The Sun.
London, England, 1863-04-15 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

32i
92i I
68

:Before the Lord Chief Baron and Barons Bramwell,
Martin, and Wilde.)

BEAUMONT AND WRITE V. PAULTON AND ANOTHER.

Mr. Tk mple, Q.C., said in this case a verdict had been
given for defendants, and he now moved a rule to show cause
why the verdict should not be :et aside on the ground that
it was against the evidence. The action was for a libel; and
the dependants were the proprietor and editor of the Man-
chester Examiner and Times, in which paper the libel com-
plained of appeared. The libel was published twice, and
plaintiffs sought to recover special damages which they
stated they had sustained, and which they showed in figures.
The defendants in answer said there was no malice, and
under the 6th and 7th Viet., pad 40s. into court as amends.
It became necessary that he should give a short explana-
tion in order that the term " Surat" should be understood
by their lordships. In the present state of the cotton
market American cotton was so adulterated or mixed with
Surat that the term became a byword, end everything that
was not free from adulteration was called "Surat,' The
plaintiffs were brewers at Staleybridge, and carried on busi-
ness there, being the o xners of several public-houses,
amongst which was the Butlers' Inn. The libel com-
plained of was in the shape of an advertisement which ap-
peared in two publications, in which the plaintiffs
were mentioned as " the Surat brewers of Staley-
bridge." Previous to the advertisement appearing
Messrs. Beaumont were in treaty with a gen-
tlemen named Dickens for the purchase of their
interest in the Butlers' Inn, but after the publica-
tion of the obnoxious advertisement he thought the property
so much injured that he refuses to complete his purchase.
The same circumstance occurred with respect to another
publichouse called the Crystal Palace, so that the
money they derived from the two houses had dimi-
nished nearly one-half in consequence of so injurious
a statement appearing in the newspaper. Messrs. Beaumont
sent to the office of the Examiner and demanded the
name of the writer, when he was handed the copy
of the advertisement, and said it bad been taken over the
counter in the ordinary way of business, and that they
knew nothing further about it. The defendants after-
wards inserted what they termed an apology, which was
not at all satisfactory, as it only went to the extent of say-
ing that a very stupid advertisement had appeared in their
paper, but as it seemed to have displeased Messrs, Beau-
mont and White, they rejected its insertion."
The Court said that it did not appear to be an apology
at all, because it merely said if we've done you an injury we
are sorry for it. It (rid not say whether the acatsation
was true or false.

Mr. Temple said that was so. At the time seven wit•
nesses positively stated that, in consequence of the publics•

ion of the advertisement. they dared not even allow the
plaintiffs' carts to stand at their door, much less sell his are)
and thus their bu.,iness materially suffered. The defendants
hid, previous to the trial, paid 40s. into court " as amends,"
but, he contended, they might just as well have paid one
faitliiu6.
96f I the court granted a rule to show cause.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

(Before Chief Justice Erl. and Justices Willes, Byles, and

Keating.)
MARKHAM AND STAMFORD.

Mr. Besley occupied the attention of their lordships with
this case, the subject in dispute being the recovery of
certain sums of money, dues as to I, and which, it was con-
tended, on the other side, it could not be recovered, as the
alleged agreement between the parties was insufficient.
[The case wes proceeding when we went to press.]

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Kerr.)
KIDD V. 11031ENVOOD.

This was an action to recover £23 14s. 10d. upon a prrt-
missory note, plaintiff being a very old, but also a very
sharp lady, and Mr. Buchanan appearing for defendant.
Plaintiff got into the box and produced a bundle of
papers, from which she drew three bills and held them up.
Mr. Buchanan—Oh I the only one we want is the one
you have sued upon.
Plaintiff—Very well, here it is.
Mr. Buchanan—Did you not lend defendant the money
to carry on a lawsuit ?
Plaintiff—l lent the money to him and to his wife be-
cause they wanted it. He was in the Bench for a twelve
month.

Mr. Buchanan—Ah ! just so, and you took him to a
great many lawyers and at last leached the famous Mr.
Cobbett. (Great laughter.)

- -
Plaintiff—Well, I always understood that he was a vezy
clever man.

Mr. Buchanan—He was clever enough to take up your
case.

Plaintiff—Yes; and he was paid for it.
Mr. Buchanan—And, as I understand, as soon as the case
was brought into court it was pooh-poohed out of it I,
His Honour—l always thought Mr. Cobbett was a bar-
rister,

Mr. Pook (amicus curice)—l believe he was nothing when
on the bench.

Defendant was then called, and said that this loan was a
specula ion by the plaintiff, who was to benefit largely if
the lawsuit were su,!,ce slut. In fact she was to have two-
thirds of the prlfits. (Laughter )

His Honour--I t.hall decide that it does not come under
the kind of champerty or maintenance, for one poor neigh-
bour may help another, and therefore I shall give plaintiff
a verdict with costs,
Verdict for plaintiff.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE,—This Day.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

PROSECUTORS WANTING.--A young woman, named
Elizabeth Marsh, most stylishly attired, was charged
with stealing from the person of Mr. George Matthews, Of
35, Wharton-street, Lloyds-square, gentleman, a gold
watch, of the value f £7, in the Tuttenham-court-road.
On the charge being caned on, Fit zgeralol, 53 E, informed
the magistrate that the prosecutor was not in attendance.
Mr. "1 yrwhit, said the accused would be discharged

Emma Brown was charged with stealing nine sovereigns
from James Arnold, chief officer of the ship Kirkham, now
lying in the East India Docks, and residing at 2, Bengal-
terrace, EAst India-road.

Cook, 106 C, said there was no prosecutor in attendance
the rubbery having taken place in Arundel-court.
Mr. Tyrwbitt discharged the accused.
In both cases the accused seemed much pleased at their
good fortune.

THE SUFFOLK M URD E R.—Yesterday morning the
extreme penalty of the law was carried into Effect
at the Suffolk County Gaol, at Ipswich, in tho case of John
Ducker, convicted at the late assizes of the murder of
Ebenezer Tye, a police. constable, at Halesworth, on the
24th of November last. The constable, it will be remem-
bered, had been watching the prisoner, who was supposed
to be guilty of stealing straw from a farmer by wh.m he
was employed ; but on the morning after the night in
question he was missed from his beat, and on a search being
made his body was found in the river with numerous marks
of violence on it. Various circumstances led to the certain
conclusion that Ducker was the murderer. Since his con-
viction, about three weeks ago, Ducker has listened with
attention and respect to the ministrations of the Rev. J.
Dovill, the chaplain at the gaol. On Sunday afternoon he
attended service in the chapel, when the rev. chaplain
prt ached from the text, 4, The wages of sin is death ; but
the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our
Lord." The time fixed for the execw ion was 8 a.m., and
as that hour approached she executioner (Calcraft) pro-
ceeded to the discharge of his dreadful task. The struggles
resent, whose behaviour was quite
understood present,
no coufesaion bad been wade.
of the convict were not severe. There was a crowd of
Wpeurs
'oolto
onredaer
rl nearly
y 4.