Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-11-07 00:00:00

MARTIN V. lIUDSON-ACTION FOR DEFAHLTION.

This was an action for defamation of character, tried at York
before Mr. Baron Watson, in which the jury returned a vetslict for
the defendant.
Mr. Ed win Jame: new moved to set as'da the verdict arid fir a
new trial, on the groun I that the verdict was against evidence. The
p'aintiff was a ba rioter of the English bar, aid formerly be onvd to
the Irish bar, and for the la t year or so had been editor of the Sun
newt Paper. The action aro..e out of certain proc:eings in re'ation
to =election for Bsveiley. At the last general election a gent's
man nam3l Glover was a c indid its for the borough, and succeeded
in oetaining his election. Subseenently paazian was preSented
against his return, and he was ousted o 1 the. ground of want of
quahfication. The defendant, a gentleol in residing at Beverley,
took a part in e'ectisn matters, and was one of Mr. Glover's sup-
por`ers at the time of the electi en. Mr. Martin, who was well
known to Mr. Glover, was rummone l by telegraph to go down
to the latter, and departed very hasti'y for the purpose of giving
information which, perhaps, he of all others most peculiarly
possessed in rr.•faren•se to the mater in which the inquiry
of the House of Commons turned. Mr. Martin d d not ou
that occasion receive the best treatment from Mr. Glover's
friends, Ile was ill-used and mauled in a not se 7 agreeable
manner; but this f rated no part of the present Inqeiry. He left
town after the electi.n closed, and on the 27th May there was a
meeting of Mr. Glover's friends at, Beverley, to consider what
course rhoeld be pursued in telereace to the pett.ien which had
been pro ented against his re:urn. At this meeting Mr. ELdeon,
the defendant, made a speech containing the selege i defamatory
wards, which prima facie imputed felony, The pie?, was merely not
*guilty, an a denial of the 'words and the aeries impaled to them.
The ex„rossions comphtined a w re. "You have heard the editor of.
the Sun came down to prove the cli tree. Who is that individual ?
shy, Martin—a'person sour_ six feet hige, with forbidding counte-
nance, and who app?ars to have 'fetch,' stamped .n his features.
Lord Campbell—That does not impute fe'ony.
Mr. Edwin. James—perhaps his lordship would listen to the
contest. The defendant continued, ""A, more contemptible person I
*nevor saw iti my life. I never knew any individaa wh i made an
()Wad fo s to Mr. Glover, sac-rt a man beneath contempt—Richard
Martina man who deserves to be sent beyond the seas."
Lord Camebell —lt would be left to the j my to may wh-.ther those
words imPated that the plaint ff hit comm itte t felony. They found
that they did not, and it seems to me that they might hive been
fatly jestitled in coming to that coacludon.

Janus achniVed th at the judge, in terms, left the case
to th of the jary, b .t the woy in which lie summed up
hardly Alowed them to exercise any discretion. His Lordsh p
dwe,t s e y strongly on the fact th4t they did not haws who the
eeendant wa7—a matter wit,liy immaterial to the issue—and said
the .actionlarose entirely ou t of a mere election t q l'Able, whereas the
e' ctiou,had terminated long before the attack was male npon the
rtlaintirs character. He sub tiited that if the jadgs hal lel he case
without the strong comments he made, the jury would probab y have
c me to a d'fferent cansdusion, because unquestionably the words
did penal facie convey a charg of fe!cny.
Lord Campbell was of opinion that there was no gronzd for the
interference of the Coart. The summing up of the learned judge
appeared to him to be wholly unexe sptioaablo. He left it for the
jury to say whether the words imputed felony according to the
inuendo in the declaration. They tboaght they did not, and he con-
sidered th yhad come to a very reasonable conclusion, and that no
ground had been shown for distarbing their verdict.
- Tue rest of the Court cmeurrod in the op'don.
P ule refused....• •

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-YESTERDiY.

WEBB V PISIIEtt -CRIMIN IL CONVgRSiTION.

This ac,io,, to recomr damages for the corruption of p'aintiff's
wife, was tried at the la•t Stalard assizes before Mr. Peron Martir,
ei:l:d in a verdict far the de end ant.

Mr Skinner naw. move I for a new trial on these grounds : that
evil nee was improperly adMittel ; that the verdict was against the
evldence, and t tat the plaintiff was taken by surprise. It apt eared
that the plaintiff was a lorltsralth, at Wolverhampton, and occupied a
house beloaging to the de endant et the time of the alleged adultery.
113 was in the latiiit of proceeding earll in the day to his workshop,
at so re diet tine frOm his holsc, and remaining there until tte
ev nil and the ,'efendant was said to have availed himse:f of the
opportunities of pl tintiff s &mile°, and the cruse of alint for the
r!..r, to s,clace the pl tintiff s wle. The evidence on the part of the
plaintiff went to show that the cri:n*nal I ttercoarso took place abou,
the beginnin; of 1853, and c y:tEnne i for two or three years, and the.
eel ear,. of which he comp' line I was Oren by Thomas Rogers and
Charles Turnbaurne, to the effs:t that 18 month+ befors the action
was hr night they saw Mrs Web') cone nit a grass act of Incontinenre
with a lawyer', clerk narnA Bri ‘gweer.
M,. Baron )1 art'n s.ld that he had a diff sraut op:taloa before he
heard this cm, but arter he hal heard it he thonght it ti re to do
away with the action far urine. con. In such an action ho deemed
evidence to sho tr that the wain sn had ufscoalue.ed herself with
anolh?r man, after her s 3 'action, perfntly admissible is mligation
of da,ares.

Mr. Skinner submitted that wto,n a defendant bad corrupted
wo:nan, he had no right to cla'm advantaze arum her hennaing,
through his rueaus, the fun t discred t hie of women.
The Chief Baron said he shonld not be sorry to see an end put to
there di agreeable discussions
M qkinn w cite I the c Ise of Eli v Fawcett, a siml or action, id
which !he first adultery was consequent noun /westing the plaintiff's
wife as a common prostitute in the str ets. Cannsel pr posed to
show that the plsiat.fif a wfe continua I to conduct herself as a
prostitute ; but Lor I Kenyle ruled th it a't'iota i eilder.ce of loose
conduct !sabre the eom nissio a o' the act might be give t, evidence of
sabsegment acts of misconin cm' d out b e receiv.d.
The Chief Baron said he was not at all prepare ] to assent to that
doctrine; it was much too general.
M. Boron Martin said that assumidg the 11T to be so, which was
doubtful, theca wog no evidence in this case that the intimacy of
Bridgwater was subseq sent to t iat of defendant.
Mr. Skinner sai 1 that the natur it daughter of Mrs. Webb fixed the
date of defendant's intimacy long aut-rbr to the time of he alleged
iacontinence with Bridgwater. lie presented that witness as worthy
of belief, and if she were not worthy of belief, he would hove had no
ostion at all.

The Chief Ba-on —The j ry found a ve-dict for 'ha defendant.
Therefore, the evidenceas to Bridgwater, did not aff3ct the damages.
Mr. Skinner could not assent t 3 the pr3po3 tioa that evidence
which had been impropely admitted should b 3 upheld bey use it did
not affect the issue.

Mr. Baron Watloa—Surely in an altion of this kind the defsadint
show that the woman wis generally u chase befor3 marriage,
aft3r marriage, and after alleged seduction.
Mr. Sk:nuer slid that although the plaintiff's wife had b-en sedumi
early in lifa, and hal had an citigitt ntte chili, she hid afterward;
kept a iehool, which was wzll supp)rted, and by marr:ags repaired
her character.

Mr. Baron Media knew that the learned coatis,: passed a warm
enlogiam on her, bit he was not aware of any evidence of it. The
impression on his min I at the end of the plaintiff's ca e was, that a
good. speed would have got a verdict for the defendant. Howeoar,
witnesses were call d for the dofence, and he thou :ht in all probabi-
lity the ant of adultery was committed by the defendant, bat he should
have given the pia :atilt a farthing damages.
Mr. Skinner sub nitte 1 that the court wool l not consid-r the
amount of damages, bat act on the tylition of :4r. Baron 11.rtia, the'
the verdict should have been for the plaintiff.
The Cnief Baron said—That if It were tie opinion of Mr. Baron
Martin that at all events thera should not luvo been more than a
farthing damages, he, for one, would not dista-b the verdict.
Mr. &Antler coat3aded that the improper admission of the evidence
as to Bridgwe er pro laced an influx:co on the jerk which was not
legl'imate.
Mr. Baron Watson—Was theta any evid qica of ineoudnelee be-

tween the m trriage and the al aged adultery ?
M. Skinner: No \;
aod di to Bridiewater, a lvvier's clerk, he was
prepared to swear an sffllsvit that the evilenee of the tvs m us.
Rogers aid Tornbeurue was wholly untrue, and that he was tatting
stops to presecute them for wilful and c ,rru?t poi ary.
The Chief B iron rep.ated his opiate a th at the evidence was
admistib e, and that the verdict ought not to be disturbed.
M-. B rya Amin hid no Jo tht that the lenz! wit admissible.
It was for the j -try to give effect to evilenee of rub %qua acts of
unchastity, and to 'ra* their own cenclusi so, whet ,er it wet
consequent on th: corru,slion of the defen !ant or an in i •ation
of the de?ravad mind of the woman. I theca ware a new
trial, Br dgewater could only swear what ho had a'ready
sw,rn, that nothing of the sort ocour.ed, but two meu s.vore that it
did. Tne plaintiffs wife was as bad as bid could be, ~nd there were
strong grounds for believing that it was not tits actLn of the
husband, but the act,on of Bridgwater, the attorney's clerk. He
thought it was n 1 a case in which th's con::: ought to interfere.
Hr. Baron Watsen concurred, and re usrked on the case of
" Elsom v. Fawzetz." being pasted only by the highest authorities on
rules of evi hence (Wr. Phillips and Mr. starkie) as to the almis ion
of latter, and not on the point which arose in this case. It would
be extremely wrong to grant a new trial. The ulterior object of
going 10 the House of Lords was out of the question, and in ali
probability a secsod trial would come to the same end as the first.
Mr. Baron ( hannell also concu red.
Rule refused.

The Daily Yews city article says —From Liverpool we
learn the suspension of Mr. JA12104 Howell, cotton broker.
Tne liabilities are consiaerable. Tne house holds a position
of much respectability.
A t age affair is relited in a letter from Naples. The
B.shop of San Sevoro accompanied his nephew, who wont
out to eon game at Torre de' Grtc ). After awhile, the
hal the curio,ity to ex amine the gun, and while he
was doing so it went off ; the oharge lodgel is the breast
of the nephew and caused instant death.
The city of B rhn intees, it i said, to off-Jr Prince
Frederick Willi tm, on the °cc tsion of his marriage to the
Pritic,iss R iyal of Eng.lant', a table wi.ll a vase ant two
candel..bra, all in solid silver. Several of the first artists
of the capital have been charged with the exemiou of the
reliefs which are to ornament these articles.