The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-07-28 00:00:00

µ.ms

,
. .
Sugt enterfit. . -_, .
Inisban.ffs tOtlefie'llo was the prosecutor's sot.) abollt the timed, 1
Ate --ems.—
ffiT ASSIZES, Aletterrott, Jute' H.
the robbery. Sloe saw bran about two days after the robbery, and
, ere rolled up a pair of stockings, worsted stockings without toes.
She 'found wowed toes like the stockings underthe hovel.
The Sunimer Asthma for this enmity commenced hereto-day, be. The first witness Identified these stockings as her property. On
fore Lord Chief Ilea/et Der r,Otl the Civil SW:, and 51r. Baron the night of the ?Obey they were in the. house.
RAMAN.
.045LESIAN V. DRLAAAV X.
s-a assault and battery, to which the defendant
pleaded the general haat not guilty. - hint.T
This was an teethe he primer said he found the stockinge, and the Jar, acquitted
Jas Cferee was ' toted for having feloniously stolen a gre y
• mare the property tancis Cousins Cotton.
MT. GURNEY and' Mr; ADOLPMVB conducted the plaintiff's ffetiswieCiorsint C mined that he lint the mare mentioned in
Case. and Mr. Bc 7is.l LA mrrthe defendant's.
The plaintiff had been•in the army, and resided at Canterbury
the defendant was an attorney Mahe 'sante city. It vial to be col-
(:)
i the ir. laenrent front his stable at ledworth, late in the evening of
the 4:h or cult' on the momieg 'of the .sth of April. lie after-
ware;t foetid her tat lxworth, in :eelfulk, and knew her to be his
lected from the evidence, although it wag Abpdistinctly protect, that,
property.
there had been some old standing quarts. Letween the pink At 1 ' James Thompson resides at Ixworth. Is In the pig.jebbing
the last Canterbury races on Bohm Drums, the defendM,rredc !IP line ; he saw the prisoner on the 6 it el April, lending a mare that
to the plaintiff, who was driving his 'gig 'On the race ceeese, alld I hail nothing cn but a halter ; I said, you've a pretty min of a pony.
asked some explanation of enmetliing 'which was mipposed tel . bent you. Prisoner said `• yes Iha ;" witness ivied' if it were
been said by him of the defendant. .The answer. which did no: el"- Ito Nell: prisoaa said yes it be ;" witness asked the price e Pile
pear in evidence, not being satisfactory to the defendant, he struck
the pleintiff three violent Was with his whip, and rode away. TM saner said " twelve pounds ;"'eeitnees asked if it was *cued ; mi.
- toner would only sell her with el her faults; bought her Mr 91. I le. i
:insult, which took place in the view of a great litany persons, Val ;he took her into the stable of the Greyhound, where he saw Mr.
proved by two 'Unman. iCottonafterwards, who claimed the mare; she was then qt Mr.
Mr. BOLLARD addressed die Jury in mitigation of damages, I etedeta„,,. wherethe constable had taken her.
and out to them the probability that the defendant mhst have John Payne said—lan a constable : I apprehended the prisoner
acted under some strong provocation given by the plaintiff; for it at Hartwell, en the 10th of 31av, on a cliaige of horse-stealing at
Was scarcely to be supposed that without tame et-legume motive he Colworth, in Cambridgeshire; he said he'd not been in that county
should have proceeded to such violent extremity,. fur six monthe. '
The LORD CH tEr JUSTICE.' charged the Jury that the plaintiff The prisoner made no defence, but said there was a witness in
was dearly entitled to a verdict. The defendant --clog a member Court who could speak to his clineeeter.
of the profession of the law, ought to have acquired sufficient en. •
file witness alluded to said he had known the yriso'ier from a
perience to be aware that no language, however provoking, could boy until October-1823 ;he had aliases known hint es au honest
and hardworking man, and that was his general character.
afford a sufficient excuse for the violence of which he had been
guilty. It was the duty of the Jury, by their verdict, to check The Learned Judge summed -up the evidence.
such ebullttione of passion we had been proved in this Case. The I".e Jury found the prisoner Guilty, but on account of the good
character be had received, thcy recommended him to mercy.
peace of society required that in proper cases the Jury should mark
y Judgment of death was recorded.
their stn se of such outrages by giving liberal damages to the part
complaining.
The Jury found for the plaintiff—Damages 701. ' • CIVIL COURT. • I
DROWN V. BLATCUER. There were but five causes entered for u:al, and of these foot
This was an action fur words imouting a felonious theft, ands only, possessing no public intettst, were tried.
Certain hot ethic crime to the plaintiff. •
The plaintiff's case was crinclueted ley Mr. GURNEY and Mr.
Ale nnews, and the defendants by Dlr.. bleanrae and 11r.
Bitonnicx
I
'l'lle plain I Wives head waiter at Ste Ceowginn, Sereen.oaks, and
at the time the words in question were spoken, the defendant was
" Boots" at the same inn. It was proved that the defendant, on
two different occasions, spike the following wordy of and concern-
ing the plaintiff:—" There goes the Crowe swindler: there goes a
-- thief—there goes a rogue and a —••••••--.• . . it was suggested on
cross-examination, that there had been a dispute between the pare
ties about wages—the plaintiff not having paid some money alleg-
ed to have been due to the defendant. The witnesses who proved
the words said they-did not believe them to be true ; and front their
opinion of the plaintiff's general habits and character, they did not
think the worse of him in consequence of the slander.
3lr. MARRYAT urged in defence that the words proved could
not bear any nttionnble sense. They were evidently the low
vulgar words of an angry man, who did not mean seriously to
impute any indictable offence to the plaintiff, but bad resorted to
this mode of venting hit above At a!1 events, supposing the
words actionable, a shilling would be' an adequate compensation.
Itappears froin the statement of the plaintiff's own witnesses, that
Shay neither believed the imputations nor thought worse of the
plaintiff in consegeence of them.
• The Lome Cul Er J L'STICE left it to the Jury to say whether
the words proved were uttered in the sense alleged in the declare.
lion; if they were, the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict. Ott the
part of the defendant it was contended the they were merely words
of low vulgar alett.e; if so, the defendant sight to have taken the
' earliest occasion of expleining what lie really meant. Issued of
I mot, he compelled the plaintiff to bring his action. With remeet
le the first set of words. they were actionable if used with intent to
barpute felony. In ordinary language they collie! bear no other
interpretation. Possibly the defendant did not mean that the
herds should be so taken ; but it was a serious imputation to caU
a man a swindler, and say of him that ho was a thief.. With re-
spect to the other more horrible imputation, it was more than pro.
beble that the defendant really did not mean to charge the plaintiff
with the hideout' offence which the word impoved. lie was sorry,
however, to say that the word alluded to was too often used by pet.
I sons in the humbler clasaes of life, arid certainly the use of such a
filthy expression ought to he cheeked. In the mouth of an
Englishman such language was degrading and infamous. Sup-
' posing the Jury should not think the defendant had used this
abominable expression in the sense alleged, still it was a gross ag-
gravation of the other words, and would fairly justify an maw"
of damages. Character to a person in the plaintiff's situatio mai
of vital importance, and though the defendant might be a peer
man, yet if he could not pay In purse lie ought to infer in person.l
If poverty were to afford an apology for slander, it would in all ,
cases operate as an indemnity to .t peer man. It was no enterer
to an action of this nature, that the slander was one calculaied
to affect the reputation of the compleining party; for, if it were,
then the more virtuous a man's character, the less would he be en-
titled to redress at the handsel a Jury. The Jury would say what
damages the plaintiff was entitled to recover.
The Jury found for the plaintiff—Damages 51. •
Jan es liar:4y Sadler. aged 30, was indicted for feloniously in.
termarrying with Ann Eliza Court, at Ifethe, his first wife, Ann,
.bithea *Um •
Mr. PLATT caudated the prosecutise, and Mr. Airouws the
defence.
The prisoner had bete a geotleman's servant, end In 181 ff had
married Alin Hide, a woman in his own station, at the parish of
Christchurch, &trey, with whom he appeared to have lived oa ill
terms, but lisd had three children by her. On the 17th of April
last lie had married Ann Eliza Court, a handsome young woman,
of respectable parents, at Ilythe, in this county, with whom he
cohabited about a totnight, anti then left her, going to his first
wife, under pretence of looking after some property in London.
His stay being protracted longer than was expected, the unhappy
young woman followed him to London, end found him domestee
elated with his first wife and family. An erkiirrissemerd took place.
to the misery of boils women, and the second wife, by the advice
of her friends, instituted this t .osccutiou.
The case was clearly made out, and the prisoner was found
Guilly.—Judgment postponed.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.

VOR2ZSIIIRE ASSIZES, ','oar, .11.:LY 26.
•
SLANDER.
• THOMAS V. JACKSON.
Mr. A neffactt.D•opened the pleadings.
Mr. J. Wintrases stated that this was an action for slander,
brought by the plaintiff, a respectable farmer, living et Richmond,
in this Count;' against the defendant, a mifler, residing in the same
neighbourhood. The plaintiff had sold to the defendant one hun-
dred bushels of oats, and on a euhsequent occasion lie also sold
hirn a similar quantity of the like anitle, which defendant stated
to he inferior to the first by at least sixpenc, a bushel. The
defendant was not satisfied with making this unfounded charge.
but pistol, in the hearing of several persons, that the plaintiff'
" was a d—._d rogue and swindling rascal ; that he had done
many other r crawls before, but that he should rot do the de-
fendant again." Such were the words for which the action
was brought, and Ite (Mr. A)'illiams) was not sorry that
the case had been submitted to a Special Jury, nlthoagli
theplaintiff would hive been satisfied with a Jury of persons of
his own condition of life. The plaintiff cultivated about 7 acres
of land, and was therefore obliged to attend the markets to sell the
produce of his own farm. The defendant attended the same mar-
ket (Richmond), vin. on the 6th of Oztober, The plaintiff
and defendant met there ; and while the plaintiff was speaking to a
person named Alone, relative to some disputed transaction of a
pqund note, the defendant, in the busiest time of the market, and
without ill: slightest cause or provocation, made use of the slander-
ous expressions to which lie had just directed the attention of the
Jury. No twin could hear such, words spoken of him without
feelings of anger and resentment; ltut the plaintiff used more
moderation than could hive beets fairly expected from a man in
such a situation. The defendant, as if provoked by the coolneen
and temper of die plaintiff, toed further &bit/nye and blanderous
language, and before various peisone hail stated, that Mr. T. was a
trickster, a rascal, and had done him in a bargain, alluding to a
frauddlent sale of the 100 bushels of corn, to which lie before di-
rected the attention of the Jury. Having thus briefly stated his
case, he left the rest to the guardianship and vigilauce of au en.
lightened and impartial Jury.
Win. Moses, a farmer, residing near Richmond, proved the ut-
terance of the words stated as slanderous, at the market-place of
Richmond, on the ritli of Oct. 1823.
Thomas Hutchinson, a fernier, Thomas Mar,, a farmer, and
James Forty, a miller, all corroborated the witness Moses, as to the
use of the words " swindler, rascal," &e., as applied to plaintiff' by
the defendant.
A servant of the plaintiff's wis called to prove the quality
of the two parcels of oats, which he declared do be exactly alike.
Win. Hall, another of the plaintiff's servants, deposed to the
same effect.
Mr. SCAIMETT here submitted that the words proved were not
actionable in themselves, unless coupled with the allegation of
special damage. No such damage was alleged or proved, and no
transaction explaining the motive of the defendant !tea been ad-
duced. To call a man a thief would be actionable, if a felony
Irerto say that a man was a thief because lie -Kole.
t be actionable, inasmuch as .the mere stealing of
IT be charged as a trespass, and could not be sufli-
ite ■ felony. Such being the erne, be veniured
the words, as stated by the witnesses, were not ac.

trees, vita
trees could
tient to tom
to submit t
tionablc. •

Mr. Baron Illit.Locz-1 can understand the objection of the
Learned Counsel, but I do not feel inclioed to receive it at this
moment.

Mr. Scant.T.TT urg d his objection., and contended that the law
discountenanced all actions for words spoken. Would it be ac-
tionable to say of a Lawyer that "bets a rogue and a scoundrel,"
fur " he drives hard bargains ?"
Mr. 84r0I1 iit:LLOCk-I fear they do so too often, Mr. Scar.
lett. But pray tell me what are the precise words relied on by
the plaintiff's counsel, fur I do not wish unnecessarily to ►top the

Mr. ILLIAMS—One of the plaintiff's witnesses heard the de.
fendant tall my client a " thief:" but as that term is not mated in
the declaration, I shall pass it over, merely taking it as showing the
vein:to of the defendant. The precise words we rely upon are,
l'oo are a il---il rogue, and a swindling rased."
Mr. Baron Iltt enocc—But these words in themselves are
clearly not actionable.
Mr. XVinLIAMS—Put taken in the manner in which they were
used, I hutubly contend that they are actionable.
Mr. Baron II i.r.ocx referred to his notes, and then said lam of
opinion that the words are not actionable.
Mr. IVILLIAMS-1 roust again submit that the applicationofl
the words laid as being uttered, is for the Jury to decide, and not
for your Lordship. The question of malice or mistake in casting
the imputation is for the Jury to settle.
Mr. Baron 11 u tnocx---1 have no doubt upon the matter myself,
and I shall have it to the Jury to decide upon the meaning of the
expressions.
Mr. SCAILETT said that he could explain the whole matter
very satisfactorily, but at present he did cot like to du so.
Mr. WILLIAMS wished for the explanation now.
Mr. SCAN LETT coin plained of this interruption while he was ad-
dressing the Learned Judge.
Mr. I'it.t.lnsts.-1 only interrupt you because you are so end-
nently irregular.
Mr. Baron II uttocx—Well, Gentlemen, we hail better pro-
reed. ll'hatever my opinion may be, I shall not now stop the
Cause; but whatever the verdict may be, the defendant shall hsve
leave to bring the case fully before the Court above.
Mr. Fcafttxr I', in addressing the Jury for the defendant, con.
, tended that the words spoken could not 138 actionable unless they
WIC spoken in coolness, and calculated to injure the
The evidence of all the witnesses negatived malice on the part of
the defendant, and indeed they proved that the words were used in
consequence of the plaintiff being over hard with the defendant
in the last bargain about the oats. Certainly no man would like to
hear such words attributed to him, but they had become such,
words of general abuse, that to make them the cause of actions, i
would only be to multiply vexatious suits, and put money into the
pockets of the Lavern. All that passed between the plaintiff and
defendant was in the heat of passion, and this he would its able to
prove most sati4tactorily to the Jury.
Wm. Lunn, one of the servants of the defendant, swore that the
parcel of oats delivered to his master in October, 1823, was inferior
to the former parcels.
William Corner, a farmer, swore that lie heard a good row
between the plaintiff and the defendant at Richmond, in conse-
quence of the plaintiff having charged the defendant sonic pent*
too much per bushel for certain oats. The words scoucdrel and
swindler certainly passed.
Several other witnesses were called, who deposed to neat.y the
same eirect.
. .

NORFOLK CIRCUIT.

CAMBRIDGESHIRE ASSIZES, CANisawca, JcLY 26.

CRIMINAL COITRT.
Before the LORD CRIVIP itAitox.

REX C. MATHEW /WW I.
The prisoner was tried before Alr. Justice Osselee at the Lent
Assizes for this County, upon an indictment under Lord Ellen.
borough's Act, and convicted.
Tho Learned JUDGE thought, that as the iasttument was proved
to be capable of cutting, though in fact of a blunt description, the
conviction was right. But some doubts having been entertained,
on the grounds that the instrudtent, though capable of cutting, ;
was nut upon ordinaty occasions used for such purpose, and that
therefore the intent of the prisoner could rut ba said to cut, the
Learned Judge thought it proper to refer the case to the consider*..
tion of the Judges.
The prisoner was now called up, and
The CHIEF BARON addressed him in these words—
" Mathew Hunt, at the last Assizes for this County you were
tried and convicted of feloniously cutting and maiming, but some
doubts having arisen as to the nature of the instrument by which
this cutting was effected, judgment was not passed upon you at
that time, for the purpose of submitting those doubts to the coned.
deratinn of the twelve Judges, and upon the most mature delibe-
' ration the Judges thought your convietioo proper. The officer
of the Court will now call on you, therefore, to hear what you
have to say why judgmlnt of death should not be recorded against
! you."
The prisoner was accordingly asked to that effect by the officer.
He said_`• I hope this will be a warning to me fur my future
conduct."

The judgment was then recorded.
Samar! Cowell stood indicted with assaulting Charles Oliver, a
constable of the parish of Clierryhinton, he being then in t'ae exe-
cution of his office. In the second count, the prisoner was indicted
fora common assault.
The prosecutor stated, that on the 22d of July lut he saw the
prisoner stripped, wishing to lioht Town's Johnston. lie said he
would fight. He asked me, 11 ho are you talking to ? I said to
yon. Ile was saucy. I told Mm. Clements not in let him have
more bear. She said she would not, and she threw his coat and
waistcoat into the street. lie would not go away, and I said, "If
you don't go I'll pot you in •Ite stocks. lie said. " D---- you
and your stocks." I then protee,!ed to put him in the stocks, but
he kicked me so that 1 conveyed him there with considerable
difficulty.
Is that a thing you often do, put people in the stocks ?—Serer
did so in my life before.
The witness proceeded to say, that on his return front the Magis•
trues the prisoner threatened to shoot him.
Thomas Phillips said he was at this time returning from the vil-
lage of Chenyhinton. He corroborated the protiecutor's testimony.
The prisoner in his defence said, " 1 mean to bay that Thomas
Oliver was as much in fault as I was. What right had, he to take
me herr, as I know front 'fom Johnston. I'm very sorry for what
haa happened, very sorry ; but I'm a mad brain'd chap when I'm
sfresh, and I was very first; that night."
• The Jury found the prisoner i:sitti on the first Mint,
• The prisoner was sentenced to t.ro: muntli's imprisonment and
haul labour.

31r. W 11.1.1 Am 9 briefly replied, and after
The Learned JUDO had recapitulated the evidence to the Jury.
Anil stated hisSinnion of the law on the case,

The Jury returned a Verdict for the plaintiff—llatnages, One
Farthing.

On Wednesday morning a disturbance occurred in
IVebb-street, St. Olave's which excited great terror in that
neighbourhood while it lasted. The child of a native of
Ireland died some days ego. -and before the " wake" had
taken place the body was etol-ii by some of the resurrection
men. As soon as this circumstance became known in
'coulee-street, an immense inii:titude of the lower orders of
that country assembled together, and a report having got
wind amongst them that the body of the child was disposed
lof at Grainger's dissecting rooms in Webb-street, thither
the mob repaired, and having taken up their station in
front of the theatre of anatomy, with dreadful menaces and
imprecations threatened to pull down the house a.!out the
ears of the innates if the body was not immediately delivered
up. The anatomist himself made his appearance at one of
the windows, and assured them that such a subject had not
been brought to his house, but all his endeavours to con-
vince then, of this fact proved unavailing, and it was nAt
until the aid of the police was called in that the disturb-
ance, which for a length of time had a very threatening as-
, 1)e-et , submbetl.
! A matcb of cricket between the married and mingle men of A.A..
ford was played on Thursday last, and each party ant 126. A let.,
vier game nail bten bon by the mimed men. 5y oce tun oLly.

/trawl' Weimer. alias H'atner. tac indicted for having. on the
night of the 221 of March, biliglariomily entered the house u. John
Logic, and stolen from thence one sack, four pounds of cheese, and
a quantity of laid, the property of John Ingle.
:tie. Hunr stated the case fur the prosecution. He admitted
that them was no very positive teviimoLy. A pair of stockings was
found on him, and they were in the belle! on the night of the
burglary, and very little doubt existed but that they were ]lr.
Ingle's pruprrty.
Mrs. Ingle, the prosecutor's wife, said her bout, was robbed in
March last. She went to bed about eleven o'clock, and all the
doors were fast. A dour fronting the cheese elianiber was broken'
open. The bolt was ~hot open Ly a ehigel. She was awakened
about four o'clock in the !nothing. pi he then found that the things
I apecilied in the indictment were mining. I'licre wu a pair of
stockings she hung up under the same weal. bhc had trashed them
e t
that night, and hung diem up.
Prisoner—Did sow see me about the hous tha night ?
N.,. I only saw the stocking* on your lep:Ot,,rweeds.
John Peck, a 'mac-keeper, corroborated thas witness's evidence
us to the situation of the door at 4 oltlock in the uiorshig.
Elizabeth Ingle, the younger, said stse lived about three-quarters
c: a spilt from the pro:twee-a ho4t. 'floc priruaer worked at Ler