The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-06-23 00:00:00

!BM
91-

- -
by the _ by PeficatiOn
.ad been by the plaintiffouess-r ,e defendant
to admit publication of the payed libel, ad invariably
refused to do so; and yet, notwedepeentiing the plaintiff knew this
determination of the defendan‘beilow came, at the end of Trinity
Term, Iti2S, and made another application to put off the trial, stat-
ing that the witness who could prove the publication was ahroad
The plainsithad the opportunity A year ago to examine the witness
, upon 'es, sumrding to the terms required of the defend-
ant. beat didpee **proper as avail himself of a commissiop.
Time beeri emit dies necessity of bringing two wil-
lanallea NOW dart ek great cayenne, and they were obliged to be
detained in this counttre„ because their evidence was of such a nature
al would not admit of,their being examined upon interrogatories,
it being absolutely essential to the defence that they should give
AEI, testimony viva wee. He thought therefore, that inasmuch as
*plaintiff had not availed himself of the offer made to him to
have a commission, although the defendant had refused to admit
' the publication, he ought not new to be allowed to defer the trial,
end thereby put the defendant to a very great expence, when the
absence of his witnesses was entirely the consequence of his own
neglect.
Mr. tluasiy. followed on the same side.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY asked, whether the affidavits on the part of
the plaintiff stated that their witness was expected to arrive from
India ?
Mr. GuaxtT.--No, my Lord ' • they had not even stated that
he had left India, or. was about to do so.
Mr. BROUGHAM begged their Lordships to consider, if this rule
should be refused, what • peculiarly hard situation the plaintiff,
would be placed in. The defendant did not pretend to deny that
heiwrote the letter; what he mainly relied upon was the justification
of the facts; and yet he would not admit the publication of it.
Admitting, as the defends • had done, that he was the writer of
the libel, not attempting to deny the facts, but asserting them to
be true, still, when the plaintiff applied for a mere admission of the
publication, he refused it, although he knew our witnesses to prove
that fact were in India, and proceeded to bring the plaintiff down
to trial when It was known he wow not in a condition to do so. The
reason why the commission was not issued in the first instance
was explained by the affidavit of the attorney for the plaintiff. He
had sworn that leave was given to the plaintiff to examine his wit.
ness upon interrogatories, at.• time when this business was in the
hands of another attorney, who made a mistake in point Of evi.
dente, be conceiving that sane pencil marks which were on the
letter, and made by some one of the patties, would be sufficient
evidence of the publication. When the plaintiff's present attorney
came to look Into the matier, he saw that there was no proof of
publication at ail, and then the only thing that remained for him to
do, was to apply to the defendant to admit the publication ; this,
however, was refused. It might be said that there had elapsed a
sufficient time since then to have taken out a commission ; his an-
swer to that was, that the plaintiff never dreamed that any advan-
tage would be taken as that of bringing him down to trial by pro-
viso; and he therefore considered the only thing he had to do was
to withdraw the record till he could get the witness over from India
to this country. Brest, therefore, wax the surprise of the plaintiff
to find that such a step had been taken by the defendant. lie
thought this was very strange conduct on the part of Mr. Banks,
who no doubt acted by his legal advisers. Ile did not mean his
learned friends here. (A lough.) Mr. Hanks admitted the letter,
and pleaded a justification, but would not admit the publication,
although he would not deny it. He hoped the Court, therefore,
would niake the rule absolute, and not compel the plaintiff to go to
trial without evidence. Under the circumstances, he thought It
would be far better to have the witness examined viva yore, than
upon interrogatories.
Mr. Justice Bea LET—When did those witnesses come from
Syria, Mr. Gurney ?
Mr. Guaxze—ln the month of October last, my Lord.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE-51r. Brougham, will you pay the
, costs of these two witnesses being kept in England till your witness
comes from India?
Tile. BROUGHAM said, he would rather consent to examine them
upon interrogatories. than take upon himself an indefinite expence,
as there was no certainty as to when his witness might arrive in this
country.
The ATTORNEY•GENERAL said, it was no question of costs,
but whether the defendant wax to send these witnesses back without
having the benefit of their evidence.
The Loan Curer JUSTICE thought that the delay on the part
of the plaintiff had been very great, and that be was not, in strict-
: num entitled to have the trial postponed any longer.
Mr. BROUGHAM—Perhaps, my Lords, you will let me consult
my client, whether he will pay the costs of these witnesses remain-
ing in this country.
The LORD CHIEF Ins-rice—Certainly, there can be no objec-
tion ; and let the rule be discharged unlesathe plaintiff consenis to
pay the expenses of the witnesses up to this time, to be settled by
the Master ; and in the mean time a commission be issued by hint
to examine hie witness in India on interrogatories.
The rule waa accordingly made absolute, 'Object to those terms.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WEDNESDAY, Jusit

Sittifrgs is AIRCO.
At the sitting", of the Court, the Cursr Jurrict intimated
that in the causes Reynell v. the Bishop of f,i,,coln ; and Chol-
mondeley v. Paxton, from some circumstances that had occurred,
the Court could pot Axe ga judgment wit the tint of the next
Term-
ANDREWS 9. LORD ALVANLEY Awe LORD FOLEY.
The CHILE JUSTICE said, that yestey the Coon had in
this cue been induced to enlarge the rule without staying proceed-
ings, on account of the repreaentation that Vie affidavits could
not be obtained from the Office. The officer had reported t the
Court, that it was the plaintiff's own fault that he had not obtained
them. The Court, therefore, under the circumstances, would stay
the proceedings.
Mr. Sergeant VAT:MUD was about to make some observations
thereon. when
me Cuter JUSTICE said, after the Court had determined,
they could not suffer any observations to be made.
The motions haring all been gone through, at a quarter put two
the Court was adjourned to Alichaelmas Term_

Pitottnewytm. Eoe•rE.—Loot night, between eigbt
and nine o'clock. a serious accident was like to have occurred to a
number of workmen, who were employed by a Mr. Al• Neil, in
building some safety fire proof rooms for Messrs. Msstermans and
Co.'s banking house, in Three Fox-court, Clement's-lane, Loot-
bard•street. It appears the shoring of an adjoining house was oh-
served to shake, when a man was sent up to ascertain the equili-
brium of a large stack of chimneys which they supported. After
applying his plum rule, he had barely time to give notice to his
fellow workmen below and secure his own retreat, when the whole
fell with a tremendous crash. Had it not been for this providential
discovery, twenty men must have met an untimely death.
DREADFUL ACCID /4 T.—Yesterday morning, abort ten
o'clock, the following frightful catastrophe took place at Knights-
bridge, near the Barracks :—A new house is erecting's' the turning
leading un by the side of the tiove depot, and consequently a
large scaffolding is built in the front of it. About the hour above
stated, the workmen, consisting of about twenty, were at work on
the scaffold, when a large coping stone that had just been placed
on the parapet, fell with a tremendous crash, breaking down the
scaffold poles and boards ; some of the men dexterously threw
themselves from the parapet into the gutter, by which means they
escaped unhurt ; but not so with others, for, shocking to relate, se-
ven unfortunate fellows were carried to the ground with the falling
materials, consisting of bricks, mortar, etc. under which they were
buried for some moments. The rest of the men instantly rendered
every assistance to the sufferers, and as speedily as possible rescued
them from the ruins, in a state of insensibility ; shutters and litters
were promptly procured, and the poor fellows were carried to St.
George's Hospital, where every surgical aid was ren4ered them,
yet still they remain without hopes of recovery. The names of the
injured persons are as follow :—J. Smith, a bricklayer, dreadfully
injured in the spine and chest ; Edward Hall, a carpenter, both
arms dislocated, and his skull fractured; James Carroll. a ground-
digger, head fractured and shoulder dislocated ; Samuel Sullivan,
a carpenter, both arms much injured ; Edward Wilson, collar-bone
broken ; George Inglis, a labourer, spine dreadfully injured ;
and George Harris, another labourer, had his cheek dreadfully
lacerated. All these men have wives and families in the greatest
distress.
CoittMea'S bigvEszso-r4 six o'clock yesterday eeeo-
ing an Inquest was held subs White Horse, In the Sinn& on the
body of an infant seven years of age, named Esther Ditties, the
daughter of a poor woman residing in Off-alley, Buckingham.
street, Strand, who was drowned the preceding evening. From the
evidetice adduced, It appeared that the child was playing at the
Duchy wharf, in the Strand, when hrr foot slipped, and she fell
into the river. The Jury, without hesitation, returned a verdict
of " Accidental Death." The Foreman, at the conclusion of the
Inquest, torte and proposed that a subscription of Is, 6,1. should
be entered into, as a temporary relief to the mother of the de.
ceased; which was cordially agreed to by hie brother Jurymen,
but was objected to by the Coroner, on the score of precedent : he,
however cheerfully contributed his part, on the ground of hu-
manity, and the money was collected. LToo much praise cannot be
given to Mr. Herring, of the Strand, and Mr. Norton. of Budges.
street, Covent-garden, surgeons, for their perseverance for upwards
of two hours in the means resorted to on those melancholy occa-
sians
1 The poor woman, it appears, is now left with three children
totally unprov;ded for, the father having left his home in a most
desponding state about five weeks ago, and has not since been
heard of.

x lea I. or PROBERT.—Yesterday evening, soon after
five o'clock, an immense crowd of persons assembled around the
church of St. Martin-in-the-fields, in consequence of its being
generally known that the remains of William Probert were to be
consigned to the grave in the burying-yard that surrounds the
church. About six o'clock the funeral procession turned round
the corner from Loag-acre ; it was merely a cammon funeral pro-
cession, the coffin borne as 'nsual by six men, and followed by only
two mourners in cloaks; the procession was closed, by several
shabbily dressed persons in various garbs, who formed, we believe,
accidentally, two abreast. In this order the coffin was borne along
Sc. Martin s.lane to the church, where being deposited in doe great
aisle, the Rev. Mr. Morris read the prayers for the dead, and part
of the funeral prayers. Upon which the bearers carried the corpse
►o the grave, close to the church-wall, and opposite the house of the
Rev. Dr. Potts, where it being deposited, the Rev. Curate finished
the burial rites, the grave was closed, and the crowd dispersed,
having evidently, from their expressions, assembled to see the un-
fortunate widow, who did sot appear., The two persona that fol.
owsyl were stated not to be relation,

''''lg#EM‘-r-44•110

...aIiZHE BRITISH PRESS.
...
hid been, that as the defendanee two witnervet were in Eng-
land, be had entercd the cause for vial by proviso. Application
h.d been made by the plaintiff over and over again to the defendant
to admit 'the publication of the elleged libel, but he had invariably