness, interrupting, went intoa great deal of extraneous
matter before he could be stopped, when
Mr. Sleigh, again addressing him, said—l see you are de-
scribed as a birrister-at-law.

Wit.—Yes, a very humble one.
Mr. Sleigh—Never mind your humility ; attend to me,
dr. Yon are described as a barristerat-law, and don't
know the commonest rules in Elvin evidence, but talk all
manner of rubbish, and do anything rather than mower a
question frankly and properly. Pray be a little cool Now,
subsequent to this introduction to Mr. Lever, did you at
say time proffer your services to *mist him in forming this
company ?
Witness (in an excited manner)—No ; it's false. II
never did. I asked him to, or I etalsavoured to induce him
to send one of Dim ships from Galway to America. It was
the Indian Empire; that was nothing to do with Galway.
That was not in March, that was in the latter end of April,
and anybody with any sense knows that March is ante-
cedent to April. Witness was again travelling into irrtde.
vent matter and throwing himself about in an excited
was.,, to the great apparent delight of the auditory, when
Mr. Sleigh, Mr. Sturgeon, and tho magistrate all interfered
to get something like answers from him. At length, when
he had become • little quieter,
Mr. Sleigh countinued—Your counsel has told us you
had a misfortune in early life was that misfortune • con-
viction for forgery ?
Witness—l was indicted for forging a resignation of •
Mr. Johnstone in Ireland. They kept back his autograph
latter.

---
Ste'
Mr. ugh—That is not an answer. Were you in 1834
convicted for forgery ?
Witmer—Certainly not; it's false. I was not taken into
custody for forgery. I deny it. They kept back my most
important evidence. The Irish government of that time
mad* out an indictment against me without bringing me
before a magistrate.
Mr. Bleigh—Will you answer me, sir? You call yourself a
barrister, and behave like this.

Mr. Sturgeon—Pray answer quietly.
Wheedle-1 won't he lectured by him.
Mr. Sleigh—You'll not tire me out ; so do not think it.
Again I la., were you convicted in 1834 for forgery
Witness—l was sot taken into custody on that charge.
I put bailie to any samiest.
Here sad sepia sad spin Mr. Sleigh had to put the ques-
tion many times in wearying succession without obtaining
a direct answer. The complainant's manner and denea-
aour at this point, sad throughout the whole of the latter
part of the inquiry, was most excited and extraordinary.
By turns be laughed, vociferated, gesticulated, and ad-
dressed remarks measkmally of a very offensive character
to permits whom be sismelled out in court, and the oft re-
=sreetreaties of bath the magistrate and Mr. Sleigh,
with that of kis emu advocate, to compose himself
were scarcely of any avail, m be at length worked himself
up to such a pitch of excitement at literally to straddle over
the witoombox. _

The answer to the last question we have quoted was at
length—l was convicted on an indictment, and in a truck-
ling, dishonourable, perfidious and lying manner, they
brought an indictment naiad me, and withheld the °rip-
*al letter of Mr. Johnstone, the assistant barrister in Mayo,
which would have atabliehed my Matimeer, and after they
bad obtained a verdict, sad I was convicted, the Lard Chief
Justice of Ireland wrote he me saying in he was • Beecher
be could not inteetere, list I had been convicted unjustly,
and those who withheld Wee Liter ought to be prineesitaL

Some interlocutory emivenation followed, when Mr. Day-
man maid—What I understand is, you were convicted of
forgery owing to the withholding of a letter which would
have satisfactorily exculpated you.
Witness—Just so and my innocence was clearly shown
by what Sir Richard Bethel! subsequently wrote.
Sleigh—Upon being convicted were you sentenced to
nine months' impr.aonmeat ?
Witness—l wsa.

Mr. Sleigh— You have sent in a petition of right. Now
e ,
on yoused r oath, did you present that until some years had
lap?
Witham— Not till 1841, cud subsequent to that I obtained
an order to commit Lord John Russell to prison—(a laugh)
about the autograph letter.
Mr. Sleigh-1 ho it's not in force still. (Much laughter,
pe in which the court joined.)
Mr. Sleigh—Did you not upon a recent inquiry before
the House of Commons, upon being asked a question as to
whether you had been convicted of forgery, distinctly
deny it ?
Witness—Certainly not.
Mr. Sleigh—Now, be cautious, for I have the report be.
fore me.

Ikiteess— The report is incorrect.
Mr. Sleigh—Did you not, in answer to Serjeant Shee,
swear that you had not been in Kilmainham Gaol!
Witness—Certainly and indisputably not.
Mr. Sleigh—Upon your oath, were you not asked by
SerjeantShee, " Were you not in Kilmainham poi for
forgery!" and did you Dot give the answer," No, this is the
petstion of right cue."
Witness—No, I never did.
Mr. Sleigh—Did not the Lord Chief Baron interfere and
say, " First answer the question, if you are minded to
answer it ;" and did not Mr. Shee repeat the question,
" Were you not in Kilmainham gaol for nine months on the
sentence of a judge of a superior court in Ireland for forg-
ing the name of Mr. Johnstone, the assistant barrister of
Mayo!" and did you not reply, " Certainly not It was •
peution of right case, in which Sir it. Bothell says there
wasgrievous injustice dime to me" ?
Witness—Certainly not.
Mr. Sleigh—Will you take upon yourself to say upon
oath, to swear that that question was not put to you in the
way I have deuribed ?
Witness, maim" • direct answer for Rome time, at
length replied, " No, I admitted I was in prison."
Mr. Sleigh—Did you ever give your address at the Bur-
lington Hotel, Cork-strut!
W itness— I did. - - -

Mr. Sleigh—Did you ever sleep at the house on any
occasion ?

Witnees—No. I had permission to have my letters ad-
dressed there.

Mr. Sleigh—NV-is there anything more than an arrange-
ment to receive your letters?
Witness-1 'eked for permission to have my letters left
there, and was.allowed to do W.
Mr. Sleigh—Did you ever represent to Mr. Lever that
Baron Rothschild was a friend of yours?
Witness—l had an interview with the baron about the
17th of May, and was introduced to him by his cousin, with
whom 1 was on terms of intimacy.
Mr. Sleigh—ls it true or false that you were acquainted
with Baron Rothschild

Witness—lt was on the 17th of May that I was introduced
to the baron. _

Mr. Sleigh—Were you on terms of private intimacy with
Baron Rothschild !
Witoces—Not of private friendship.
Mr. Sleigh —Had you any oormepondence with Baron
Rothschild before the 17th of May!
Witness—Certainly not.
Mr. Sleigh—Wu it then or afterward' that you told
Mr. Lever that you were on terma of intimacy with Baron
Rothschild !

was subsequent to the 17th of May.
The witnese was occasionally rather confused in some of
his answer. to Mr. Sleigh, when
Mr. Delman observed—Give him an opportunity of set.
tiattimself right.
witness was then asked as to the accuracy of the
minutes of evidence is reference to his acquaintance with
Baron Rothschild, as they appear in the printed appendix to
the wend report front the Select Committee of Packet and
Telegraphic Contracts of June, 26, 1860, and his answer
was " The report in that instance seems to be correct."
Mr. Sleigh then examined him upon his action against
Mr. Lever, in which he received LOOM, and asked—Was •
sew trial moved for and a second trial bed?
Winne—Yes.

Mr. Sleigh—Wu not your ease concluded and Sedated
Shee addressing the jury for the defence when your 0011•1111 i
elected to be mesuitod ?
Wiisese—No. I had not all my witnesses there, and not
Making to allow my lawyer to talua 500/. when I ought to
have had 1,0001., 1 comested to be noosuited.
Mr. Sleigh—You have told the magistrate that you con-
sented to be nonsuited, as you bad not all your witnesses.
Now, I ask you upon your oath, kid not all your witnesses
been examined, and was not Serjeant Shea addressing the
rosoltubturt of the defendant before you consented to
The witness, after fencing with the question for same
time, at length answered, " Serjeant Sheep had finished his
address."
The witness was here aces-examined upon his action
against Mr. Lever, and said —The sus is still
have moved for a new trial and ro-oommenced p
I have instructed Mr. Digby Seymour to proceed with
ease.

By Mr. Delman—My counsel advisee me to go cm with
the am.

Mr. Sleigh—When you were nonsruiteci were you not
adjudged to pay the costa, amounting to 263/.
Witmer—l wee.

Mr. Sleigh—On that very bill of costa were you not taken
in execution

Witaes---J•ires.

Mr. Bleigh—Did you not date in the Insolvent Debtors
Court, where you have to appear to-day, that you could
sot, as you were summoned.
Witness—No, I said I had summoned some one.
Mr. Sleigh—When you petitioned the Insolvent Debtors
Court, did you give your place of residence at the Burlington
Hotel?
Witness—l did.

Ifir.itleighicia you, in 1856, petition the Irish Insolvent
Debtors Court
Witness—l did ; but I did not get my discharge.
Mr. Sleigh—Did not the Comnussiouer remand you for
another nice months t

Witness—You er right.
Mr. &eigh at this stage of the inquiry had some papers
pat into his hand by Mr. Valiance, when after telling the
witness to be cautious as to his replies, he said—Did you pe-
tition the Insolvent Debtors Court in England in 1856?
• .

Mr. ! Did you not petition for debta
amounting to 7,000/. ?
Witness—l did petition, but not for quite so much. That
was the cause of my coining to England. I was on that
occasion remanded for three months. That was the cause
of my coming to England.
Mr. Sleigh—Are you not a debtor to Mr. Lever? Has he
not in hard cash lent you above lOW. ?
Witness—Certain!y not. He is considerably my debtor.
Mr. Sleigh—Has be not advanced you certain sums of
money at various times? •
Witness—Yes, to pay my expeneee on his account.
Mr. Sleigh—Has be not lent you money for your own use?
Witness—Certainly not.
Mr. Sleigh—Did you not give your acceptance for 501. lent
by him?
Witness—No, that money was advanced for his own
transactions. _ .

Mr. Sleigh, producing the bill, remarked that it was not
likely he would have given his acceptance to a bill from
which haled not received benefit.

Mr. Sleigh—Upon your oath did you not make that bill
for 501. payable at Messrs. White's, in the Haymarket, when
you had not a single farthing in their house?
Witness--Certainly, and they owe me money now.
Mr. Sleigh—Did not Mr. Lever lend you various sums of
money for your own private purposes?
Witness—No ; that was to go to various places, Man.
cheater, Southampton, Sc., for him. Witness here launched
out into incoherent iurectives, as before, againat the
defendant, describing bia conduct as that of a thimble•rigger
and swindler, who had sent out rotten ships and victimised
the unfortunate shateholdem in the Galway Company, by
which he alone bad reaped any benefit, until he was stopped
by Mr. Sleigh's final question, "Did you not give Mr. Lever
this 10 U for 51.!' (producing it), to which be replied," Yes,
and I paid him ; and be had not the honesty to return me
my I 0 U. He is an atrocious swindler in this as in all
other transactions."

In re-examination, witness said that his only debt to Mr.
Lever was the 26.3/. before alluded to, the costa for which he
was now going through the court ; and if that were de-
ducted from NOM. owing him by the defendant, It would
leave the latter considerably his debtor.
Mr. Sturgeon having solicited en adjournment,
Mr. Sleigh briefly addressed the court for the defendant.
He thought it disgraceful that a gentleman like his client
should be dragged there that day to answer • charge totally
unsupported by a tittle of evidence that would justify such
a proceeding.
Mr. Hayman observed that the case for the prosecution
hail not even been launched by evidence. There was nothing
before them to ground any case on, and the summons was
therefore dim:doted.

1861.

ABSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—MAnorroNE, JULY 30.
(Before Mr. Justice Williams.)

George Brett, an aged man, who appeared to be
paralysed and hardly able to walk, surrendered to be tried
upon a charge of bigamy.
Mr. Meadows conducted the prosecution.
This was rather a singular case. It appeared
that the prisoner was first married at Cl=
so long ago as the year 1823, and a few years afterwards
the prisoner's wife left him, and in 1843 he was
again married to a woman named Mary Anne Leman.
The second wife, it appeared, was aware that the prisoner
had been married before, but he told her that his first wife
was dead, and they continued to live together until last
February, when the second wife became lunatic, and she
was removed to her legal settlement at Camberwell, io her
maiden name of Mary Anne Leman. From something
that subsequently transpired the relieving officer of Cam-
berwell went to make some inquiries of the prisoner, in
answer to which he told him that his marriage with his
second wife did not hold good, as he bad a wife living at the
time. The relieving officer, upon hearing this, told the pri-
soner he would get into trouble if he did not mind; to
which he said, "I trust in the Lord, for I have taken the
advice of one of our divines (the prisoner, as it appeared,
was a Wesleyan), and he told me that under the circum-
stances of my wife going away and committing adultery, I
could marry again.
The prisoner, when called upon for his defence, made a
rambling statement to the effect that be lived with his
mother, and she becomes° old that she was not able to do up
the house, and Mary Anne Leman, the second wife, came to
the place as charwoman. The period of seven years having
passed away, he said that people used to come to his home
and ry, " Brett, you look very comfortable ; you may as
well marry Mary Anne Leman." He said that his first wife
went away with another man, and he did not know
whether she was alive or not, and, under the
circumstance!, he thought he was justified by the Bible in
marrying again. He thought that as he had not heard from
his first wife for so many years he was free to receive Mary
Anne Leman as his wife for her kindness to him during •
period of seven years. At the time be married her he had
not heard of his first wife for eighteen years, and when she
went away she told hum that she would rather break her
legs than come back again. (Laughter.) She went to Lou-
don
with another man, and he heard nothing of her till very
shortly after the second marriage, and he then saw her get-
ting mit of the train, and she said to hint, "John, I should
have been down here before if I had known what you were
about." (Laughter.)
The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and the learned
judge said be would consider what punishment, under the
peculiar circumstances of the case, ought to be inflicted
upon him.
OXFORD CIRCUIT,—S —IIIIXWABURY, JULY 30.

Osumi Court.—(Before Yr. Justice Hill.)
FATAL FIGHT BITWFIN TWO FARNKREL

William Farmer, of the Meadows Farm, near Church-
stoke, farmer, was charged with the manslaughter of
William Corfield, farmer, of Little Stratton, on the 18th of
July.
Yr. Corbett for the proiscution ; Mr. Beeson and Mr.
Motteram for the prisoner.
It appeared that on the evening of the 17th instant
Farmer and Corfield met in Little Strettoo, both being on
horseback. They were opposite the Crowe lan, and after •
little conversation they began to abuse one another. Foul
asce was made use of, the word liar was bawled about,
and Farmer showed fight. They appeared to be tipsy, as
well as others with them, having been at a rent audit.
Preen, the landlord of the Crown, tried to stop the fight,
but was driven into his house by Farmer. Cwfield
had ridden off, and Farmer galloped after him, and over-
took him on the canal bridge. There he struck him several
times on the back of his bead with a stick. ImineAtelz
after the last blow Corfield fell heavily on the
Farmer did not help him up again, but some perilous who
saw the affray did so, and carried him to his own house
close by.
Mr. Wilding, surgeon, of Church Stratton, after making •
post-mortem examination, found serious fractures and •
starred wound on the bead, with great effusion of blood,
which in his opinion caused death. The wonder was that
the man lived an hour after such injuries, but be did not
die until the morning of the 18th. The whole of the inju-
ries could not have been inflicted by the fall, but were the
result of direct blows in conjunction therewith.
Mr. Motteram made an earnest appeal on behalf of the
prisoner, and called several witnesses to character.
His lordship having summed up, the jury returned •
verdict of Guilty.
Sentence—three months' imprisonment with bard labour.

WESTERN CIRCIIIT.—ExaTKR, JULY 29.
Crvu. Sum —(Before Mr. Biros ChannelL)

NRADLAVOS V. EDWARD& - ACTION FOR FALSE IMPRISON.

NWT.
The plaintiff is well lnown by the soubriquet of " Icono-
clast," sod as • lecturer on free thought in reference to
the Saipturee ; and the defendant is the superintendent of
the itevonportirice force.
Mr. Oolher, .C., cud Mr Lopes appeared for the plain-
tiff • and Mr. Smith, Q.C., tad Mr. Kingdon for dis•
fiesta:lt.

From the opening of Mr. Collier it appeared that the
plaintiff announ.d that he should deliver • lecture at the
Parsonage -field, Devonport, ea Sunday, the 3rd March.
"Iconoclest " meant a breaker of images, and • disbeliever
in idolatrous worship. Having said that it was stupid
for the police to make martyrs of these men, he remarked
that he believed they were something heterodox in
religion, and orthodox in political economy, for they
did not hold with "strikes." The superintendent of
pollee was, no doubt, a very good mein, but he acted most
injudiciously, for he went to the owner of the field, a Mr.
Toper, and tried to get him to forego his agreement with
the lecturer ; and ultimately be went to the field with the
determination to prevent the gentleman from lecturing,
and if he did lecture to take him into custody. He believed
the law held that the superintendent had no right what.
ever to interfere with the plaintiff ; but if be gave utter-
anon to that which was blasphemous, or any seditious doc-
trine, he was liable to be indicted. There were about 200
people in the field, and the plaintiff said something to the
effect that be was induced to address them on the Bible.
If the superintendent heard that in the course of his address
the plaintiff uttered anything which was profane, blasphe-
mous, or immoral, be might have proceeded against him
according to law, and unless the plaintiff was using such
language as would lead to a breach of the peace the police ,
had no right to interfere. But the police did interfere. On
Mr. Bradleugh persisting to proceed with his lecture five or
six policemen laid bold of him to take him off the field ; and
one of them seized him by the collar in such a way that he
experienced a choking sensetion, and he begged him to take
his bands off. The police, however, removed him to the
station-home, and gave him in custody on a criminal charge.
The learned counsel said the charge which the police laid
against the plaintiff was that he was inciting to a breach of
the peace, and that he resisted the policemen in the
execution of their duty. But it seemed the next
meriting that charge was altered, and that the plaintiff
was inciting to a breach of the peace, and that ho assaulted
the police in the execution of their duty. The plaintiff
was conducted to • cell, and the magistrate heard the case
on the following day. After they had adjourned it they
dismissed the case. The plaintiff thought that his liberty
bad been invaded. He did not bring the action to make •
profit of it, but be believed that the law had been stretched
against him. He had offered to stay proceedings if the de-
fendant would consent to give 101. to the Devon and Corn-
wall Hospital and 10f. to the Female Orphan Asylum to psy
all expenses, iusertan apology in various papers ; but this
was taken no notice of. If • superintendent of polies
was the fit person to judge of that which was irreligious,
be would necessarily state what political doctrines should
be promulgated. The learned advocate concluded by re-
marking that "truth was great and would prevail ;" that
if the police were permitted to interfere in such • manner,
our liberties would be endangered, and no man would be
safe. The plaintiff expected no sympathy from the jury,
but be merely asked to have justice done him.
For the defence it was contended that Iconoclast
threatened to knock any policeman down who came near
him ; that then a row ensued, and that be did push the
defendant, upon which be was taken into custody.
Verdict for plaintiff--damages one farthing.

WEATHER REPOUT.

TLIIIIDAT, JOLT Ilk 8 TO II LIL