The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-07-17 00:00:00

CNRTER r. MOTIETOK.

This was an action for slanderous words, imputiog to the p'ain.
tiff that he had cheated certain inembera of a Lottery subscription
club, of the sixteenth Share of a 20 OW. priz.,, drawn to a ticket
purchased by the plaintiff on behalf of the club. Averment of
special damage, that divers persona who Ir.tl been in the habit of
frequenting a public-house kept by the plaintiff wholly Cett%t!ti to
tin an in consequence of the slander, whereby the plaintiff. was
neatly impoverished and damnified. The defendant pleaded the
general issue.
Mr. Sergeant Tannv and Mr. Thintirticie cmducted the
plaintiff's case, and Mr. 61.711% Eir and Mr. Cut 'cry the de-
fendants. _ _

The plaintiff was a publican, keeping the sign of the Red Lion
at Hockerhill, in flcrttordshire, and the defendant was keeper of a
tutnpike-gate at Saffron Walden, in this county. In the month of
September, 1819, a number of persons in humble Ire fomied a
subscription club at the plaintiff's house, for the purpo4e of ow-
chasing lottery tickets. The plaintiff himself, and some of his ser-
vants, were members of the same club. After continuing together
a short time, the club was dis.olverl, in consequence of its ill sue-
CCU in the tickets which had been purchased. the autumn of
last tear the defendant circulated a report that he hail made in-
quince In London, and had found that a sixteenth of a 20,0.114.
prize had been sent down to the plaintiff as the proceed% of the
sixteenth share of a ticket, No. 4123, purchased by the plaintiff on
account of the club, and that he had appropriated the money to
his own use.

The slanderous words were proved by two or three witnesses, to
one or whom the defendant said that hir statement wait true, cid
he called on God to witness the truth of his asser:i

Severn' persons were called to prove the special damage alleged.
None of these., however, distinctly stated that they had ceased to
frequent the plaintiffs house solely oil account of the alleged slan-
der. Some of them staled that they t entered into a conditional
resolution, not to deal with him any longer unless he cleared up the
slander and vindicated his character.
The case went to the Jury under the Learned Judge's directhins,
and they found their verdie: for the plaintiff—Damages 301.
The Assizes ended about six o'clock this evening. But for the
assistance of Mr. Nolan, who tried nearly halt' the pi i.oners in the
calendar, the good could not have been delivered wi•liin the week.
Of eighteen causes entered for trial, two were made ecotone's. The
whole would have been tried had not a long watercourse cause oc-
cupied two days. Of thecaltital convicts only one was left tar I xc-
cution, namely, a wretch convicted on the clearest evidence of
best:2l4.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.

NORTHAMPTON, FIIIDAV, JULY 14.
(Before the Lonn CHILE BAttos.l
• SLANDER.
BALFOUR V. TWYFORD.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff. to reeover compcn.
tuition in damages for slanderous words uttered by the defendant.
and whereby plaintiff's character was seriously injured. The
damages were laid at I.110(g.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN stated the case to the Jury. Ile
regretted his duty required him to occupy their attention with a
narrative of the painful circumstances attending a case like the
present. The plaintiff was a respectable farmer, residing near
Dunholme, in this county ; the defendant, a retired officer of Ma.
rinca. The parties had been for some years on visiting terms,
and lived in the same neighbourbond ; but some time since, it so
happened that the defendant forbade the plaintiff his house, Mr.
Twyfortl alleging that he had heard the plaintiff was addicted
to certain vicious propensities, which it was lamentable even to be
obliged to hint ut, much less openly to state in a Court of Justice.
lie would assume that the charge made by the defendant wr.s alto-
gether unfounded, as no justification was put upon the record ; and
taking all the circumstances as they appeared to him, he thought
the conduct of the defendant to be highly improper, and such as
called for heavy damages from the Jury. If the defendant wild
prove the truth of all he had asserted, it would have been his duty
to have done so; for society, and justice, and the lave of virtue,
demanded that a wretch, indulging in such iniquity, should be
brought before the public, and held up to the scorn and odium of
mankind. But. in this case, the truth of such au accusation cotifil
not be sustained ; nor did he think any such attempt to do so would
be made by his Learned Friends at the other side. The defendant's
conduct continued still to be reprehensible—continued still to he
unjustifiable. lie continued to circulate the slander he had first pro-
pagated. and the plaintiff now appealed to a Jury of his country to
award him such damages as would convince the world how ground-
less were his accusations against the character and fume of a re-
spectable man, who had hitherto maintained an unblemished repu-
tation. _

Ann Wilson examined by Mr. BMX UV —She deposed to hay-
ing heard defendant say to a pour woman, called llannah Bowman,
that lie forbade the plaintiff' from coming on his premises, for
" his company was scandalous, and he would have no more of it ;"
and that " lie came to measure the ground, in order to know the
distance between an honest man and a liar." This occurred about
the 21st February last. Defendant subsequently met witness, and
wished her to go to Nottingham to speak for him, as if she did not
he would be likely to lose 1,5001. by it. NVituess was to deny the
truth. The defendant said it was scandalous and disgraceful to
keg the company of the plaintiff.
This witness was cross-examined by Mr. CLARKE, but Welling
could be made of her; she kept to her original statement, only ad-
mitting that yesterday, fur the first time, she had spoken of the
1,500/. to the attorney of the plaintiff.
David Laing examined.—l am ferryman at Dunholme. I rent
the ferry from 3lr. Balfour. On the day in question. I recollect
seeing 111 r. Twyfurd, who called me aside and said, " Why.
David, this is an extraordinary thing about your master; I
am sorry for it. Your master will be obliged to leave the county
for what he has done. I should be glad if you would tell his bro.
tiler, in order that measures might be taken for his escape from
this county." NVitness further deposed to alicga:imra which he can-
not mention.

The cross-examination of this witness went to thew, that such '
were the violent suspicions of abominable practices being cat ried on
in the vicinity of Minimhue, that police officers from London had
been down there in order to discover the gang of offenders; and
that one of them had absconded. The witness ad r itted that he
had told defendant of certain rumours and actual indecencies on
the part of the plaintiff. Witness heard that the plaintiff would
not be associated with at dinner, at Newark, particularly in the
same room with the farmers.
In re-examination, witness merely said he had never seen or
heard of the slightest impropriety in the conduct of the de-
fendant
John Rose, a gardener, in the employment of the plaintiff, de.
posed to hearing conversation pass from defendant, reflecting on
the character of the plaintiff, in the way alluded Aci by the witness
Wilson.
Another witness deposed to having heard the dcfeneant say that
lie was obliged to forbid the plaintiff rowing to his house, in
consequence of rumours which were in circulation.
Mr. CLARNE addressed the Jury for the defendant, who, as al
, honourable man, only wished the plaintiff to set his charaver right
before the world. When the defendant heard certain rumours were
in circulation, he expected that the plaintiff would have contra-
dicted them ; but the reverse was the case, and up to this hour they
remained uncontratlicted. The plaintiff's own witnesses left his
character in such a situation as that the least piece of coin in the
realm would amply compensate him for the injury it had sustained.
The CHIEF BARON recapitulated the evidence, and the Jury
returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 201.
Thomas Allcuborough was indicted for stealing two lambs, on
the 28th of June last, the property of Thomas Borrows, both being
butchers. residing in this town.
John Gibson deposed that, on the 23d June, he brought some
lambs and nine sheep to Nottingham market, two of which he sold
prisoner, two to a person of the name of 3larchington, two to the
prosecutor, and the remaining three to different persona. Borrows
paid, for the lambs, and took them away ; marked them with some
sheep's dung behind the ear, and placed them in a in with some
other sheep. Three other lambs were taken away by other per-
sons. and 31nrchington took his two, as well as the two bought
by the prisoner, to his slaughtrr.house. While Gibson was at

1 dinner, a per on of the name of Taylor found the prosecutor'.
sheep straying shout the Market-place, and put them into Oiboon't
pro, in which were twelvt. sheep. When tiibson returned, tie
knew that lie watt paid trm :11 he had sold except Mow to the pri-
-40,,er, and, as It, WAS not there when Marchington took the four
away, he, naturally tnough, thought the two in the pen were
Allesahotottglett. and went to his shop to requett It! would fetch
. them away. Alleuborough, however, was not at home, amt bits
near followed him to the sign of the Shoulder of 'thief's) ptddie-
house, where he salted the prisoner why he had not &tithed tin
lambs away 4 upon which he said he had not had time, and the
lambs were then and there paid fur, end one of the prisoner's Wye
went and brought them ht,rue.
Alarchington fully conoborated this statement, u far as Di wt.
concerned.
The ',earned Jt:DrIE, in summing up the evid. 'tee, rated is
the Jury he had great doubt that the offence of the pt her
amounted to the crime of sheep stealing, rind that in the besnt of
Mt it llodir.g him guilty, he would reserve the case foe the amide.
to ion to the twelve Jutlgss.
The Jury, after a few minutes' consultation,tatoteed a Verdict of
Guilty.
The prisoner is a respectable ycung Man, and received an Keels
lent tharactur.

CRIMINAL UWRT.
[Before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE:I
Abraham Sfephonson and Charles Swifts were capitally indicted
for binglariously entering the doelli:ig-house of Mr. Emma,
Calirerton, in this enti.ty, on the night of the 11th May, 1828, ard
stealing and carrying away one silver watch, six silver ?moons./ and
a of wearing apparel, the proptrty of the said loafer.
Foster's wife deposed to the entry of the two prisoners Into her
hoshand's house, on the right of the Bth May ; of their demand.
ii cash, nod threatening the lives of theprosecutnr, his wife, and
prosecutor's aged fath'r, if they did not deliver their property.
Hudson, a framework knitter, was in company wi'h the prise,
nt-rs on the night of the robbery. tip to ten o'clock. Neither entice
prisoners returned home that night.
Mary Oxley proved that the prisoners lodged at her him*, in May
last. but that. neither of them slept at home on the eth of May last.
John Sanderer, a co-stable, atiprehended Stephenson at Mrs.
OxloY's Minn. Statiliwell, on the 111th of May t lie asked if Vrilliant
Trog was litcre ? The reply was, that that was not his name t but
witness knew him to he the man he Wanted, and took him into
custody,
The prisoners., in their defence, strongly protested their inno.
cence.

.lo:eph I'rnder knew the prisoner Smith up to the time ha wad
23 years of age; he is now 28, and witness knew little of him during
dome lice yours.
Two other persons also gave him a good character, but knew little
of loom for the last Live• year,.
The Lone CutEr JL,ri IcE reespittantett the evidence, and tkte
Jury returned n vcrotict of I;llll.7—Death.

and Grorge .11ilnex were indicted for feloniously
an l burglatino.ly breaking into the house of Ann Wheat, of
Ittutipton, in this county, on the lllvt of 31 ay lavt, Intl %Icahn"' and
carrying sway several piec,:s of woollen cloth. four pieces of linen.
and veer, tl other articles. to tire value of :PM/.

,Several witne,sri were (-Ailed, who deposed to the shop being
ravened up o the night of the 31st of .3lay, and of its being broken
upon volt morning, and of the article% charged in the indictment
having heen taken away.

John Vaa:y, one of the accomplices in the robbery, deposed to
the manner in which it was etreeteit. _

The stolen property am identified, and the prisoners wen fined
Guilty—Death.

'ESTERN CIRCUIT,

IJ EsT En, FRIDAY,SITLY 14.

The Aas;zes for the county of Dorset commenced this day, Mr.
Justice lati TEEDALE and Mr. Jumice Gassr.ss: having arrived
here early last evening, no, opened the Commission.
The calendar contains ‘e description of only twelve case. of
which there is but one of peculiar importance, that of William
Wheatley, who was remanded at the last Assizes. and is charged
with forgery and obtaining money on false pretences. A great pro-
portion of the causes entered for trial in the \ill PAIN COlfft are
Special Jury cases.

CROWN COURT.
[Before Mr. Justice Oatmt.tx.l
Sarah Slopes was first put to the hat, charged with stealing a 101.
bank-note, the property of Robert Downing, a butcher, rtaidurg at
Blontiford Forum.

It am -wed that the prosecutor was in the habit of keeping his
money in a drawer in his bed-room, and very imprudently lett the
key in an adjoining drawer, which was unlocked. The prisoner
war a servant in the hewn., and it seemed, from her own admission,
that she oprned the drawer. which contained a conederable auto of
money, and took away the 101. note ; but upon finding its amount
she burnt it, fearing it would lead to detection. The plisoner'a
entifession was the only evidence against her, and- as it appeared
that she had made this confusion under the influence of something
like an inducement, the Learned Judge directed the Jury to
acquit her.
John Whit.- was charged with breaking and enterinc the house
of Walnuts loss, an innkeeper at Chartneuth, on the night of the
19th of April.
' The prosecutor stated that. on the night in question, he had oc-
casion to leave his bed between twelve and one o'clock, and hear-
ing a noise in his kitchen, he entel el it,.and discovered the priso-
ner. Not idaniedlitely perceiving in what manner the prisoner
entered, witness asked him it lie had come down the chimney. or
how he got there and the prisoner replied tl:at " the hands of the
Lord had brought him there." It afterwards appeared, however,
that the prisoner had broken open the window-shutter, and emceed
by that means, closing the casement when he got in.
l'pon being called on for his defence, the prisoner, who Wu*
squalid miserable-looking young man, said that he had been turned
out of his lodging on the night in question, and was in so much
distress, that he did not know where to find a place to rest in. It
was staid that the prisoner's family reside rat Islington, and that
he spent some time in the navy. He was found Guilty. and sen-
knee of death was recorded ; but the Learned Judge intimated hir
intention of recommending that the punishment of transportation
should be substituted.

Jolts Burt and William Vardy were indicted for entering.the
dwelling house of Molly Oalpine, at Vetininster, and stealing there-
from a quantity of bacon, on the night of the 12th June. It ap-
peared that the bacon was hung in the kitchen of the prosecutrix.
and that some persons descended during the night through the
chimney, and conveyed it away. The bacon w-as afterwards dis.
covered concealed under a quantity of reeds and hay. and a person..
having been placed to watch it, the prisoner Vardy was observed to
conic in the middie of the night and move the reeds. Upon hearing
some noise from the person appointed to water, %oily ran awry :
but was pursued and taken into custody. The prisoner Burt volun-
tarily matured the offence before a Magistrate, and also Implicated
Vardy. Both prisoners were found and sentence of death
was recorded against them.
John Duruford ar.d 71i.Lnrd I.ronard were indicted for enterir.g
the house of Robert Payne, at Gillingham, antk stealing a varier,
of articles of wearing apparel. The evidence went to prove that
the prosecutor is a dealer in second-hand clothes, at Gillingham,
and that on the night in question his premises were entered.
and ten coats, W waistcoats, thirteen pair of pantaloons, and several
other articles of apparel, to the vulue of 501., were stolen and co':-
'eyed away. A great part of the property was found in the sternal
possession of the prisoners the next dry. When taken into custody
they were both attired in the stolen clothes.
They stated in their defence, that they were employed to carry
the property in question towards sulisbury, and were conveying it
thither when they were apprehended. Not having produced any
witnesses to support this defence, therwere found Ooilty. Sentence
not passed.
liiillitltlt MINI was indicted for stealing bank notes to the amount
of 41W., the property of Edward dl itchcll, of Bruton, in the cowry
of Sommer. The fries of the case were as follow.

Mr. Mitchell left home on the rith of June. leaving money to the
above amount locked in a drawer in his bedroom. The prisoner
was in the service of Mr. Mitchell, and on the 7th June he a"i.
aconded, after having broken open the drawer and taken away the
money. The next day the prisoner offered a 20/. note to a silver.
smith, at Sherborne in Dorsnshire, in payment of a watch wt ich
he desired to purchase. The silversmith's suspicion having bee
excited by observicg so much money in the possession of a persol
of the prisoner's appearance, detained him, and an examinstio.,
took place, the result of which was that the prisoner was committed
to custody.
The prisoner was found Guilty, and sentenced to be transported.
CIVIL SIDE.
[Before Mr. Jusice LIT T LEDALE.I
EER ES r. MILLER.

This was an action to recover 101., the amount of a tailor's bill.

Mr. Sergeant WII.DE stated the plaintiff's case. He saidKe
would prove beyond all doubt that the debt now claimed was in.
curved by the defendant. With respect to the defence, he under.
wood what wan intended to be submitted was, that Mr. Miller wss
under 21 years of age when the debt was contracted. Under the
correction of the Learned Judge, however, he should inform the
Jury, that if they had evidence to prove that the goods supplied to
the defendant were necessaries, and befitting his condition, if it wits
admitted that 'itch a defendant should wear any clothes at all, they
must find for the plainiitf. The sum claimed was only 101., and
after hearing the evideeko they could have no hesitation in finding
a verdict to that amount for his client.
The plaintiff's 'per entice was the only witness called to support
the ease. He proved the delivery of the goods.
Mr. C. F. Wldeta MS addressed the Jury fur the defendant. Ile
said he held in his hand the account delivered to the defendant. It
exceeded the sum of 301., and it was stated that a debt to dist
amount was contracted by his client for egg-fillips, brandy-frog,
beer, &c. In fact the plaintiff appeared to be a tailor, a publican,
and to make money likewise by letting out apartments to young
men and women.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE interposed. He knew nothing of the 3
count alluded to by his letarneil Friend. All that he claimed to
the present action was, the price of the clothes furnished to the de-
fendant, as appeared by the evidence of the apprentice.
Mr. WILLIAMS resumed. He would now apply himself to that
part of the case to which the Learned sergeant referred. He eau.
coved that no tradesman had a right to supply a young man of
eighteen with necessaries, even much less with articles which were
not necessaries, without first consulting. his parents or friends. The
defendant's mother and sisters lived m the neighbourhood of the
plaintiff, and yet this tailor and publican never went to iaquire
whether he was right in furnishing the defendant with the articlea
for which he now demanded payment. The defendant was not a
young man entitled to any proNsty. A legacy of 1001. was all it: