Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-04-06 00:00:00

THE -NORTHERN TIMES, :,WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6 1859

Tyrer said. I did not know all the circumstances, and that
he had acted under the advice of two friends of this person,
and that it was a matter which he could explain. By Mr.
James : I am not prepared to say that the persoa who gave
me the information was exaggerating. He might speak
without thinking. W. K. Tyrer examined : I am the
plaintiff in this action. I first commenced my practice as
attorney in Liverpool in 1839. The late Mr. Richardson
was one of my earliest and best friends. He commenced
to employ me in 1839, and continued to employ me up to
the time of his death, and paid me large sums of money.
I was employed by members of his firm, and also in his
private capacity. I remember his death. I did
receive an invitation to his funeral. I did not solicit an
invitation. Before the funeral took place I saw Mr. Robert
Richardson. Mr. John Richardson was married twice. He
had three sons by the first wife, and two sons and a daughter
by the second wife. He was out the same age as myself
then —about 33 or 34. Mr. Robert Richardson asked me
if I had a will of his father. I told him I had no memory
of any will of his father, but I would look my journal. I
looked, and found no trace of any. Mr. Robert Richardson
and Mr. M'Clellan called on me on the 10th January,
1848. Mr. M'Clellan asked me whether I had made a
will for Mr. Richardson. I told him the son had made the
same enquiry, and I could find none. He told me that Mr.
Richardson had submitted a draft to him and he was
almost certain that it was my producing. I told him he
was mistaken, but that I had received au invitation to
the funeral, they thinking, no doubt, that I had a will to
produce. I attended the funeral. I returned about twelve
or one o'clock. I left with the guest whom I accompanied
to the house, Mr. Joseph Crossly. I did not remain until
all the rest of the guests were gone. I made no
search in the house, nor know of any being made. I
was only in one room. Robert Richardson called on me on
the 11th Janaary, 1848, and said that he was informed by
Mr. Cabbin, his stepmother's brother, that a will had been
made at the Isle of Man by his father. He told me also
that his stepmother had been burning some papers, which
she said were her private letters, but he thought by inad-
vertence or design she had destroyed the will. His father,
he said, had settled an estate on the second wife and family
in the Isle of Man, worth £lO,OOO. He said, he was
almost certain that a will could be found ; but, before it
was proved, he would like to know how it was executed,
and under what circumstances. I told him he could enter
a caveat. After some other conversation, I recommended
him to go to my proctor at Chester, and consult him, as I
was going to Landon the next day. He then asked me if I
would go with him, and I did go with him, and we con-
sulted-together., It was after the consultation with Mr.
Ayerton that Mr. Richardson gave him instructions to enter
the caveat. On the morning of the 12th Mr. Robert
Richardson called on me, and said, Mr. M'Clellan was
furious at me having entered a caveat. I told him I would
withdraw it, and wrote a letter to Mr. Ayerton. I
went to London on the 12th, and returned in
the middle of the night of the 13th. On my
return from London I saw Mr. Richardson on the
14th, and found that a caveat had been re-entered by Mr.
Richardson's directions. I asked why he did this, and he
repeated his anxiety, and said he would not mind what Mr.
M'Clellan said. Mr. Richardson told him on that night
that a will had been found, and I consequently wrote to
Mr. Ayerton to withdraw.the caveat. I had nothing to do
with the will after that, directly or indirectly. Robert
Richardson, about five or six years ago, died. I was his
professional adviser up to that time. I never saw old Mr.
Richardson's wife after his death. Mr. Payne, the attorney,
was introduced then. I never saw anything more of the
occurrence till this pamphlet was published. I acted as
legal adviser for Mr. M'Clellan's wife for a separation in
1846. Lowndes and Robinson made a draft deed for separa-
tion; I mdae some alteration. Mr. M'Clellan agreed to
give her £75 a year, if she would reside within fifty miles
of Liverpool. I got that condition withdrawn. I received
a copy of this libel in an envelope directed by Mr.
M'Clellan. I am a married man, with a large family.
There was one copy of the pamphlet sent to my wife, and
one to the schoolmistress where my children are. Cross-
examined by Mr. Wilde : I believe the direction was in
Mr. M'Clelland's handwriting, in a disguised hand. I don't
know in whose handwriting the others were addressed. Mr.
Lowndes conducted the case of separation for Mr. M'Clel-
lan. The negotiations were conducted in a friendly spirit
throughout. Mr. M'Clellan has boasted that he would
ruin me for this. I heard this. He did not say so to me.
I had a March for the will before the funeral. Entering a
caveat might have been done by letter. Letters of adminis-
tration could not be executed before fourteen days. I have
known caveats entered the day after the death of the
deceased. Where a will is inexistence, it is an ordinary
step for the elder son to enter a caveat. It is not ordinary
to take out a caveat against taking out, a letter of adminis-
tration where no will is in existence ; but in this case a will
was supposed to be in existence. On the 17th February
last, I believe, I had made a complimentary call. I
did not soe Mrs. Richardson. I might have left my
card. It might possibly be that I made that compli-
mentary call a few days after the funeral, if at all.
I never made any search for the will in the house.
I searched through the papers of Mr. Richardson at my
office for the will. I made a search on the 11th. This
search on the 11th was a very short one. I was engaged by
a person named Yates, seven or eight years ago. Mr.
James objected to this matter being gone. The judge over-
ruled the objection. By Mr. Wilde : Mr. Yates came into
difficulties. He had several creditors. I became his
attorney. I did not recommend to him the notable scheme
of marrying a wife and settling his property on her, in
order to evade the creditors. He did marry a wife, and I
prepared a deed of settlement. Mr. M'Clellan published
a libel on this case. He said there was an advertisement
for a wife. The advice I gave him was in writing. After
reading that letter handed, Mr. Wilde asked if the witness
still persevered in his statement as to advising Yates to
marry a wife. The Judge objected to this question.
Witness : I saw Yates once on the subject of a
settlement, and also on the snbject of an award
which was disputed. I knew Yates was • about
to be married, and so did his family. The award
was paid. There was an item of some £1,400 which was
disputed. " At this very time were you not preparing- the
marriage settlement." The question was overruled. The
whole award was paid. Yates became insolvent, I paid
no part of it. I sent £2OO to me Harmood Banner, the
accountant. James Simcock examined by Mr. James : I
was a clerk in. Mr. Ayerton's. Have had considerable
experience in the office of Proctor. The ordinary practice,
with respect to caveats, when a will is supposed to be in
existence and not forthcoming, is to enter a caveat forth-
with. Thomas Cubbin said : I am the brother of the late
Mrs. Richardson. I was at the funeral. I was at the house
some days after the funeral. My sister died four years ago.
Mr. Tyrer was at the funeral of Mr. Richardson. I never
saw him after that day. I never heard Mr. Richardson
mention Mr. Tyrer's name to my knowledge. She had
no concern with any law and did not want any. Cross-
, examined by Mr. Wilde : I stopped in the house. Search
was made in the house for a will. I do not recollect whether
Mr. Tyrer was there or not at that time. Mrs. Richardson
was in the house. Mrs. Richardson was not to his know-
ledge with Mr. Tyrer that day. I never called on Mr.
Tyrer in my life. Maria Crossley cross-examined by Mr
Brett : I was an intimate friend of Mrs. Richardson. I
saw her the day after the funeral, and I think I saw her
from day to-day afterwards for some time. She never men-
tioned Mr. Tyrer's name to me. I never saw Mr. Tyrer at
the house. I recollect Mr. Tyrer calling at my father's
house on the day of the funeral. He lunched at my father's
house on that day. Examined by Mr. Wilde : " How far
have you come to tell us all this ?" Witness : From
Paris. (Laughter.) His Lordship : You may go back
again then. This closed the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. James, in reply, said : I am called upon to address you
again. Do you know why ? I am quite certain you do
not. My learned friend is to have the last word—and why ?
Because he dares not put into the witness box the foul
calumniator—the man who placed upon the record the plea
stating that the libel is true. But he instructs the learned
counsel to say : "I will libel. I will calumniate. I will
slander as much as I please. I will take the name of a
detective. I will lurk in secret places and pour forth my
foul slander against whomsoever I please. I will ask a
jury to believe that these slanders are true, although I
avow my disinclination to go into the witness box. And,
upon my oath, pledge myself that what I have deliberately
put upon the record as true, is really so." What can he
expect in a case like this ? Does he expect that
you will believe that Mr. Tyrer, who has not shrunk from
openly sheaving so far as he can, all the facts of the case,
is not to be believed upon his oath ? , Does he suppose that
you will discredit that gentleman and believe the unsworn
statement of that man contained in the libel ? If he does
he forms, as it seems to me, an erroneous judgment, as to
the minds and the dispositions of the twelve gentlemen
whom I have now the honour to address. He forms a very
erroneous opinion of the sentiments and the judgment of
all mankind, if he supposes that for an instant a man who
has presented himself as Mr. Tyrer has done, to meet the
charges made against him, is upon the mere statement of a
concealed calumniator to be discredited and disbelieved.
I wonder whether the defendant is now in court. Possibly he
is not far off. Possibly he may have heard the whole of
this case, and he shrinks from telling you who he is, and
what he is, and what his antecedents are. I see some one
shake his head. [The defendant sat not far behind Mr.
James, and nodded when the allusion was made to him.]
Not my learned friend, oh, no. He is too grave for that.
(Laughter.) But I should like to have seen that individual,
whereiannst teeeaeddl e
no
should
s. sh shaking his
alhdsiks
le
idhk eehaitdmo,
somehgaetv
e intoafeskw e
dcti that
i tmi wo
uwi
st
hnae
as
ts
hst-:br ohs
exi
ensue.
nuo
assailingsdt u
eh e. he t
rselay everybody
op
prrpeoefoekr
whonoani
tayle
falls
fe t hu
underm
thnai atetaoharwei sticking;l displeasure,
beea affao en
afforded
utterly

Yon will judge of the document itself. You will say
whether there can be any doubt that this is a foul,
calumnious, and malignant libel. Can there be any
doubt of that ? Is it an attack upon the professional cha-
racter, reputation, and position of Mr. Tyrer ? Can any
man in his senses for one moment doubt it ? It would be a
waste of time, a waste of trouble, and a waste of your
patience were I to comment for one instant upon the fact of
its being as foul a libel as ever was penned. Is it true that
this man has vindictive feelings against Mr. Tyrer ? My
learned friend cross-examined Mr. Tyrer upon some former
transaction, which Mr. Tyrer would most gladly meet in the
eye of open court, as he has met the other charge, were but
the opportunity afforded to him as has been afforded to the
defendant to-day, nor would he .dread the consequences of
the most open discussion. Mr. Tyrer said, in answer to my
learned friend's question—" All I know of the transaction
is that I believe this gentleman has threatened to ruin me,
and has foully slandered me before." Mr. M'Clellan dared
not get into the witness-box to-day to deny that fact, and
you may, therefore, take it that this is not the first time
he has indulged in a malevolent and malignant libel against
Mr. Tyrer. My learned friend asked Mr. Tyrer whether
the envelope which contained this malignant libel was
addressed to him in the handwriting of Mr. M'Clellan, and
he answered, "I believe it is Mr. M'Clellan's handwriting,
although disguised." Could Mr. M'Clellan not have told
the truth upon this point, ? Could he not have said whether
or not it was his hand which sent, with a malignancy the
most diabolical which man can conceive, to the schoolmistress
where this gentleman's infant daughters are receiving their
education, this foul, malignant, filthycalumny upon the parent
of those children. Would he not have said, if he could, that it
was not so at all ? What think you of the man who can shrink
when he is charged with having, to the wife of my client's
bosom, obtruded the malignity of his feelings ? What think
I you of the man who is not content with spreading over the
masses of society his foul slanders, but who must invade the
sanctity of the household circle ? Mr. Wilde : There is no
evidence of that. His Lordship : No ; we do not know
where it came from. Mr. Wilde : Mr. Tyrer did . not
venture to state that. Mr. James : We have the fact,
that one was received at his house and another at the
school ; and we have the indisputable fact, uncon-
tradicted, that he sent one to Mr. Tyrer himself, who
publishes it. 'Who discloses it but Mr. M'Clellan ? Search
through the land, and it will be difficult to find a more
malignant, a more venemous, more diabolical man than this.
Is it to be supposed that anyone else, unless by his directions,
and by his advice, or at his instigation, would have sent
those libels hither ? It is impossible to suppose it. Would
not anyone who was innocent of such a deed have got into
the witness-box, and indignantly denied that he had been
guilty of such a desecration of the family hearth ? He
did not dare to do so, but he trusts to the eloquence, and
the ability, and the zeal—of all which he will have the full
benefit—which belong to my learned friend, than whom no
man living is better able to make a speech in favour of his
client, although he has no facts upon which he can
found hig speech. Gentlemen, on the one side you have
facts —on the other a speech. It is for you, and for you
only, to say whether you have any doubt that this is one of
the most malicious hbels which were ever published upon
any professional man, and that there is not the slightest
ground for saying it is true ; and having come to that con-
clusion, it is for you, and for you only, to say what is the
amount of damages--not that Mr. Tyrer wants the money,
far, very far from it--but I appeal to you for this reason,
that the amount of your verdict may be, perchance, here-
after assigned by him and by his friends, to show that
he has been grossly, foully, and malignantly libelled.
If you are desirous, so far as you can, in the ab-
sence of the testimony of the man who might, if he
pleased, have given testimony as to the truth of this
libel, and who has not done so, mark by your
verdict, your sense of indignation at conduct such as that
of Mr. M'Clellan. Gentlemen, I have done. I have called
your attention to the facts and the circumstances of the case.
Mr. Tyrer is before you now, upon his character and his
reputation, and through me he earnestly, most earnestly,
entreats you, the proper tribunal to try a case of this kind,
to vindicate his character, and set him right in his own
estimation and in that of his friends.

Mr. Wylde, for the defence, said that his learned friend
had laid the ground for a most serious disappointment, be-
cause he had led them to expect that he should- address
them in what he was pleased to call terms of eloquence,
and make a great speech about nothing at all, having no
basis, as he said, or facts to rely upon. He did not require
any facts to rely upon, or to be proved by witnesses, on the
part of the defendant, because, as he would show them
presently, the substantial defence which he should lay
before them had been amply proved out of the mouth of
Mr. Tyrer himself. This was a great day for Mr. Tyrer.
He (Mr. Tyrer) had there a grand opportunity of defending
himself against a transaction which took place some years
ago, and which was perfectly well known at that time to
all those concerned or connected with the parties. Since
that time the witnesses, those who would have been able to
speak of the details of the case, had all died, and
Mr. Tyrer was now in undisputed possession of the
ground and the eloquence of the learned counsel. Mr. Tyrer
came into court that day to say, give me grand and exem-
plary damages for a libel which his friend called a " foul,"
" devilish," "malignant," " diabolical," and, he thought,
"filthy" libel. Every word that could be invented which
expressed anything that was bad, was applied to this libel.
Mr. Tyrer came into court to ask them to give him damages
upon which he might take his stand for a high reputation
among his fellow-men. They would see presently how far
that which was the substance of the account given by Mr.
M'Clellan, in this so called libel, was justified by what Mr.
Tyrer had himself proved. Then they should be able to
estimate upon what just grounds Mr. Tyrer brought this
action upon which he was to take his stand in future rank
so high among his fellow-men. Sometimes it was that
persons who came into court, against whose character and
reputation there never had been the slightest whisper,
took advantage of the first opportunity that offered,
if a word was said against them, of vindicating
the character which had hitherto stood above suspicion.
But again, people sometimes come into Court to re-establish,
and place upon a high footing, a reputation which had been
somewhat tarnished by previous transactions ; and it the
evidence was only such that they could steer clear of some of
the charges brought against them, and gain a verdict from a
jury, and thus be enabled to say, I went before a
jury in 1859, and they set my reputation free." It was
true that a man's character was dear to him, and that an
attornies character was dear to him was essentially true,
but it was because he was placed in a position of trust and
confidence. And if, on the one hand, an attornies cha-
racter was essentially requisite to him, so on the other
hand it was important that the public should know from
time to time whether they had acted so as
to deserve confidence. If a man had acted so as
to be guilty of any breach of confidence, it was fair
and reasonable that any such transaction should be brought
to light. And a public inquiry of this sort had a public
end. On the one hand, it was somewhat of a lesson to
those who might have misconducted themselves, to put a
restriction on himself in future, and on the other hand, it
put the public on their guard as to those who might
break confidence. His client courted inquiry. It was on
public grounds alone that his client first drew attention to
this matter, and it was on these public grounds alone that
he thought it was important. His learned friend ought not
to have brought charges which he could not substantiate.
He who used such words as "filthy," ought to be aware of
making such charges as he could not prove. His learned
friend was very careful of his (Mr. Wilde's) client's good
name, when he suggested to the jury that Mr. M'Clellan
had been animated by a bitter hatred to Mr. Tyrer, because
he acted as attorney in the separation that took place between
Mr. M'Clellan and his wife. Mr. Tyrer had not hesitated
to bring before them the painful circumstances of the
separation between John M'Clellan and his wife. As a
matter of taste, particularly in those who sought to stand
so high in their estimation, Mr. Tyrer might have for-
borne this, and as a matter of fairness, what right had he to
bring it into that court at all. It was to prove a thing which
Mr. Tyrer himself when put into the witness box disproved.
When he was asked if there was anything unfair in the
matter of the separation, he was obliged to admit that
there was not. There was only a slight alteration made in
the deed by him, and that was the condition that Mrs.
M'Clellan should reside without 50 miles of Liverpool ;
and there was not the slightest pretence that out of that
transaction there arose anything to produce any ill-feeling
whatever. The whole matter passed off amicably, without
any suspicion. And yet he found his learned friend, who
professed to come there solely to protect the character` of
his client, throw this matter into it against Mr.
He hoped the jury would look upon the question in the
W
light in which he looked at it. as there a violation of
the confidence which a professional man should carry into
the bosom of a family into which he was called ? That was
the question they would have to try, whether Mr. M'Clel-
lan had done right in bringing the matter before the
public ? What were the facts ? lie would not trouble
them by reading the publication over amain. The charge
lay in the narrowest possible compass. Mr. Tyrer said he
had been invited to the funeral, and on the very day of the
funeral he proceeded to Chester with the oldest son, who
was the stepson of the widow, to enter a caveat against
any letters of administration being taken out by the widow.
The charge which Mr. M'Clellan made against Mr. Tyrer
was, that he was called
upon to put himself into the position
of an adviser of a family who was then plunged into grief
by the death of its head, e
and Mr. M'Clellan said h helped
.
to search for the will ; hewever, that was unimportant ,
and on the same day proceeded to Chester, with the stepson,
to enter a caveat against the mother
(M'Clellan)
out a probate
He m,
or letters of administration. ell stn) said that
was a monstrous evil. They all knew that, if there was a
'
will,• it was, of course, proved • and if there was no will,
the next of kin was entitled to take out letters of adminis-
tration; and if there was no will, Mr. Richardson was

Unquestionably entitled to take out letters of adminis' tration,
which could not be taken out for 14 days, and thus Mr..
M'Clellan said, he (Mr. Tyrer) caused a family quarrel
and created family differences on the very day of the funeraL
He said this was a most wicked thing to do, and a thing
that ought to be made known. That was the charge—and
how had it been met ? He thought the jury would be of
opinion, after seeing the manner in which Mr. Tyrer had
conducted himself in the witness-box, that Mr. Tyrer did
examine the house, the day of the funeral, for the deed, al;
had been stated by Mr. M'Clellan, and that he did make a
search at his own office before the 11th. Mr. Tyrer said, he
must have made a search on the 11th, although he positively
swore previously that he did not, so that he may have wail.:
a search at the house. He commented on the fact that,
Mr. Ayerton was not called, and proceeded to say,
that Mr. M'Clellan was indignant when he
heard that Mr. Robert Richardson had entered a careat, and
got him to withdraw it. They had, therefore, on the day
of the funeral, the fact that this disgraceful act was
done, a violation of that mediating character which
ought to have been exercised in such a case as that.
He could well understand why Mr. M'Clellan was
indignant. That was a transaction which Mr..
M'Clellan at the time thought monstrous, and it
was a transaction which Mr. Jeffery, the defendant's first
witness, heard of at the time. That was a transaction
which filled these gentlemen with indignation. The wit-
nesses were dead - Mrs. Richardson, Mr. Robert Richard-
son, and Mr. Crossley—and he had no means of distinctly
proving the interview Mr. Tyrer had with Mrs. Richard
son. Mr. Tyrer first swore positively that he never bad
seen Mrs. Richardson after the funeral. He then said he
did not recollect; and then, after a letter of his own was
put into his hand, he said, "well, I think I might have
paid a complimentary visit," and then he reverted back to
his original position, and said he never made any call.
With reference to the envelope, enclosing a copy
of the pamphlet to Mr. Tyrer, Mr. Tyrer said first it was
in the defendant's own handwriting, and on being cross-
examined, he was obliged to say " Yes, I still think it is
in a feigned hand " That was another attempt that he
made to blacken Mr. M'Clellan, in order to render himself
of greater purity. His learned friend had made a complaint
because he did not call his client, that he might question hint
as to his antecedents ; but his learned friend was very prompt
to jump up when he called upon Mr. Tyrer to tell something
of other transactions. But he did learn from Mr. Tyrer
that he advised a certain Mr. Yates, and that Mr.
Yates did enter into a transaction to purchase a wife, in
order to get rid of his creditors; that he suddenly married,
and got rid of his creditors, and, somehow, £2OO, which
had reference to this transaction, got out of the
pockets of Mr. Tyrer, but after hunting after, he could
not find where the money had gone to. With refer-
ence to the story of the pamphlet, it was written with
such names as " Badenough," and nobody reading
it would ever imaeine that the great Mr. Tyrer, the
man of unexceptionable character, a man who was to have
exemplary damages because he was a professional man,
whose character was so high that nobody would ever
imagine that this was him. It was a matter of
conscience to himself, and the other parties knew all about
it—Mr. Jeffert and others. It merely said that there was
an attorney in the north of England to whom this incident
occurred. Mr. M'Clellan's object was to make known, if
he could, and to shame if he could, those who were engaged
in transactions of this description, and there was no use
in that ? Was a man not allowed to do that ? What
was it that controlled professional mens' misconduct, but ,
the publications of the press. They talked about the re-
sponsibility of their political men, and other public sues,
but there was no responsibility outside the courts of justice
except that control exercised by the public press. The
learned counsel concluded by repeating this was bat an
opportunity taken by Mr. Tyrer of asserting his character,
which had been previously before the public.
His Lordship then proceeded to sum up the evidence,
and in the course of his remarks observed, That it seemed
difficult to assign a motive for the publication in this ease.
If it were public duty, the idea of duty seemed to have
slept unaccountably for ten years. If on the other hand
it were ill will to the plaintiff on account of the part he
took in the unfortunate separation of the defendant from
his wife, then one must wonder why the malice conceived
in 1846, should have slept for twelve years, until 1858. One
could not help surmising that there must be sonic other •
motive which was not apparent. In reference to the send-
ing of the letters to the plaintiff's wife, and to the school-
mistress, his Lordship said he should not be discharging his
public duty if he did not say that that was a most improper act
whoever was guilty of it. Counsel for the defendant had
intimated that his client had nothing to do with it. All
his Lordship could say was, that he very much hoped so.
His Lordship went very carefully over the evidence, and
observed that if the jury were of opinion that this publica-
tion was a libel about which they would probably have very
little difficulty, the fact that, for some inexplicable reason,
the matter had been revived after ten years delay, would be
looked upon probably by them as enhancing the damages;
and the fact that the publication had been sent to the wife
and the schoolmistress, if they believed the defendant had
anything to do with it, would be viewed by them as
having a similar effect. He added that, if the jury
should award contemptuous or ignominious damages in such
a case, instead of giving substantial damages, it would be
in vain to tell people to apply to the law for redress when
they were maligned ; the law would have a show of justice,
but would deny the power. The jury then retired to
consider their verdict, and, after nearly an hour's delibera-
tion, returned into court with a verdict for the plain
Damages, "Forty shillings and costs."

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NORTHERN DAILY TIMES.
Sir,—With the report of the trial in the above case,
which will, no doubt, appear in the NORTHERN DAILY
TltEs to-morrow, permit me to make a short explanatory
statement. The counsel for the plaintiff, and the plaintiff
himself, insinuated that .I had been guilty of the unmanly
offence of sending a copy of the pamphlet to Mrs. Tyrer,
and the schoolmistress of their daughters. That insinuation
was entirely baseless, and utterly false. I did not send any,
nor did I know, directly or indirectly, of such copies being
sent, nor did I authorize copies to be so sent.—l am, sir,
yours, &c., D. M'CLELLAM.
Price-street, April 5, 1859.

ANNUAL CAIt.RIAGE
LUCAS'S REPOSITORY.
CLARENCES, PARK PILETONS,
BROUGHAMS, ALBERT PH/ETONS'
DRAGS, Light and Elegant Gios,
WAGGONETTES, BASKET CARRIAGES,
FAMILY PHZTONS, Two and Four-whee:o 1
B RIT SE AS, N &C., &C.
By Messrs. LUCAS and Co.,
Thie Day (Wednesday), the 6th instant, at their Repository_
Great Charlotte-street, Liverpool,
300 CARRIAGES,
70 sets HARNESS.
Order of Sale.—Ten to Eleven o'clock, Harness ; Eleven to run
o'clock, Carriages.
Mr An inspection of this splendid stock of Carriages is earnestly
requested.

S ALP,

-- -
OUTRAGE ON BOARD Slim—Yesterday, two men went
taken into custody, and lodged in the Birkenhead bridenell,
on a charge of having seriously assaulted a coloured wan oar
board the ship Manhattan, of New York. The names of
Haganthe prisoners are and Carrigan, and it is stated they
were passengers on board the vessel. They will be brought
up for trial to-day.
CORONER'S INQUESTS.—yesterday, the coroner held the
following inquests :—On the body of John Evans, 15 yearn
of age, who belonged to the schooner Margaret Jones, in
the Prince's Dock. It appeared that on Thursday the
deceased was left in the vessel, and in the evening the
captain came on board and missed him. His body was
found in the dock on Saturday. Verdict, " Pound
drowned." On the body of John Fallows, tie driver of
the ginger beer shandry, who was killed in Park-lane on
Saturday. The details of this case were published in our
paper of yesterday, as it was before Mr. Mansfield at the
police court on Monday, and the evidence given was the
same, so that it is not necessary to republish it. The jury,
after hearing the whole details, returned a verdict of
a Accidental death." [This is at variance with the decision
arrived at by Mr. Mansfield, who sent the accused _ puum
GARSTON BOARD OF HoEfa:mlele' res
for trial for manslaughter. Who is right ?)
ly
is
Gcrs rlefaesd.smniejr.
meeting of the new board was held
Oyledst_erday afternialoollain,
memberstheboard -room
not of
iNtheerep_ublliicr-.
A. Thine, Chaloner, Morris,
L. acintyre, J. A. D. Wang,
occupied by Mr. Morris,
Castellain, Chidson, and ightbody. The chair was
been conducted in who certified that.the election had
Grant Morris, Will'our
Health Act. The f
new arrison. Mr.
conformity with the terms of the Public
William
nanodw members elected were Messrs. John.
tam Drury Chidson, Alfred Castellaine,
Alderman Cooper said, that
HEALTH.—The
ae
otpoe first
The omissionw
idnugt y.board was assembled, he felt reminded of a
which That ought to have been performed at the last med-
al av
ivnogt e
occurred,of t hank s
he
to e theeoucl chairman a iornnli
only
n express(app l (applause)
ehl
T
Tebo et to the board that it should have been so. He should
new move that the thanks of the board be given to Mr_
Morris, whose untiring patience and sound good sense had
conduced so much to the gratifying mode in which the
business had been conducted. In addition, he would move
that Mr. Morris be re-appointed chairman. Mr. Tim
seconded the motion, which was unanimously carried- Mr.
Morris, in appropriate and feeling terms, acknowledged the
compliment of re-election, believing, as he did, that that
was the truest encomium the board could pass upon
his
efforts. The meeting next proceeded to elect members of
the finance committee, which was constituted as follows,
viz. :—Messr. Chaloner, Chidson, Sutton, Tinne, Cooper,
Castellaine, and Harrison. The health and works coin_
mittee were next appointed, to consist of Messrs. Chidson,
Chaloner, Macintyre, Lightbody, Watts, Cooper, and
Castellaine. There was no other business before the board,
and the meeting separated.

THE SPRING ASSIZES.

CROWN COURT.-YESTERDAY.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE WILLES.

COLLISION IN THE CHANNEL—ACTION FOR DAMAGES.--
BRIDSON V. WARD.—This was an action brought by Henry
John Ward, the owner of a yacht, for damages done to the
said yacht by the steam tug Storm King, of whom Henry
Bridson is the owner, such collision. having taken place in
consequence of the negligence and mismanagement of the
servants of the owner of the steam tug. The defendant
pleaded not guilty, and issue was joined. Mr. Atherton,
Q.C., and Mr. Lushington appeared for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Monck, Q.C., and Mr. Henderson for the defendant.
Mr. Atherton opened the case, from which it appeared that
Mr. Ward was a gentleman carrying on business as a
bleacher at Bolton, and that he was the owner of the Nim-
r a pleasure yacht of about 40 tons. The defendant was
the owner of a considerable number of steam tuns plying on
the Mersey, under the title of the Liverpool Steam Tug
Company. In the month of September, the Nimrod, with a
competent crew of a master and four men, was lying at
anchor in the Sloyne, with two anchors out, one on either
side, for the purpose of steadying her, and the Storm King
was also at anchor, having one anchor out, a little further
up the river. The steam tug Enterprise was also riding in
a situation between the Storm King and Nimrod. There was a
very high spring tide on that day, and early on the morn-
ing of the 7th the tide was running out very rapidly, and
with great force. In consequence of the great strength of
the receding tide, and the insufficiency of the Storm King's
moorings, her single anchor was unable to hold her; she
drifted down upon the Enterprise ; the Enterprise also
drifted down after the collision, and both vessels drifted
down on the yacht ; the crew of the Nimrod were aroused
by a cry of yacht ahoy," and on going on deck they
found that the two steamers were bearing down directly on
the yacht. The Storm King struck her on the starboard
bow, while the Enterprise struck her on the larboard. The
yacht remained in the gripe of these two vessels and drifted
further down the river, until the steamers got up steam and
got clear. The Nimrod sustained considerable damage,
and on being surveyed it was found necessary to repair her.
In order to have the repairs effected at a cheap rate she
was taken to Beaumaris, where the work was executed.
The crew of the Nimrod weee constantly engaged in assist-
ing the carpenter in the repairs, and in the plaintiff's
claim the wages of the men had been charged for.
The damage that the yacht had received had originally been
estimated at between £7O and £BO, and the sum actnally
charged by the plaintiff in his present claim was £B4 ls.,
the amount that it had actually cost him to repair her,
but a considerable portion of the claim consisted of the
wages of the crew of the Nimrod, during the time they
were engaged in repairing her. A number of
witnesses were examined on the part of the plaintiff, to show
that the collision was caused by the negligence of those on
board the Storm King. There was one anchor out, and
little or no chain, this being quite inadequate to keep the
steamer from drifting, in consequence of a high spring tide
and the wind. Mr. Monck pressed Mr. Bridson to answer
this question : Did not Mr. Ward say to you, " Well, I'm
not to blame in this affair ; but, as we both belong to the
Yacht Club, and I can repair the yacht much cheaper than
you can, I'll repair her, and place her in testate of effi-
ciency?" Mr. Bridson would not swear whether this was
said or not. It was contended, on the part of the defence,
that the damage done to the Nimrod was the effects of a
pure accident, and that no caution or vigilance on the
part of the crew of the Storm King could have pre-
vented the accident. A number of witnesses were called
or the defendant, one of whom said, that the damage really
done to the Nimrod did not exceed £26. Mr. Henderson
proceeded to address the jury for the defendant. He con-
tended that, if there had been a watch on board the Nim-
rod, the accident could have been avoided ; but, instead of
this, there was no watch ; the Nimrod had been hailed by
several boats, and never answered, until the tugs were
nearly upon her. When they did get on deck,
they took a boat out, and rowed the captain's
wife on shore, and returned, leaving the vessel to take
care of herself in their absence. There must have
been gross negligence on the pact of the plaintiff's servants,
and he called upon the jury to give a verdict for the defen-
dant. His Lordship proceeded o sum up. He proceeded
to explain the evidence given on each side, and concluded
by saying that, if the jury came to the decision that the
damage was caused by any negligence on the port of defend-.
ant's servants, they would next have to consider the amount
of 'damages to be awarded. In the first part, Mr. Kerrigan,
ship builder, Tranmere, who stated he had surveyed the
vessel, and thought she might be repaired. . Then
there was the evidence of • a ship builder on
the part of the plaintiff that he would have repaired her. for
£24. The next point to consider was the actual amount
said to have been out of pocket by the plaintiff. Roberts,
the master of the yacht, had paid £2l I4s. Bd. for repairs ;
£39 10s. for wages of the crew during said repairs. Mr.
Bridson had been out of pocket in travelling expenses ; loss
by the sale of the yacht, &c., and a further suns which would
inthe whole amount to £B4 Is., the amount sought to be
recovered. The jury having considered for a few minutes,
returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £63 ls. 4d.
COLLISION IN THE CHANNEL—WARD V. M'TEAR. —The
plaintiff, defendant in the late case, sought to recover
damages for a collision between the Sea King and the Lion,
on their passage from Rhyl to Liverpool. Mr. Aspinall
prosecuted, and Mr. Wheeler appeared for the defence. In
his opening statement it would appear that both steamers left
Rhyl on the 10th of September, for Liverpool, the Lion
being some six or seven minutes before the. Sea King ; the
latter, being the larger and more powerful, overtook the Lion;
when the Sea King came up to. the Lion, there was room
enough to pass her, and without interfering with a number
of fishing boats which were opposite Hoyloke. The Sea
King ported her helm for the purpose of passing her, and
the same time she found that the Lion starboarded her
helm, the consequence being that the Sea King was
run into, and had her bowsprit carried away, her
cutwater damaged, and several other injuries inflicted.
The defence relied upon was chiefly on the evidence of
Captain Lewis, of the Lion, who stated that he left Rhyl
on the 10th September, at ten minutes past twelve. In a
short time she was followed by the Sea King. The Lion
kept the lead inside the lake until coming abreast the Black
Buoy, when the Sea King was to the northward, being then
about 500 yards of the Ormshead. The Lion's engines
were slowed, she going to the northward, and the Sea King
to the southward, until they came close up to the Holyoake
fishing boats. The Lion's helm was put hard a starboard.
as they expected that the Sea King would put hard
aport, but she came up and folloNved the Lion, not-
withstanding there was plenty of water for both, one
to the westward and the other to the southward, and the
Sea King ran into the Lion, carrying away the bowsprit,
damaging her cutwater, and throwing the Lion on her
-beam-ends. The tonnage of the Sea Kin; is 150 tons, and
of the Lion 80 tons. There were 71 passengers on the
Lion at time, and great alarm was created on board that
steamer. The jury, having considered for about a minute,
returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages one shilling.
SLANDER.— HODGSON V. JONES.-The plaintiff was Mr.
Hodgson, a surgeon, residing at Egremont, and the defen-
dant, Mr. Jones, a chemist, in the same neighbourhood.
The venue set forth that the defendant had viciously spoken
of and slandered the plaintiff ; and the defendant said he
was not guilty of slander, and, further, that the plaintiff
was not a surgeon. Mr. Pickering and Mr. Millward
appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Edward James, Q.C., for
the defendant. It appeared that the plaintiff
resides in Egremont, and practices as a surgeon
there, which he has done for some time past. Some six
years ago a sort of misunderstanding occurred between him
and the defendant, he having complained that Jones did
make up his prescriptions as he ought to have done, and
that his drugs were spurious. Since then an ill-feeling has
been between them, and recently the defendant uttered the
slander complained of. Dr. Hodgson had been giving
medical advice to a young gentleman named White. In
mseqaence of White removing from the neighbourhood,
the plaintiff discontinued giving him his advice. Soon
after, the defendant and a Mr. Sutton were crossing in the
ferry boat to Liverpool, when it was averred that Mr.
Jones said to Sutton, ‘i Why he (Dr. Hodgson) nearly
killed White. If White had not come and consulted me,
he weald have been a dead man from Hodgson's mal-
practice:, Of course this conversation was sure to ultimately
come to the ears of the doctor, and when it did so, it was
natural th it he should feel agrieved. He felt that his
character was injured, and his prospects interfered with, if
not materially `}-auriged ; hut, as his counsel said, he did all
that a forbearing man could. lie wrote to the defendant,
demanding an explanation, &C. The letter,
which he un-
fortunately had not kept a copy .vas nearly, if not
literally, in the following war 3,
" Sir,—You had a con-
versation with Mr. P. Sutton, in the course of which you
told him I had nearly killed John 'Whit This
is a moit infernal slander, and if you do not retracte it, and
make an ample apology, I will take legal proceedirtitgiosvefion
jruthre-
with, in order to prove that you are not at liberty
the character of any one with impunity. I will
till to-morrow to consider your decision." The ;ft'nsweyrotuo
this missive was short, pithy, and, if not satisfactory,
certainly to the point. The envelope enclosing Dr. Hodgson's
note was returned, with the words on it—" Sir, do your
worst; I deli' you.—Signed, Henry Jones." There was no
other course for the plaintiff than to bring the present
action to clear his character, yet it was not for the purpose
of receiving heavy damages. If the defendant would come
forward in an honourable manner and withdraw
the slander,
the the
and make an lienoui.able apology, they would withdraw
action. This the defendant refused to do, and
_car
proceeded. Mr. James submitted to his Lordsh tp
that the commentution of Mr. Jones was quite a
privileged one. Mr. Sutton had asked the opinion
of MrJones with reference to the ability and
e
talent of Dr. Hodgson, and quoted some law books on the
subject. His Lordship instanced several cases where such

eommentations had been. admitted as evidence, and he
would therefore leave it to the jury to consider whether in
their minds or not it was attended with malice fore-
thought. Mr. James then addressed the jury for the
defendant. He contended that the commentation made by
by Mr. Jones to Mr. Sutton was quite confidential and a
privileged one. The two had met on the ferry-boat, and
Sutton told Jones that Hodgson had asked him, when
anything was the matter with him, to consult him
(Hodgson). Jones said, "and do you intend to con-
sult Hodgson l'" Sutton returned answer, that he did
not like Hodgson, he kept his patients so long
under treatment, and requested Jones's opinion of the
skill and ability of Hodgson. Hodgson, in a quiet manner,
said : " Well, you know young Jones ; he has told me that
Hodgson nearly killed him." -This was all that passed at
the time. Mr. James then read a copy of the letter
from Dr. Hodgson to Jones, in which there was not one
word about apology. After a number of witnesses had been
examined, and Mr. Justice Willes summed up, telling the
jnry that they had first to consider whether the words had
been uttered, and if so, had they been uttered in the way
of advice and caution to Mr. Sutton, or had they been
uttered with a malicious intent. As a point of law, if the
words had been issued in a confidential way, and as advice
and counsel, they were not a slander. The jury had merely
to consider whether the words were uttered as a slander or
as advice and counsel to the witness Sutton. His Lordship
regretted exceedingly that Mr. Jones had not seen Dr
Hodgson and explained the matter, instead of sending back
his letter, with the pithy note :—" Sir,—Do your worst,
I defy you." Verdict for the defendant.
The court then rose.
NISI PRIUS COURT—YESTERDAY.
Mr. Justice Byles entered the court at nine o'clock this
day, and proceeded with the special jury causes, that of
Tyrer v. iTelellan being taken first, which will be found
reported at full length on another page. After that had
concluded, the following were taken :--
BROOKB AND ANOTHER, V. FORSHAW.—This was an
action upon a promissory note. The plaintiff's were
bank.ers, residing in Blackburn, and the amount claimed
was the balance due upon a promissory note. Mr. Atherton,
Q.C., appeared for the plaintiff's, and Mr. Segar, Q.C., for
the defence. The jury found for the plaintiff's for the
amount claimed.

KERFERD V. MosmErm.—ln this case the plaintiff was a
merchant, and the defendent a shipowner, both of Liver-
pool. The action was brought to recover the value of a
quantity of sugar, amounting to £3,172 18s 6d, and of
cochineal amounting to £2,679 lis 11d. Mr. James, Q.C.,
and Mr. Brett appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Atherton,
Q.C., with Mr. Millward for the defence. The question
in dispute, was whether the defendant was entitled to
retain the goods, which were brought in a vessel belonging
to him, until paid "dead freight " by the plaintiff,'
under a charter-party, made by Mr. J. M. Carmichael,
now a bankrupt, the plaintiff being the holder of the bills
of lading. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff,
subject to a special case.
Apprsox v. ALK.F.R.—This was an action brought by
George Barnabas Addison, against the Rev. George Alkar,
of Preston, to recover damages for a libel, in which the
plaintiff was charged with being guilty of fornication, and
unfit to be a clergyman in holy order, or a missionary of
the Church of England. Mr. Monck, Q.C., stated the case
for the plaintiff, from which it appeared that the defendant
was a clergyman, holding a benefice, and a cure of souls
in Preston, and the plaintiff was a yonng man, not 21 years
of age, a student for holy orders, and intended for a
missionary of the Church of England. The plaintiff was
born of parents in the humblest condition of life,
and at the age of eleven years became a
worker in a factory in Preston. He had been
there about two years when his father died. At that period
the whole extent of his education was, that he knew his
letters. His family were of the. Roman Catholic religion;
but, even at that very age, some doubts as to that, religion
seemed to have ettered his mind, and flndins, himself, in
consequence, uncomfortable in his family, he left his mother's
house,. and went to lodge with a Protestant family in.
Preston. He . attended the ministrations and the Bible
classes of the Rev. Mr. Alker, and was induced finally by
his reasonings to embrace the Protestant religion. He had
cultivated himself by study, and reading in the evenings,
and in a very short time he was found delivering
lectures upon the vexed questions of Catholic and
Protestant religious differences, and he became a
teacher in a Bible 'class. On his part, the learned counsel
admitted the greatest kindness,_ on the part of Rev. Mr.
Alker to him, at that time. During the strike at Preston,
some years back, he was thrown out of employment,.and he
received from Mr. Alker the utmost possible kindness and
assistance during. that time. He expressed a wish to devote
himself to missionary labours, and to obtain a situation in
the Missionary College at Islington, London. Through
the recommendation of the defendant the plaintiff was
received into that college. Prior, however, to that event
an
~intimacy had sprung up between him and a young-
woman, .‘hon-sel:eeper of Mr. Alker (who was a bachelor),
named Dorothy Jennings. His Lordship interposed at this
stage, and suggested that it was much to be regretted that
such a case should be tried. Mr. Monck said he had made
every effort to have it settled.. He suggested that the ques-
tion should now be referred to some gentleman or member
of the profession, to which both the parties in the case were
attached. Mr. Atherton, Q.C., who conducted the defence,
said his client believed it would be best that the case should
be tried in that court. Mr. Monek proceeded to state that
for some time previous the plaintiff had made professions
of love to the young woman, and paid close attentions to
her. When, however, he went up to the missionery college,
it was agreed between him and the yOung woman that
everything of the kind should cease. In November be
went up to London, and remained .in the college until
December, when he came down to Preston during
the vocation. On the Bth of January, before he
deturned to the college, the plaintiff was accused by
efendant of having written letters to Dorothy
Jennings, while at the same time paying attention to another
young woman. An explanation took place, which the plain-
tiff believed to be perfectly satisfactory ; but on the follow-
ing day he was surprised to receive a message from the Rev,
Mr. !Alker, who, in the. presence of the young woman,
charged bins with falsehood, with deceit, and with having
deserted her. He was told that charges of the kind would
be laid before the committee of the Missionary College.
When he went back, he found that charges had been made
against him, and in a few days after he was told that the
committee had decided the case, without hearing him
without calling on him for any defence, and even without
any detailed announcement of the charges against him.
They had decided upon expelling him from the institution.
The ground of action was, that the letters written by
Mr. Alker were the cause of his expulsion, and
that in these letters the defendant had accused plaintiff of
courting two or three young women at the same time, of
cursing and swearing, of making false statements, of having
criminal intercourse with a certain female, and with having ,
confessed to entertaining Antimonian doctrines. Under
these circumstances the action was brought. The Rev. J.
Green, Principal of the Church Missionary College,
Islington, was called as a witness and produced two letters
from the defendant addressed to him. The first stated that
plaintiff had been paying his addresses to at least two
females in Preston at one time, and had been engaged for
marriage to two persons. The letter added -" He has
aggravated his unprincipled and heartless conduct
by the most unblushing falsehoods, and I regret to
to say that, altogether, his Conduct and language
hss been of so unseemly. a character . as to
render his continuance in your institution an abuse of its
designers." The second letter was written some days sub-
sequcntly, and contained several charges of duplicity and
deceit against the Plaintiff, as regarded his engagement to
'Dorothy. Jennings and a Miss Emily Norwood, and in en-
deavouring to induce the brother of the latter young lady to
join him in the plan to obtain possession of certain letters
written by him (plaintiff) to Dorothy Jennings. This letter
enclosed a letter from plaintiff himself, addressed to this
young lady's brother, in reference to the charges made
against him, and admitting that he had committed one
breach of the regulations of the college. The Rev. Mr.
' Green was examined, and deposed that the_ letters of Mr.
Alker were not laid before, the committee, who dismissed
plaintiff from the college. The chief ground•of his dismissal
was his own admission that he had been guilty of a
breach of the regulations. , That breach consisted
in his having contracted an engagement with a young lady
at a time When he had declared, in answer to one of the
usual queries put to persons entering the college, that he
had no such engagement. The plaintiff was not himself
called before the committee. The . second letter from
defendant to witness followed one hem witness reßiresting
some further information as to the charges against the
plaintiff. Witness is the•sproper person to whom charges
against such a person ought to be made. The plaintiff was
received into the college on the recommendation of Mr.
Alker, among others. Rev. Mr. PoWer, a clergyman
resiaing near Preston, deposed that the defendant read
to him a copy of one of the letters addressed by him
to the Rev. Mr. Green, and that on another occasion
he told him the plaintiff he had been guilty of improper in-
tercourse with a certain young woman. Henry Riley
deposed that he had been a-member of Mr. Alker 's class,
and that on one occasion, in the month", of January, Mr.
Alker told the class, that Addison (the plaintiff) was guilty
of the offences he had been charged with. He asked "Who
brought Addison out of the Church of Rome ?" and the
class answered, " You did." lie asked, "'Who got him
in
nt\C What e
others college
g.?
1.1-oss4tuneisisd
soatihde, others," W tness said, and the pupils said, " You did."
one." Defendant asked, " Who Addisoncu,t‘"RevD eliernddoawPilontw?77 kafenodd;
there being no answer to that question, he replied himielf,
" I did;' Defendant further said that all he did with
regard to Addison he had done conscientiously. The
witness stated that these remarks arose out of a charge