The Express.
London, England, 1850-01-15 00:00:00

YBllt.

The Attorney-General moved for a role fir a new trial in
this um. on the ground of the improper remotion of eat-
deans. It was an action on a judgment recomred against
the defendant in France. At the trial, before the Lord
Chief Baron, at the la t sittings at Guldheli, evidence was
adduced on behalf of the defendant to show that the pro-
ceedings against him in the French courts were not in se-
cordance with the law of Frame, as they had not been pre.
ceded by any notice or service of process. That evidence
was objected to on the ground that a judgment of a foreign
court, cveu against a banished subject not resident in toe
foreign country, was recognised by the English courts
when the judgment appeared prima facie to be good,
and not repugnant to natural justice. The evidence was re-
ceived, and it was now contended it was inadmissible, as it
appeared oa the face of the declaration that the defendant
was an Englishman, residing in London, and " that he had
not appeared, though duly called," in the French court.
"Calling" was just the tame as service of process, and the
averment of the declaration could have been impugned by a
special traverse ot the tact.
The curt were of opinion that the general denial put on
the record by tte defendant entitled him to prove that the
judgment was irregular and could not be enforced in France.
it was c:nipetent for him to show that the judgment was not
binding, not having been recovered according to the Ftench
laws ; the evidence was, therefore, properly admitted. There
was no necessity for a new trial, and under all the circum-
stances the needs already determined on by the parties to
bring the taste before the court in the form of a *pedal cue
was the best that could be adopted.
The rule was accordingly refused.
(tai PIMA AT WINIVINITIfi.—Bcrou Ma. D•MON hones AND •
MIVALKANZ Cameos JuaT.
THWAITISS A. \VILLAS AND TOWN.—ASSAULT ON A
BROMIR'S MAW.

This was an action in trespass to recover compensation in
damages for an assault. The defendants pleaded not guilty,
and Town pleaded, in addition, that the plaintiff tint
assaulted him, and that the assault complained of was cow.
canted in self defence.
Hr. Bliss. and Mr. Lewis appeared for the plaintiff ; Mr.
W. U. Watson and Mr. Mayes for Wiles, and Mr.E. James
for Town.
The plaintiff is a broker's man, the defendant Willes an
officer of the sheriff, and the other defendant an engineer in
George street, Spitalfields. The plaintiff was employed to
levy a distress on behalf of the ground landlord of the ore-
nines, end on going to the house he mind that a distress
had already been put in by the landlord, and was told by
the den; dints that he mutt leave. This be declined to do,
whereupon a scuffle ensued, and the plaintiff and his fol-
lowen, to use their own language, "got bundled oar'."
The witnesses swore that Town entered them to be kicked
out and otherwise assailed in their eject urn. The aid of
the police was obtained, and the plaintiff received a slight
stroke on the hand.
As there was ro evidence to connect Willis with the
assault, the learned Baron dixected the jury to return •
verdict in his favour.
Mr. E. James then addrened the jury for the other
defendant, remarking that this was one of the most trumpery
eases he had ever seen in • court of law, and one even
beneath the dignity of a county court. The plaintiff and
I his followers had gone with warlike determination to the
souse, and having intimated that they would remove the
rola in spite of the sheriff, they were put out, and in a
scuttle got the woe it of it.
The jury found for the plaintiff.—Damages one farthing.
Uvonanu AND ANOTllett a. CtiLLETT.—ATIOSNEYS AND
This was au action to recover compensation in damages
for slander. The d-fennent "leaded not guilty. Mr. S. r-
jeant Allen and Mr. Ball were for the plaintiff, and Mr. M.
Chambers and Mr. Phipps's* for the defendant.
Mr. Serjt. Allen stated the nee—The plaintiffs, Hus-
band and Wyatt, are sttorn-ye. carrying on business in
Gray's-inn; the defendant, Airs. Harriet Cullen, is the
widow of an officer in etre Royal Navy. In the mune of
tne year 1647, the plaintiffs were employed by the aefend-
ant to collect certain lallna of money, and to invest 3001. at
a higher rate of interest than she had been previously re
ceniee for her money. An investment was accordingly
made by way of loan on mortgage. Some time after that
the defendant, in the manner dtailed in the subjoined Wet-
4rnet, uttered the slender complained of, that the mortgage
was all • swindle, fraud, and robbery, and that the deeds
wee a dead forgery. Notice was Peon afterwards given for
repayment of the money. The mortgagor died, and the
prop: ry on sehlch the money had been advanced was sold
by the plaintiffs, and realited COW. The full amount due
to her was paid over to the defendant, and the plaintiffs
feelirg that s•imo apology was due to them for the Mender,
wrote the following letter:
November 9, 1819.
!!edam.—Ws have this day paid Messrs. Rutter and Trotter, your
present solicitors, the sum of 3. ia., you maims money; 10s. Gd.
bona interest ereon up to this da-y, and 81
done, their charges
against j none matter. 'lds taring been and a large
surp'us balance handed °ter to us as the proceed., of the sale of the
mortgaged property, we now call upon ytu to give us by return
of poet a written apnlogy for your most slanderous and libellous lan-
guor., and unless we receive the same by Monday morning's post,
we shall me that day commence an action against you and forward
promss to Ransgete for eavice.—We are, he.,
licsomto raid Weser.
No answer was returned, the plaintiffs having waited for
erne time commenced the present proceedings, in order to
vindicate their character (tom ttee slander of the defendant.
The learned setjeant, in conclusion, said his clients were still
open to receive an apology with such damages and costs as
would meet the justice i f the case.
Mr. M. Chambers—We deny the slander.
The /earned Sergeant then nilled,
Mrs. Sophia Collett, who gas the following evidence—l
am the widow of Lieut. Collett, RN., and reside at 24,
York-buildings, Regenerpark. The ditend•nt is the widow
of my son, Lieut. Collett, of the royal navy, who died in
November, 1846. In 1847 she received payment of a sum of
money which sae had lent to a gentleman in Ireland, and being
debirout of placing it out at better interest I recommended
her to the plaintiffs, who invested the money on mortgage at
ins per cent. After that she seemed very unhappy, dis-
satisfied, and sus, icious. In the month of May I hea-d that
bar son was ill, and because he was my late eon's child
I went out to Hampstead to call and see hint. She was
living in a small cottage at North End. After going into
the room she said to me, " I have very bad news to tell you
to diy. I find that the mortgage is all • swindle, fraud,
and robbery, and that the deeds are • dead forgery ; and
my lawyer tolls me that them could be no friends of mine
who ci old put me into such hands as Husband and Wyatt."
The plaintiffs are well known. I left her under feelings of
great irritation. I fat that it was my duty to satisfy myself
ea the matter, as I had introduced her to the plainiiffs.
I Informed Mr. Husband of what the defendant had oAd
me. Oa the lot of June the defendant called at my house,
and she they repeated what she had before stated, and
Impressed her fear that she would n get the money.
Cross-examined—After my son's death the defendant re-
aided with me for some time. She remained till the 23,4 of
April last. We were in the habit of talking over her affairs
confidentially, and she consulted me about the investment
of her money. (In reply to a question by Mr. Chambers,
whether witness's daughter had borrowed money Irons tit-
defendant, the witness declined to answer the question, as
irrelevant; but the learned baron having interposed, the
witness continued.) Yes, my daughter borrowed money.
I do not know what that has to do with the matter. Yes,
it is still owing. There had been a dispute between us
On this occasion some reference was made to the money my
daughter had borrowed. I spoke to the child. She told me
she was sorry she could not ask me to take anything. I
said I intended to return home to dinner. The defendant
was dining. Well, sir, if yon must know everything, *be
had a mutton chop, two potatoes, and • email portion of
g , all on. one dish, for dinner. (Laughter) I aid nut
ask her why she lived in such a place. It was then she 'aid
" I have very bad news." On several occasions pine to that
I talked with her on the Inflect of the mortgage. I code a
round to tranquillise her, and at her desire ceded at • place
called the Paragon, at Wslworth. Inver bend that a Mr.
Peacock had taken possession of the prepinv because the
interest on his mortgage was not paid. I might have said
Mr. Wyatt in February that Mrs. Collett was uneasy anu
whited to have her money. I think I did say so. Mr.
RaMand, one of the plaintiffs, is a oonnezion of mine—h.
monied my niece. I only repeated Mrs. Collett's words
tc
Kr. Husband. I took no further interest in the matter.
This was the plaintifi's ease.
Mr. Chambers submitted there was no case for the jury,
an the conversation between the defendant and the wan es
We. Collett was a confidential one, arising out of treir rela.
tiosabip, and that the communication was a privileged one
Ia sepport of the point, the learned counsel cited the doc-
trine laM down by Mr. Baron Parke in the cue of " Toogood
e. Spitting" (I Crompton, Meeson, and Roscoe, p. 193).
Me. Baron Rolfe said this was a question for the cos.eidera.
don of the jury.
Mr. Chambers then addressed the jury. This, he said,
was one of the moat useless and forint actions that had ever
been brought into a court of justice by one of the moat
tender skinned of tender attorneys. Here were two atf near) a
carrying on basinses in Gray'rinn, so sensitively de Heats of
their reputation that they must gravely come into a court 01
law to ask for damages for something that a poor woman,
who ate one mutton chop, two potato'', and a smell modicum
of greens, all uff one dish, and lived in • small room in a
small cottage, with the door of the room °prolog on Ramp
steadebeath, something in the style of the man immortalised
in the song as the
"Cobbler who lived In • stall,
Which served hem for Favour, kitchen, and all,"

had sal to another women about them. (Lr.ttnter ) The
I d conasel, in the course of a long at ,d able endive.,
-Mistimed that the words alleged to have been yr ken were
spot. o confidentially, and if this poor widow was to be ea
eluded from the law of privet pd cummeuicatio, item
would be an end to all family contidecce. It was not our-
pti,dog that this lady, receiving her pittance of some
101. or 121., and anxious to :increase it by Mots* ment at
a small increase et interest, should feel some aeziry
on the subject of her mortgage, since lawyer+ who
bad looked into it were of opinion that it was not
a good mearity. Hewlett from the deed r sell it appeared
that It bad been originally made to a Mr Peacock, 'who
had taken possession oldie property fur non payment of in-
terser, end then transferred to the defendant. It was not at
all surprising, under such circumstances, that the defend-
out's advi.ers should have told her that some other security
was required. What were the words of the alleged Men
der ? " The mortgage is all a swindle, fraud and robbery,
and the deeds area dead forgery." Had this action been
brought by Mr. Peasock, there alight have boot 60/11%
posad !or sapog that the wordy were soalicdoso sad Asa-

&roue, provided aways thet they came not within the
rule of continence. But if the sauna were to he asked to de-
cide on the repressioes which might happen to be used
when two women pot together, they would have nothing
ebe to d but to de te renine on imitate fee slander, and jury-
men would much better incur the fines for non-attendance,
it.y at home, and put tin it wive. into thin. se shees to
keep them from gossippine and save themselves from actions
for slander by attorneys, whose names might by
chance be mentioned In the course of conversation.
(Laughter) He could not avoid remitting
that this fiction had evidently been dictated by
a considerable amount of bad feeling. Then then had
been no attempt to explain the complete silence with respect
to the matter in the interval from the 26th of May, when the
words were used by the defendant, till the 9th of November,
wnen the plaintiffs wrote the letter—a letter which de-
manded an apology for slanderous and libellous language,
without rating, as was the custom with gentlemen us deli
cats hon:ur when they feel themselves aggrieved, what were
the words for which en apology se as demsndeo. It was not
surprising that no reply was given to that very threatening
letter; for H an apology had been sent it might very pouibly
have been treated as insufficient, and it would have afforded
evidence to support an action tor slander. He submitted
, therefore in the fin. place that considering the lapse of time
implicit reli.nce uld not be placed on tho accuracy of tee
word, reputed to have been spoken ; secondly, that it was a
bona fide privi.eged communication, spoken in confidenee,
without any sipress or intended actual malice ; and thirdly,
that the words were notapplied to the plaintiffs. There was
one other puiut worthy of consideratiou granting for a mo-
ment that slanderous words affecting the character of
the plaintiff. were used, the effect of this action was
to publish to the world and inrtribe on a monument
altered to the reputation of the plaintiff., words which he
been buried in toe bosoms of only three persons—viz., Mrs.
Harriet Collett and Mrs. Sophia Collett, by sod to whom
they ware spoken, and Mr. Husband, the attorney to whom
they were repeated. On these grounds he cc& lend, asked
the jury to return a verdict for his client.
Mrs. Collett was recalled, and in reply to a question from
the court said that she repeated the words of the defendant
to Mr. Husband the some day they were uttered
Mr. Baron Rolfe told the jury that they must n 6.4
themselves that the words refuted to have been used were
thou actually spoken by the defendant, and if en, that they
were spoken in the sense alleged by the plaintiffs. The
third point was, whet er the words were uttered under such
circumstances as made it justifiable to utter them. If the
defendant consulted her mother in-law, by whom she lied
been introduced to the plaintiffs, and whether rightly or
wrongly inhumed, had seated to her that she had been told
:hat the mortgage in question was a forgery, a swiud.e, or
a fraud, though these might not be very courteous
expressions, yet if used in that tense, and not for tne purpose
or iej ming the plaintiff., they came within the class ut pri-
vileged communications. It was for th- jury to determine
whether they were used in that sense or not. If the jurt
were of opinion that they were not so used, then the plaintiff
would be entitled to some d allege s.
Toe jury immediately returned a verdict fir the de-
fendant.
Mr. Serjeant Allen asked whether the jury returned their
verdict on the ground that it was a contelenual commit.
.tion ?
The Jury—Yes : the words were used in confidence.
Mr. Baron Rolfe—And L think, gentlemen, you hare fourid
a verdict perfectly right.

--- - - -
POLICE.-YESTERDAY.