Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-07-21 00:00:00

0 12 6

', „ Address of Committee of Inves-
tigation
Meeting in Toxieth-11,111.
~ Jan. 19. ~ The printing of 20,0 double
crown bills 11, posting 75.,
paid for hall .. 1 15 0
_ _ _

0 3 15

„ Jul. 21. „ 36 memorandum books, 0 3 0
„ Ft•b. 4. „ One quire ruled kolscap . 0 1 4
„ Mar. 12. „ One do. do, do.. 0 1
Meeting in Clarence-hall.
~ Printing 200 double crown bills,
.El, posting 75., 2,000 hand-bills
155., paid for putting room in
order ss. Cd.
f Prining 1,000 decoy 12's, pro-
ceedings in County Court from
rally Post .
Meeting in Richmond-hail.
~ April 24. „ Printing 2.00 double crown bills,
£l, posting, 7s. 1,000 hand-
bills, ex. do. posting., 12s. 6d.. 1 19 G
1, June 27. „ Printing 2000 circulars, lemy 4'o 1 10 0
I, July 7. „ Printing 400 two-sheet double-
crown bills, Judge's order, £6,
posting, £1 8s
~ Printing 10,000 double crown
4to Judge's order
Meeting in Clarence hall.
July l&,, Printing 300 double crown bills,
£1 103 posting ditto 10s. 6(1.,
printing slips for bottom of bills
55., putting room in order, ss. 210 It
Meeting in Quecref-lzal,, 21st July.
July 19. „ Printing 400 double crown bills,
Ll 183., posting 145., 6000,
hand-bills £2, 5,000 hand-
bills, list of candidates, £2.
,› July 21. ~ Printing 200 double crown bills,
10s. reward, XI, potting 7s 7 19 0

2 7 6

0 15 0

Meeting in Queen's-hall, 7th August.
31 Aug. 3, „ Printing 500 double crown bills,
£2 10s., posting 17e. 6d.
Aug, 5. „ Printing 2000 band. bills l ss, one
quire post paper is , 2000. hand-
bills, list of candidates, 18s 5 1 6
Meeting in Concert-hall, 22nd September.
~ Sept. 16. „ Printing 600 double
crown bills 3 0 0
Posting
Printing 10,000 band-
bills, address to mem-
bers
Printing 5,000 list of
candidates.. ..3 0 0
Printing 2,000 cards do 2 0 0
Postage stamps 0 2 0
Gratuity to roornkuper 0 5 0

11 18 0
Expenses of committee-reams
Postage and miscellaneous

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT, YORK, JULY 18.

B FCFORIC MR. BARON WATSON.

MIDDLETON v. WUR4TCROFT.—This was an action for
seduction. Mr. Hill, Q.O , and Mr. Jones appeared for
the plaintiff; Mr. Overend, Q C., for the defendant. The
plaintiff, it appeared. is a widow, having three daughters,
of whom the subject of the present action was the
youngest, and 20 years of age. The two elder supported
themselves as milliners, and the youngest, after being
educated at St. Phillip's school, ShetNeld. became a teacher
in the school at a salary of £2O a-year. The defendant is a
butcher and baker, residing opposite the plaintiff's, and at
the winter fair of last year he became saiqusinted with the
plaintiff's dnughter, and after visiting her for some time,
proposed marriage to her, and was ascepted. The result
of their intim:, cy was the birth of a child in November last.
The defendant's attentions had long cooled, and he refused
to perform his promise. In cbnsequence, the child had
been affiliated to him, and the present action had been
brought. The young woman had lost her situation of
teacher at the school, and her mother had had £3 134. 6d.
to pay to her doctor, and now had her daughter on her
hands in delicate health to maintain. The young woman
was called as a witness, and cried very bitterly in givieg
her evidence. The learned counsel for the defence would
not attempt to excuse his client, and expressed his sorrow
for the young woman, but he begged the jury, in their
estimate of the damages, not to take into censileration the
breach of promise of marriage to the young woman, for
which another action would be brought against his client,
who would thus be subjected to the hardship of being made
to pay twice for the same error. His Lordship, in sum-
ming up, said it was by no means certain that there would
be another action, as that would depend upon whether the
plaintiff could prove the promise of marriage by other
evidence, as she could not be her own witness ; and, as to
the hardship, the defendant should not have acted in the
manner he had done, and he would not then have had to
compliin of any hardship. The jury, after a shorn con-
sultation, found a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, £l2O.
PZAT v Baows.—Tie was an action for slander of the
plaintiff in his business. Mr. Temple, Q C., and Mr.
Kemplay appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Hill, Q C , and
Mr. Jones, for the defendant. The plaintiff, it appeared,
is a cloth manufacturer, in a small way of business at
Yeaden, and the defendant is also a cloth manufacturer,
but on a much larger scale, at the same place. Some time
ago the plaintiff began to manufacture a description of
cloth called " unions," the warp of which is of cotton, the
weft of wool, which, before that time, the defendant only
had manufactured. Soon after this the plaintiff began to
find that that credit which he ha-I heretofore enjoyed in
carrying on his business ceased, and unless he paid cash
for what he ordered goods were not delivered to him At
length, in conversation with a person named Brook, with
whom he had long dealt, he learnt that the defendant had
said to Brook concerning him, that he was a bad payer,
and that if he (Brook) gave him credit he would never be
paid. The plaintiff, in consequence, saw the defendant,
and asked him what he meant, and the defendant then, in
the presence of a third person, said, "It's my opinion thou
won't pay nowt ; thou's nowt but a d— rogue." The
plaintiff asked him to explain himself, and he said," I call
everybody rogues that (lees not pay 20s. in the pound." A
justification basin.. been pleaded, it was attempted to show
that the plaintiff' had settled one debt by getting his
creditor to take four shawls and some other articles instead
of money. The learned counsel for the defendant having
addressed the jury, his Lordship summed up. and the jury
found a verdict for the plaintiff—damages £3.
Etees v. SMALL—This was an action for libel. Mr.
Overend, Q.O , and Mr. Kerr appeared for the plaintiff ;
and Mr. Peronet Thompson and Mr. Cross for the defend-
ant. It appeared that in the course of the present year a
public subscription was bei, g brought up in Goole in
favour of a superiaten?ent of police, named Burke, in for-
warding which the defendant was active, and referring to
this a placard had been posted about Goole, stating that
subscriptions would be received by the defendant It ap-
peared that there were persons in Goole with whom Mr.
Burke was not popular, and a counter placard was posted
about the town to the following effect: —" Public subscrip-
tion for the purchase of a rope to bang Burke Subscrip-
tions will be received by Alfred Little, printer, Gee le."
The defendant suspecting the plaintiff to be the author of
the placard, and believing that it referred to him (the
defendant), whose name is Alfred Small, and that the
plaintiff had posted it, published the libel first complained
of in the Goole and .Marshland Gazette, of which the de-
fendant is the printer and publisher, and which was as
follows :—" John Ellis, plumber glazier, and bill-sticker,
Ouse street, Goole. Dirty jobs done at a'l hours of the
night."—Upon which the plaintiff's brother, who is an
attorney at Leeds, wrote to the defendant demanding an
apology in his newspaper, to which having received no
reply he wrote again to the defendant to the same effect,
whereto the defendant replied :—"Sir,—Letter writing
must be cheap wi h you. You do not allow time for me
to do what you dictate before you send another letter.
The advertisement in February is literally true in every
particular,. Are you sure it is the same party you refer to ?
This John Ellis was seen going round the town of Goole
sticking bills on the walls, on which, ammo! other matter
was 'Alfred Little, printer, Goole.' This John Ellis is
an open professor of infidelity. His commonest speech
is ' a d—,' and he is ready at any time to say that all
religion is a d—d humbug.' This John Ellis is generally
known throughout Goole an I district by the cognomen of j
'Blackguard Ellis " Is this your client." The declare •
tion set out this as the second libel compl fined of, and the
defendant pleaded " Not Guilty ;" and, secondly, a justifi-
cation that "the said John Etlis did post the placard, and
that the said posting was a dirty job, and that the plaintiff
was a person ready to lend himself to the doing of dis-
creditable acts at a time when he might escape. detection
That be was an open professor of infidelity; that his
commonest speech was " a d—;" and that he was ready
to say, and frequently had said, that all religion was a
" d—d humbug," and he was generally known in Goole
and district by the cognomen of ' Blackguard Ellis.'"
Witnesses were called far the plaintiff who stated they did
not' know him to be irreligious ; that he did use the word
"d—" sometimes, but only "like other people ;" and one
witness had heard him called " Blackguard Ellis." The
plaintiff himself admitted that he never went to church
at Gocle, but that was because he did not like the clergy-
man. The learned counsel for the defence designated the
action as a most trumpery one, and which would
never have been head of but that the plaintiff's brother
was an attorney, who sought to get costs out of the action.
His Lordship, in summing up, said the conduct of the
plaintiff was only equalled in want of wisdom by that of
the defendant, for if he and his brother had put defendant's
letter in the fire the whole matter would have passed off
as a silly joke; but now he had publashed to the world the
imputetions the defendant's letter cast upon him. That
letter was clear'y actionable, and the jury would say what
damages they would award in rt spect of each of the libels
The jury expressed a wish to retire, and during their
absence his Lordship said he would grant a certificate to
carry costs. The jury, after being absent an hour, returned
with a verdict for the plaintiff, damages Is., on each count
of the declaration

BEFORE MR. BARON CHANNELL.
THE MANCRESTRR AND LONDON L'FE ASSURANCE AND
LOAN ASSOCIATION V. PICKTON.--SLANDER.-111r. Atherton,
Q.C., and Mr. Wheeler, were for the plaintiffs; and Mr.
Overend, Q.C., and Mr. Blanchard, for the defendant.
Mr. Wheeler opened the proceedings. The above-named
company were plaintiffs. and Job Pickton was the defen-
dant. The declaration was for slander, and charged the
defendant with having said that the plaintiffs, in their
trade of life assurance, were at best a set of scamps and
scoundrels, and that the company was unsafe. The plain-
tiff pleaded not guilty. Mr Atherton stated the cage.
The plaintiff's company was f,rmed in 185,3, and had
their chief office at Manchester, also a branch office at
Leeds. The defendant is the Leeds agent of the British
Protector Life Assurance Company, and the action was
brought against him to rdc3ver damages for very calumni-
ous expressions whiea it was said he had used. The agent
of the plaintiffs at Leeds is Mc. John Hill, and he heard
that the defendant had been disparaging the reputation of
his company. In July, 1836, Mr. Stanton, a provision
dealer in Leeds, effected a policy with the plaintiff's for
£5OO, on his own life. He afterwards handed over the
policy to a friend, and in March last hearing that the
defeirlant was showing his policy to numerous parties, he
wrote a letter to him on the subject. The defendant called
npon Mr. Stanton, who requesPed that his policy should
be delivered up to him, and during the interview the
defendant said, " I am prepared to prove that the Manches-
ter and London Life Assurance and Loan Association are
nothing else than a set of rogues and vagabond In Feb-
ruary last Mr. Asgeritb, butcher, Letitia, applied to the
plaintift's for a policy on his life and that of his wife
for -P2OO, and on the defendant being informed that he
(Mr. Asgerith) had insured with the plaintiffs, he said, " I
am very sorry to hear it, for they are nothing else but a
set of scamps and scoundrels." In the course of the same
conversation, he told Mr. Asgerith that the plaintiffs' com-
pany was anything but safe. It was under these circum-
stances that the present action was brought, and the
learned couns 1 contended that ample damages ought to be
given to the plaintiffs. Mr. Overend, in 'addressing the
jury for the defendant, admitted that the words complained
of were attered by him, but without any malice on his part,
and under circumstances of considerable excuse. It was
not intended for a moment to be said that the plaintiffs'
were a dishonest company, neither did the defendant come
here to justify the words he had uttered. The defendant
had acted bona fide, and not as a common slanderer. He
had not used this language from any sordid motives, as

was imputed to him; and al,hough what he had said and
done might-be unadv sed, rash, and improper, still he was
not actuated by any malice, and the plaintiffs had suffered
no damage whatever. Mr. 13.trtm Channel' told the jury
that the plaintiffs were fairly entitled to a verdict, and the
question wap, what damage; were they entit'ed to. The
jury, after a few minires' d-liberation, returned a verdict
for the plaintiffs. Damages, £5.