The Sun.
London, England, 1839-07-09 00:00:00

Wm. Brown, who stated that he had known Nicholson
in the Queen's Bench, and that having subsequently met
him in " full feather," found, on asking him the reason,
that he was " writing for the Town." Witness had re-
monstrated with him for attacking so severely the plaintiff,
who was a friend of his, and a Director of the " Vinegar
Company." Nicholson asked witness if be belonged to the
Company ; to which he replied that he did : on which
Nicholas said he would not touch him, but would give the
Company a good dressing next week, also saying that he
wished he could catch Riley, for he would break every
bone in his skin, he having tried to injure the circulation
of the Town.
Cross-examined by Mr. JERVIS-1 collected only for the
Vinegar and British Wine Company. Thev had no ma-
nufactory. They were to have a splendid capital—if it
had gone on.—( A laugh.) I have been in Whitecross-
street prison once, I think ; but it was for another man's
debt. I was in the Queen's Bench also for another man's
debt. I have been, in fact, too accommodating.
Mr. JERVIS—AIi, yes ;no doubt.—( A laugh.) Were
you ever in any other London prison ?
Witness—Really now, you do ask me questions that hare
nothing to do with the trial.—(Laughter.)
Mr. JERVIS—I must have an answer, though.
Witness—l will appeal to his Lordship.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTlCE—Evidence, Sir, as to your
general course of life, is admissible.
Witness—Well, under his Lordship's direction—but I
must have time to recollect.—( A laugh—a long pause.)
Mr. JEavis—Come, you have had time to recollect,
Have you now been in any other London prison ?

Wiiness—No.
Mr. JERvis—ln the country ?
Witness (angrily ) No. I beg pardon—once in North-
ampton, for a very short time.— ( Laughter.)
Air. JERVlS—Anywhere else?

Witness—Rerlly, without any memoranda-4 Laugh-
ter. ) No—no where else. I have compounded with my
creditors. I have passed through the Insolvent Debtors'
Court—not more than once.—(A laugh.) I was in busi-
ness at Northampton in a tan-yard. I sold the business
for 15,0001. I paid every creditor there—but, not every
creditor. When I compounded I paid 55. in the pound.
The papers were then put in—one of them containing
a string of questions to the plaintiff, asking him whether
he had not kept an improper house—whether he had not
compromised indictments for keeping gaming-houses,
ecc. Sec.

Another of the papers also contained (thongh not included
in the action) a report of a case purporting to have been
taken from the Times, 1823, describing a proceeding
in the Insolvent Debtors' Court, in which the plaintiff
appeared to oppose a Miss Aspinalle, an opera dancer,
and on his e;.amination was charged by the counsel with
equivocation, and severely reprimanded by the Judge,
the insolvent being discharged, and the opposition of the
plaintiff characterized as a persecution, instigated by
some secret motive, as " persevering, heartless vindictive-
ness," against a girl to whom he had at one time paid
some attentions.

A Mr. Clark was then called, who stated that he had
belonged to the late Vinegar Company, and had seen the
defendant, Nicholson, in consequence of the attacks that
appeared in the Town, but before the more virulent at-
tacks. Ile had told Nicholson that the Company would
advertise in the Town. Nicholson answered that, as a
man of the world, witness must know that in such cases
money was given to the Press, and that £lO in gold must
be left for him, or he would continue the attacks. £lO
was given him, and there were no more attacks on the
Vinegar Company.—(Laughter.) Witness had made
the application solely out of regard for the interests of the
Company, and not at any request of Mr. Riley's. In con-
sequence of the attacks which had been made on Mr.
Riley, he was requested to withdraw, and did so. Soon
after the Company was broken up, the money subscribed
was returned, and tho Directors paid the expenses in-
curred.

Cross-examined—We were to take copies of the Town
for the 101 as well as advertise. Riley did not pay any
of the money returned.
This was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. JEavis submitted that there was no evidence of a
joint interest in all the four defendants.

The LORD CHTEFJUSTICE was of opinion there was suf-
ficient proof to go to the jury.
Mr. JERVIS then addressed the Jury for the defence,
commencing by arguing that against Nicholson there was
no evidence at all, and that against Clark and Forrester
no evidence that gave them both a joint interest in the
business. He admitted that the plaintiff was entitled to a
verdict, for there were terms in the libel which could not
be justified, having been used unguardedly. But he sub-
mitted that the plaintiff had not appeared in Court with
so unstained a character as to entitle to heavy damages.
The Jury would observe that no evidence bad been brought
.as to character, and certainly the plaintiff derived no great
credit from his " friend" Mr. Brown.—(A laugh.) The
plaintiff had upon the record admitted the prosecution.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.—But that is not the libel.
The libel that he compromised the prosecutions for
money.

Mr. JERVIS =tended that the plaintiff might—if the
truth were so—have denied that he had filed these indict•
ments, whereas he had not done so.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—He could not have denied
that he filed the indictments, and then denied that he had
compromised them ; the rules of pleading would not have
allowed it.

Mr. JERvis insisted that the plaintiff might have denied
the indictments altogether. The Learned Counsel went
on to argue that the plaintiff had not pursued the
right course for the vindication of his cha-
racter ; and dwelt strongly on the fact of his
not having denied that he was outlawed (one of the
charges of the libel); and still more, his not having no-
ticed that part which referred to the report in the Times,
1323, respecting the proceedings in the Insolvent Court,
containing as it did, a charge much more serious than the
libel complained of.

The LORD CuIEF Jr.cTICE told the jury they must first
decide on the question of joint interest and liability in the
defendants, and next on the quantum of damages to be
given. Any man might honestly indict a gaming-house :
it was, indeed, the duty of every honest man to do so ; but
the charge was, that plaintiff had improperly compromised
the indictments. The Jury would say whether this and
other charges were not admitted by the defendants to be
false, seeing that they attempted no proof.
The Jury retired for a short time, and returned with a
verdict for plaintiff.—Damages, 2501.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

NEW COURT-JULY S.

PEIIJURY —John Money, aged 61, was indicted for wilful
and corrupt perjury.
Mr. Plitilars and Mr. THOSIPSON conducted the pro-
secution—the prisoner was defended by Mr. BALLANTINE.
It appeared from the statement of Mr. Phillips that the
prosecutor, Mr. James Stanley, is landlord •f the Red-
Cow public-house, Castle-street, Bethnal-Green ; and
that he was summoned before the Magistrates at the in-
stance of Aaron Rawlings, the common informer, on a
charge of having kept his house open during the hours of
divine service on the morning of Sunday, the 7th of April.
On that occasion, the prisoner was a witness, and sup-
ported the information, and swore to certain facts which it
would be found were totally untrue. He (Mr. Phillips)
should prove the case by respectable witnesses, who, he be-
lieved would prove one of the most gross cases that ever
was brought before a Court of Justice.
Mr. BALLANTINE took several objections to the form of
the indictment—when Mr. PHILLIPS called a number of
witnesses to prove his case, and the Jury without hesitation
found the prisoner Guilty.—Judgment deferred.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE.

RIGHT OT SEARCH UNDER THE CUSTOMS,—A Case
came on before the Lord Mayor and Alderman Pirie,
which excited a great deal of interest. It was prosecuted
by Mr. Bush, of the house of Bush and Masters, for two
young ladies of respectability, against the female searcher
of the City of Boulogne steamer. Mr. Bush having
stated the circumstances at considerable length, called the
two ladies.
Mrs. Jane Robinson Wingrove stated that she resided
with her brother and sister in Poplar, and her husband was
abroad. On the 12th of May she and her sister went on
board the City of Boulogne steamer, having a letter of in-
troduction from Sir Wm. Curtis to Captain Tune, the
Commander of the vessel. They arrived at Boulogne on
the Sunday night, and returned to London on Thursday,
having had with them, going and coming, a bandbox and a
reticule. They were amongst the last who quitted the ves-
sel, and their box and reticule were searched. The stew-
ardess, who had detained half-a-crown of their's when they
went over to Boulogne, complained that they had given her
nothing. As she had paid them no attention, they did not
consider her entitled to any thing, and said " No" to her,
on which she remarked to them, 4. I dare say you will be
coming over again ;" and they said, " Very likely." After
they had left the vessel, and were going up the stone steps,
a person called them back, and when they returned, Mrs.
Casten, the searcher, who had searched their box and bag,
told them they must go below to be searched. They im-
mediately went below, and were told they must undress to
be searched. When they told her they were under the
Captain's care, she said that the stewardess was the
one who had them called back, and begged that they
would not mention that fact, or she would lose her
situation. The request was rejected. They were both
very strictly searched all over, except their stays, between
which and their person the searcher passed her hands.
Witness had been wrapped up closely during the voyage,
in consequence of the very delicate state of her health.
The time they were detained was about half an hour, and
the stewardess entered the room where they were dressing.
They had no foreign goods about them. Miss Isabella
Brown Reed, the sister of Airs. Wingrove, gave similar
testimony. She was, she said, searched more closely than
her sister, and in her opinion the searcher did more than
ought to, be done to ascertain whether she had smuggled
goods about her. The solicitor to.the Receiver stated that
the Commissioners directed that in all cases the search
should be conducted in the most delicate manner possible,
and that in no instance had any complaint ever been made
before of a want of delicate treatment. Mr. Bush submitted
that reasonable grounds bad not existed to show that the
search was necessary. Alderman Pirie was decidedly
of opinion that the business was very like a collusion be-
tween the stewardess and the searcher, in consequence of
the objection the
for her inattention.
Alderman Pirie agreedYoun young
in
ihl
naedoi ;Lis
no hadirodniv
that
hao give irtvhe
saide t
ch aes
thatf o r former eh re a
and fee
e was one in
which the whole penalty ought to be inflicted. Looking
at it in the whole of its bearings, at the conduct of the
stewardess about the half-crown; and her observations as
the young. ladies were leaving the vessel, after the search-
ing of their box and reticule, and of the calling back and
subsequent strict examination of the persons of both by the
searcher, who admitted that the stewardess was the cause
of the search, the full penalty of 101. was then inflicted,
together with costs.

THE GREAT WESTERN.—This vessel set sail
from King-road, Bristol, last Saturday.