Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-04-07 00:00:00

place. He gave evidence of his going to the assistance of
the unfortunate beings. He looked at the brick the next
day and examined the brickwork, and he came fo the con- i
elusion that the wall was either too old to stand, or had
been improperly built. Mr. Joliff, a musician, resident in
Stafford-street, said that he had been in the habit of passing
the wall daily, and he had noticed the bad condition of the
wall, that it was cracked, and. that it bulged out. He had
warned his family not to pass the wall. Mr. Richardson,
another musician, residing in Stafford-street, said that he
had noticed the wall for twelve months- previously to its
fall. He always passed on the other side of the street, as he
did not like the appearance of it. There was a large 'zig7.
zag crack in it, and the wall was crooked. Mr. White,
estate agent, said that lie observed two cracks in the wall,
and noticed that it was gradually shrinking. John 'Teen-
nal, who lives in Suffolk-street, frequently passed the wall,
and observed the fishure or crack, and a bend in the wall,
'but it did not strike him it was so dangerous as it ultimately
tamed out to be. John Griffiths, a builder, has known the
yard of the defendant about 30. years, and remembers the
building of the wall. Part of it was nine inches, and part
fourteen inches thick—nine inches at each end, and fourteen
inches in the centre. Remembers no alteration in the wall.
Thinks that the wall was not built •on a good plan. The
whole of that neighbourhood is made land, consequently
the foundation would be bad, and would require great
caution in putting ,proper footings to the fall. Mr. John-
ston has been in the habit of having large logs of Quebec
oak timber placed in the oeutre of the highway, and canted
over to the loose land, and so shook the wall that it, ulti-
mately fell. On cross-examination, Mr. Griffiths distinctly
swore the land upon which this timber was usually laid,
was made ground ; and in answer to" Mr. Atherton,
he said he often visited the shop of Mr. Cooper.
Mr. Pickerton, surgeon, said he had an examination of the
injured lad on the 30th of March. • Mr• Jones another
surgeon, and Mr. Pickerton, agreed to a report of the
present state and prospects of the lad. He has received a
very severe shock to his nervous system. Is very irritable and
nervous. Is very weak. His mind is slightly injured. His
eyes hurt--can't see to read. Fracture on the right thigh
—doing well. Left leg contused, and there is a large in-
flamation in the thigh bone. If the boy goes on well the
boy may get better, but if he continues weak, and the in-
flamation does not decrease, the lad may loose his limb.
The left leg is worse than the right one which was fractured.
Mr. Ellis Jones confirmed the evidence of Mr. Pickerton,
as to the state in which the boy is. Mr. Stattern, surgeon,
said the health of the boy previous to the accident was very
good. Mr. 'Ellerton, surgeon to the Infirmary, said that
when the younger lad was brought in, he was found to be
dead. His head was greatly crushed, causing instantaneous
death. The boy's father was called to prove that both
lads had been earning wages for the last two or three years.
Mr. Atherton submitted that there is no case, on the ground
that the father was not the administrator. He contended that the
father had not sustained any pecuniary loss from the death of
the young. led. A conversation ensued as to the law respecting
the question, and his lordship said he should give Mr.
Atherton leave to move, and ask the jury whether the fall of
the wall was caused by the negligence of the defendant?
Mr. Atherton addressed the jury, contending that the
second action for the pecuniary loss caused by the death of
the plaintiff's younger son, as his earnings did not bring
any benefit to his father. He then addressed the jury "in
mitigation of damages for the injury done to the elder lad.
Evidence for the defence was then called. Mr. Willittm
Henry Gee, architect, said he had formed the opinion that
the wall fell from the vibration of heavy weights passing.
It might be from the tunnel of the railway, or it might be
from the road. He did not think the wall, previous to its
fall, was in a dangerous position. From the appearance of
the wall, the bricks had been set when they were too hot.
The bulging of the wall was not an indication of weakness.
Mr. James Johnston the defendant, was then called. He de-
posed, the portion of the wall which fell had been built about
30 to 32 years. There was' a probability of rounding or
bulging, but, from his experience, there was no danger of
a fall from that cause. The canting of the timber caused
very little vibration. Mr. Walker, hon. surgeon at the
Infirmary, attended the injured boy from his admission to
his dismissal from that institution. -Was present at an
examination of the boy, and does not think that the injuries
are permanent. His Lordship summed up, after which the
jury returned a verdict in the first case—that of the injured
lad—for the plaintiff, damages £250, the jury wishing that
someportion be invested for the future benefit of the boy. Mr.
James promised that such should be done. In the second
case, the jury returned a verdict-for the, plaintiff, damages
£2O.

CLERICAL SCANDAL.—M'CARTISY V. MURNEY.—The 1
plaintiff is a clergyman in the. Church of England, and at
present clerical secretary to the Naval and Military Bible
Society, and complains that the defendant published a most
malicious libel on him and had put him to expense to defend
himself before the Bishop. Mr. Justice Byles made great
efforts to settle it out of court, as it was not proper that such
scandal should go forth to thopnblic, but to no effect. Mr.
Edward James, Q C., with alr. Manesty, appeared for the
plaintiff ; and Mr. Overend, Q.C.-, and Mr. Wylde for the
defendant. Mr. James opened the .case. He said he ap-
proached it with feelings of very great pain.. It was a
question involving the character, the reputation, and the
standing of a clergyman of
.the
,Church of England. The
plaintiff's character had been defamed by- the defendant, by
a gross and outrageous libel,-and plaintiff seeks for damages.
The inquiry might be aJieandal to the church, but his
client could not be blamed for ,endeavouring to vindicate
his character, The , plaintiff, Mr. M'Carthy, is a clergyman
of the Church of England. He passed a portion of his
early days in the merchant navy service for a period of seven.
years. Being a youth of studious and steady habits, notwith-
standing his manifold engagements, he devoted much time
to study, being desirous of ultimately filling a position in
society, which he fondly looked to. He left the service,
married, and obtained a situation as teacher in the London
City Mission. He gave the utmost satisfaction to the
society, and was offered a like situation in another society,
the Protestant Reformation Society, at a larger salary.
For some time he filled this situation with the greatest
satisfaction. While in this employ he was sent down to
Birkenhead. While there he joined St. Aiden's College, and
ultimately he received orders from the Rev. Mr. Knox, and
was ordained by the Bishop of Chester. He established
the Working Men's Church in Birkenhead, and officiated
solely there himself, gathering a large congregation. He,
continued there until 1858, distinguishing himself not only
in the pulpit, but by duties and labours not connected with
the church. The working men were so pleased with his
ministrations that they. presented him with two testimo-
nials. Ho then became the clerical secretary of the Naval
and,Military Bible Society, a society established for the pur-
pose of supplying soldiers and sailors with the Scriptures.
His duties would call him into different parts of the
country. On the 4th of Oct., 1858, he was sojourning in
Manchester. On that evening he attended a concert at the
Free Trade Halle He left there a quarter past ten, and went
straight to his lodgings, 23, Lever-street, where he arrived
at a little before twenty-five minutes to eleven o'clock. He
did not go out that night again. On the following day he
received a note from the Rev. Mr. Dauby, a friend of his,
wishing to see him. He waited upon Mr. Dauby, and he
was astonished, confounded, and grieved to have a letter
put into his hand, the contents of which went forth to say
that, the writer was sorry to inform them that he, the
writer, had seen Mr. M`Carthy that evening in the company
of a woman of ill-fame, and that he had seen them go into a
house of ill-fame and stop there for a quarter of an hour,.
and that he had seen him come out, and followed him until
he entered Lever-street; and went into the house numbered
23, adding, in his opinion, that a man who could do such
an action was not the one to preach and lecture about morals,
and aid them (that is Mr. Dauby and the writer) in their
endeavours to evangelise the Catholics. The letter was
signed, J. Murney." That libel was written by the
defendant,, and when he saw Mr. Denby and Mr. Murney,
he indignantly denied the imputation, but the defendant
persisted iii its accuracy. The learned council concluded
by stating that Mr. M•Carthy was in that court ready to
prove that the libel was a most malignant lie, and
he called upon the jury to give. sufficient damaged to
they plaintiff for the injury which had been
done him. Mr. M'Carthy, the plaintiff, was then called.
Ile said he was a clergyman of the Church of England,
and clerical secretary to the Naval and Military Bible
gociety, a society in London for the purpose of. supplying
soldiers and sailors, with a
,copy of the Scriptures. Hed at
one time been in the mercantile navy, from the age of 14,
and sailed out of Liverpool as mate and second mate. Ile
left the sea about eleven years ago, and entered on the
London City Mission. (~'ontinued in that mission for
twelve months. . Afterwards joined the Protestant Refor-
mation Society, .who sent him .down to Birkenhead: " He
then entered St. Aiden's College, Birkenhead, and the
I Rev. Mr. linox..gavo him a title of orders, and he was
ordained, in 1856, by the Bishop of Chester. Witness
founded the Working Men's Church, Birkenhead. He
was presented with two testimenials, • He joined the Naval
an•-1 Military Bible, Society,. and on the 4th 'Octobin' he
was in Manchester, 'engaged on his duties.. On that
evening he visited the, Free Trade Hall in that city. The
concert was over at a quarter- past ten. lie went to his'
lodgings, 23, Lever-street. ' There he arrived at the very
latest at twenty-five. minutes. to eleven o'clock: Did not
go out of his lodgings again that evening. He did not
call- at any house on his way to his lodgings, nor was he in
company with any one.. On the following day he received
a written communication from the Rev. Mr. 1114 y, end he
called upon
ly -Mr.
hriontiein consequence, and received a letter, of
.1 which a copy was- road by the counsel 'in his opening state-
lisnr' at.
at Saw
tteurineetive,randnasd klevdashilmin if(tlhiee Bras
person he meant, for it letter,
a fearful calumnyw tnaistehos) .ensPthehe
lts:-
it, haianiedters;aidailla Murneyd acknowledged that Ito wrote
was yiright, and would stick to what
ho lied said, and he wasliiia not sure whether it
.1 would not be better to expose cMccarthy), iu the