The Express.
London, England, 1857-03-07 00:00:00

him by the bishop's steward, Mr. Grcasly. When be was at
Auckland the linen.s were sent to Mr. Greenly to be sealed.
and banded to bins Gtr consideration. When the license wan
handed to him Mr. Burgess's name woe not on it. The
was a blank in it for the name. He brought ft to Durham in
that Mete. He took it on the 27th of September in that
state tsMr. Dartson's offiee. Mr. Davison was secretary to
the late bishop. He directed that gentlemen to
insert the Reverend George Hurt Bargecs'i name
in the Lease as incumbent of Christchurch, West Hartle-
pool; he was aware that the cemetery bad been conosernited
upon the petition of the vicar of Btranton and Mr. Burgess.
The none we. inserted in his (Mr. Bland's) presence. Alter
it was inserted, he (Mr. Bland) signed.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hill —lt was on his responsibility
that the document wee signed. He was aware that there
was an imseenily eontroversy at West Hartlepool.
The Judge said he would not have any seligious contra-
verily there.
He-examined by Mr. Atherton—ln using the term " un-
seemly" he did not apply it to Mr. Burgess.
Mr. Jackson, a clerk in Mr. Davieon'a noire, stated that
he (witness) filled up Mr. Burro's WIMP in the IM Niue.
The learned Judge then expressed hit. opinion that after
the explanation now given it was It groat pity to go un with
the MAC.

—Mr. Hill, Q.C., then addressed the jury for the defisdents
He protested against the conduct of the plaintiff, who, in-
seed cat' writing a note to the editor of the Iherhaw
hurt which waa admitted by him to be a respectable journal,
and in which that note would here been publiehed iu the
eery nf la impression, and would have cat once corrected auy
mistake that the parties had fallen Into, chose to bring this
action against the defeedants. The West Hartlepoel cont-
edoionerst were a public body, app oiuted by act of parthr
meat, and reeponsaide to the ratepayers, and semester tidy
whose prseediuga were of interest to the piddle uel properly
reported be the prose. This report, he observed, was objet ted
to as libellous because it was not a report in intense. Bei
be maintained that it was a fair condensation et the proceed-
begs. He contended that the report having been lent to the
delendinte by their reporter, ar.d relating to public matters
not onit ..f intense to the town of Harthsesols but to
the whole diocese of Durham, they were jusilld
in publishing it. He remarked that sixty yews
ago an the ease of Woodfall, the printer, Lord Mansfield had
laid it down that the jury had not to levido with regard to
the libel, but with tepid to its publication Since that de-
cision, however, en act had been posed which left it to the
jury to de are whether the publication was a libel or Lot.
lie alluded to the rase of " Lord 1441C•11 V. the Debellao a
the lkitly News," in which ease tho conduct of that nob!, Lion
had been severely reverted upon; but the inCele having
been published in the interest of the public, the jury gave •
verdict for the defendants. This report in the bode ors
Arkertive.• was a comet account of the proceedings, and
published in good faith; and therefore Attie jury did gee the
plaiuutf a verdict, let it be for the smallest coin in the
. . .

The learned judge then aummed up, stating his opinion
that the expressions made UM ,f at the meeting clearly con-
tained libellous matter. Iteporterd and lamella's, proprittore
were private individuals performing eery uaeful and im-
portant functionot, but if they circulated slanders they must
be held reaponaittle, as other priv.tte individuals were.
The jury retired fur a chart time, and et two o'clock re-
turned with a verdict for the plaintiff—one farthing damages.