The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-05-31 00:00:00

and the present application wan for a mandamus to command them
to deliver up the public pro,.:rty of the Corporation, which they
lawleo,ly restrained:
Tit E 1.0.113 CII lEr JUST tce—Take a role to show cause.
Nothing further transpired in Court of any public importuner.

- -
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, TUESDAY, MAY 30.

iSittingn in Banco.]
SILLICK V. BMITII.

This was an action of trover, tried at the last Sittings, to recover
eighty hogsheads of sugar from the %Vest India Pock Company of
which the defendant la the treasurer. There were two other de-
fendants. who had indemnified the Company : a verdict was given
for the defendant Smith, and against the other two.
Mr. Sergeant VAUGIII.O: this day moved to enter a verdict for
the plaintiff, on the ground that, although the action was not
brooght within three months, agreeable to the terms of 39th Geo,
111., a:ill that the act done by the Company was not in pursuance
of that Act, and consequently they were not protected by it. Ile
conceived the intention of the Legislature to be to limit the acts
done to those necessary for the construction of the docks, and
for the completion of which it was necessary to give them eaten.
give powers.
The Counv were of opinion that the Act, both in spirit and
letter, extended to acts done by the Company generally : the words
were, "nn action shall be brought, without first
.giving fourteen
days' notice" of any injury sustained ; nor could it be maintained
if not brought within three months. The question was of great
importance to the public; but there could not be a doubt respect-
ing the intention of the Legislature.
Rule refused.

SNOW AND OTHERS v. SADLER.
This was an action of trover, brought by the plaintiff., who are
hankers, against the defendant, a horse-dealer, to recover a 30!.
Bank-note. The note in question was stolen from the plaintiffs'
porter, in the month of September. 11324, and was taken by the
defendant in September. 1023. It was proved on the trial. which
was before the Lord Chief Justice, in London, that the defendant
admitted either having received the note from his bankers, or in
payment of a bet with some permit whom he did not know, at the
St. Leger races. Dcmeaster. The Lord Chief Justice charged !he
Jury to find whether the defendant, in taking-the note, had or had
not exercised a due caution. Mr. Sergeant {Wilde tendered a bill
of exception to his Lordship, on the ground that there was not
evidence of a want of caution.
Mr. Sergeant I91Ln:: now said, that the defendant waived the
bill of exception, but instructed him to move lOr a rule to shew
cause why a new trial should not be granted. Ile contended that
it was proved the defendant admitted he did not know of whom he
received the note: but it did not follow that he did not at the time
know of whom he received it : he might have known the indi-
vidual then, though he did not now that he was challenged.
The LORD CutEir JUSTICE—The evidence was, that the de-
fendant admitted he took the note, betting with strangers.
Mr. Sergeant IV/I.DE slid, they must refer to the nature of the
!ransaction. lie believed it was a common thing for pople to
bet with individuals whom they did not know. Another point he
would submit to the Court was, that the defendant did not take
the note till more than a twelvemonth after it was stolen.

The 1.01111) CIIIET JUSTICE—YOU must nay the costs.
Mr. sergeant Wtt.tc-1 tear l must, my bord.
The Lotto Cutts Jorrice—This will involve a discussion
uto whether bets me legal or not. I was afraid of deciding this
during the Epsom Races. (A laugh.)
Rule Nisi granted.

PASCOE V. Wit IGHTER.
Mr. sergeant In LDE moved, on affidavit, for a rule to chew
cause why the nonsuit in this CIAe should not be set aside and a
new trial granted, on the ground of a Inmerial witness having
refused to be present at the trial ; and also for a rule to show cause
why the witness should not be attached. The affidavits stated that
the witness, being served with a subpoena, refused to attend unless
his expenses were paid, he living in the country, and the deponent
thereupon gave hint 201., which he received; notwithstanding this
he was absent. _

The LOAD CHIEF JUSTICE—Take both rules.
HARRIETTE WILSON'S MEMOIRS.
EISIIER STOCKDALE:

Mr. Stockdsle apPe;etiiip;;l;; floor of the Court with a great
mass of papers. Ile said he wished to make a motion, if their
Lordships would permit him.
The CotraT, after a short delay, occasioned by the Lord Chief
Justice stepping out, desired him to commence.
Mr. Stockdale accordingly proceeded, occasionally reading from
his voluminous papers, and occasionally delivering himself extern-
poraneously. He began by saying, that lie should not offer any
apology for exercising the undisputed right which every English-
man possessed, of conducting, if he pleased, his cause in person.
In the sittings after last Easter Term, he was defendant in an ac-
tion for an alleged libel, tried before the Lord Chief Justice, when
the Jury found for the plaintiff most unprecedented damages. He
should now move for a rule to shew cause why the verdict should
not be set aside and a nonsuit entered, or why a new trial should
not he granted. In support of his motion to set aside the verdict,
he would observe, that it was suited in evidence on the trial that
the plaintiff had been married for a long apace of time, 31 years,
and that he had had eight children, three of whom were living. Now,
it was incumbent on the plaintiff to prove that he was a legally
married man, according to the forms of this country. This he had
not done. The only proof he had of was the production of a
book, in which was registered a certain marriage which took place
31 years ago between two individuals, named Hugh Evans Fisher
and Elizabeth Farrar. The hand-writing was not proved by the
sub•cribing witness, but by one Marshall, who said he believed the
writing in the register to be the plaintiff's. This witness also
proved that the plaintiff had only three children, and it was set out
in the declaration that he had eight. Ile believed it was always
held that a fact must be proved by the hest possible evidence. lie
contended, therefore, that the plaintiff ought either to have pro-
duced the subscribing witness to the register, or have shown that
he was dead, and then proved hisl hand-writing. He thought
in point of law he was entitled to nonsuit the plaintiff', he having
set out that he had eight children, and it was proved that he had
only three. Another point to which he should call the attention of
the Court was the description of the plaintiff'. This individual's
name was Hugh Evans Fisher, but the name affixed to the alleged
libel was Charles Frederick Fisher. One of the witnesses on the
trial said he believed the plaintiff was the person meant in the libel.
The testimony of this witness, however, was not to be particularly
relied on, for he had not lived at Lyme Regis more titan half a year.
If, however, he should be able to show that Mr. Fisher had quitted
Lyme Regis two years before the publication of the libel, and that
he had lived at Bath and subsequently in London, he thought he
should show sufficient to prove that the present plaintiff was not
the person alluded to in the Memoir,. If he were allowed, he could
explain how it was that this witness was brought against him. His
name was Ponsonby, and he was carver and gilder to the King ;
and from a correspondence he had had with Lord Ponsonby—
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—We cannot htar this.
Mr. Justice PARE —WC must not allow you to publish fresh
libels. _ . _ _ .
. .

...,......
Mr. Stockdale said he would refer to another point, as a further
proof of the plaintiff not being the individual meant. AD. Fisher
was spoken of as the Devonshire attorney,-and Lyme Regis was in
Dorsetshire. Ile thought he had now shown sufficient grounds for
a nonsuit ; but if he had not, he should proceed to state what be
thought would entitle him to a new trial. The charge of the Lard
Chief Justice was calculated to inflame the minds of the Jury, and
excite such a prejudice against him as to induce them to give to the
plaintiff excessive damages. The Jury had bean addressed by Mr.
Sergeant Vaughan in a style of great virulence. That gentleman
had described him as worse than a highwayman ; and if lie might,
he should like to ascribe to this address what he considered to be its
motive. Many years ago Mr. Sergeant Vaughan was engaged as
Counsel against him, and—
Mr. Justice PARK—We cannot permit this.
Mr. Steckdale Snid he did not wish to take any liberties
with the Court. Some reference was made by Mr. Sergeant
1 Vaughan to his (Mr. Stockdalc's) defence to a previous action,
brought against him by his printer; and it was said his defence
was, that the work was of too abominable a nature to enable the
plaintiff to recover. When this was about to be answered by Mr.
Sergeant Wilde, who was his Counsel in that cause, but who was
now against him—when that Learned Gentleman was about to dis-
claim that this defence was made with his (Mr. Stockdale's) know-
ledge), he was stopped by the Lord Chief Justice, who promised to
direet the Jury to dismiss from their minds any prejudice that
i such a statement might be calculated to create. Ilia Lordship,
however, neglected to do this; and, instead. charged him with
libelling all that was "great, noble, and amiable in the country,"
I with a view to gct:ing hush-money. When his Lordship was pre-
i siding over a libel cause, it did not appear just that he should allow
his feelings—he would not say prejudices, bemuse that would be
an expression used in reference to any other person, in any other
place—to hold him (Mr. Stockdale) tip as an nutlaw,ultom it would
be an advantage to destroy. The charge of his Lordship was cal-
culated to inflame the minds of the Jury, and induce them to ex-
terminate, to stamp him as an outcast of soc'ety. Ile thanked Mr.
Sergeant ‘Vilde for the candid mantiet in which he disavowed that
he had received instructions from him (Mr. Stockdale) to make the
defence he hail to the claim of the printer. He would rather have
sacrificed 20,0110 f. than that the effect this statement had on tile
public mind should have been preduced. Such a defence was
highly dishonourable; and when Ise heard of it, he said, that it
never with his consent should have been resorted to, even if In-
carceration in a prison for life hail been the consequence. The fact
was, the plaintiff had nommited himself without such a defence.
Mr. Justice PARK—We Cannot hear that which refers to an-
other cause.
111 r. Stockdale—lt was introduced in the last cause against me.
alr. Justice PARK—But we cannot grant new trials on such
grounds as these. I
Mr. Stockdale—The damages were enhanced on that very I
ground.
Mr. Justice Pant—How do you know that ?
Mr. Stockdale—From the newspaper reports, and from persons
who were in the Court during the trial. He had just thanked Mr.
Sergeant Wilde for his handsome address, though—
Mr. Sergeant IVILnE said the defence lie made on the trial
to which Mr. Stockdale alluded, was not made without the Attor-
ney's arsuieseence, though Mr. Stockdale had certainly not given
instruction, to that effect.
Mr. Justice Pants said, Mr. Stock dale had not yet stated any
specific grounds for his motion, either as regarded excessive da-
mages, or the evidence. The libel even was not yet before the
Court.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE aaid he had the libel amongst his
notes, and he would read it. His Lordship proceeded to read the'
libel, and said he told the Jury that any thing which had a ten-
dency to bring a ;triune individual into ridicule was libellous;