The Sun.
London, England, 1862-02-25 00:00:00

sf 92
128 131

THE SUN, LONDON, ',TUESDAY) EVENING, FEBRUARY 25, 1862.

LAW .IIV TELLIGENCE.—(This Day.)

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Before the Lord Chief Justice and a Spccial Jury.)
LEDGER. V. WEBSTER,

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, the proprie-
tor of the Era newspaper, against Mr. Benjamin Webster,
the lessee of the New Adelphi Theatre, for slander.
Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. Rigby appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Ballantine and Mr. Sergeant
Shee for the defendant.

Mr. Chambers, in opening the case on the part of the
plaintiff, said that Mr. Ledger, the plaintiff, was the pro-
prietor and editor of the Era, a weekly newspaper, its cha-
racter being partly of a sporting nature, but also the
chief organ of the theatrical profession. No one could deny
that Mr. Ledger, as editor, had done all he could to ele-
vate, improve, and encourage that profession. He had felt
bound to bring the present action against Mr. Webster for the
publication of a libel inserted in the bills of the New
Adelphi Theatre reflecting upon the character of the plain-
tiff; but before going into the question of the libel complained
of it would be necessary for him to state that about two or
three years ago, it was considered by the patrons and mem-
bers of the profession, that as many of the members were
reduced to poverty and distress, they thought it advisable
to found an institution for their relief, and, accordingly, a
very large meeting was held, at which, no doubt, Mr.
Webster took the leading part ; and it was then agreed that
an institution to be called '1 he Dramatic College should be
erected, forminghouses for the refuge of decayed members of
the profession. Subscriptions to a large amount were obtained,
which were aided by the receipts of certain fanoy fairs,
where the actresses of the profession acted as the keepers
of the stalls. There was also a class 6f entertainments
resorted to which did not meet the approbation of those
who were anxious for the elevation of the profession, as
"Cheap Johns" and "Aunt Sally." Mr. Ledger had in
his paper, the Era, praised the object of the benefit, but
was disappointed of the entertainment, and in 1861 another
benefit took place at the Crystal Palace, when similar en-
tertainments again took place. Mr. Ledger, in the Era,
had, in a leader, commented on those amusements, and ex-
pressed an opinion that it would not add to the true inte-
rests of the profession. The learned counsel then read
the articles in the Era, and proceeded to read the libel
complained of and inserted in the defendant's bill of Satur-
day, the 24th of August, to the effect that the plaintiff
had, unauthorised by the management, or any one con-
nected with the management, inserted an advertisement
of Mr. Toole's benefit, and which was a gratuitous insult
by a low-minded person to mislead the public. The inser-
tion of the advertisement had been forbidden, and showed
the pitiful resources of this journal (the Era) in giving free
advertisements and puffs at 6d. a line to its limited cir-
culation. After the publication of the libel, Mr. Ledger
had called upon Mr. Webster for its withdrawal.
It was, however, repeated. The learned counsel
then proceeded to narrate other matters that had taken
place in connection with the insertion in the Era of
a letter signed, J. D., condemning the proceedings at the
Crystal Palace on the occasion of the benefit for the Dra-
matic College, which led to a correspondence, in which Mr
Webster had demanded and obtained an apology from J. D.
The learned counsel concluded by saying that the plaintiff
had been compelled to come forward for his own vindication
and lay the case before the jury.
The libel, as also the articles in the Era, and the corre-
spondence, were put in and, taken as read.
The publication of the libel having been proved,
Mr. Coxford, of the :Law Times and the Field, and Mr.
David Mitchell Aird, printer of the Economist, were called
to prove that the libel was calculated to injure the circula-
tion and property of a class paper.
This being the plaintiff's case, Mr. Sergeant Shee pro-
ceeded to address the jury for the defendant.
Mr. Webster was examined, and said on his attention
being called to the articles in the Era reflecting on the
Dramatic College fete, he wrote to the editor respecting them,
and no notice being taken of his communications he sent
his stage manager to the Era office with an intimation that
no further advertisements of the Adelphi Theatre were to
appear in the Era newspaper without a written order.
Notwithstanding this, on the 24th of August an advertise-
ment announcing Mr. Toole's benefit appeared, which was
quite unauthorised.
The case was proceeding when we went to press.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Evans.)
ALLEGED FRAUDS IN THE LEATHER TEA DE-IN RE
ALFRED WILLIAM RIDER.
_ _

Be vie
under
custody
theo9lld lypaerf
petition
iotr,
oCnittniyne,
l
This bankrupt was described as ounfin
bankruptcy,
queen'seath er
Bench factor,anadn td prisonwa apply
pstl
oyb
fr ooru surrenderghhist
ruepl
ease.
o
Mr. Brandon appeared to oppose on the part of the peti-
tioning creditor, Mr. Janson, of Bennet's-place, Grace-
church-street, leather factor.
Mr. Sargood, instructed by Mr. Beard, Basinghall-street,
supported, and said that the application was made under the
112th section of the old Act. The bankrupt was in custody
under a copies on the ground that he was about to leave
the country, but it had been held of Elby, Deacon, and
Chitty that the Court had power to release.
Mr. Brandon took an objection that there was no affidavit
of service of notice under the 19th rule under the New Act.

Mr. Sargood argued that it was unnecessary, as in this
case all had been done that was necessary.

His Honour, however, held that an affidavit must bo
made, as required by the new rules, and served on the re-
spective parties interested, in this case being the petitioning
creditor and his solicitor.

The facts of the case aro these :—Thomas George Rider,
a brother of the bankrupt, was made bankrupt, and charged
with several offenees under the bankrupt law. After a pre-
liminary examination at Guildhall Police Court, he was
admitted to bail, but absconded. It was suspected bank.
rapt had obtained considerable property belonging to Thos.
Rider, under a fictitious sale, and was debtor to the estate
on bills of exchange to the extent of about £9OO, and in the
belief that he was about to quit the country, he was taken
on a capias, issued at the suit of Mr. Janson, who is a cre-
ditor for £768.

POLICE INTELLIGEIVCE.—( 7118 Day.)

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

TIM POOR-LAW GUARDIANS OF ST. MARTIN'S AND
A TROUBLESOME INMATE.—SamueI Withers, an inmate
of St. Martin's Workhouse, and who is a most troublesome
fellow, was charged betore Mr. Tyrwhitt with the know-
ing conduct :
Several of the guardians attended to hear the case.

Michael Brannan, porter of the Workhouse, said—The
defendant is an inmate of the house, and yesterday went
out on leave, and returned at one o'clock drunk and dis-
orderly. I got him upstairs, and he was reported to the
board and ordered to appear before it at seven o'clock. II e
attended, and then abused the guardians in such a manner
that I was ordered to remove him and give him in cus-
tudy.
Mr. Tyrwhitt—ln what way did he abuse the guar-
dians ?

Brannan—He was hallooing at the guardians, but I
cannot say what he said. Some of the guardians are pre-
sent.

Defendant—l was not drunk.
Brannan—At seven he had partly recovered, but was
not quite sober.
Mr. William Kemmish, of 16, Lowther Arcade, one of
the guardians said : At seven yesterday evening Withers
was brought before the board to answer the offence of
being drunk. Before I could speak to him, he said, " I
was the biggest vagabond in the parish, and the greatest
wretch," and called me many other offensive things. I
appealed to the board to know whether a guardian was to
be so abused. I cannot say whether the man was drunk
or sober, but he was labouring under the effects of drink.
His conduct was at all times so bad that he was the terror
of the other inmates.

Defendant—Had I not occasion to write to the Poor• law
Board about the treatment I received ?
Mr. Tyrwhitt—What do I care about the Poor -law
Board ? It has nothing to do with this case.
Mr. Wm. Goodchild, another guardian, residing at 15,
Long-acre, said--I was present, and the defendant was
brought in for being drunk, when he began a tirade of abuse
against the guardians, particularly Mr. Kemmish and my-
self. He called Mr. Kemmish a diabolical scoundrel,•and
an oppressor of the poor. Our business was interrupted
until he was removed. He was given in charge by order
of the board.

Defendant—Had I not occasion to complain to the poor
law board ?
John Simmons, 87 C, said the defendant was not drunk
when he took him into custody, but he had been drinking.
Defendant—l went out yeE terd ay, being in bad health, and
came back at one o'clock, but not drunk, or I should have
been given into custody. I was unwell and sick, At seven
o'clock. I was ordered to attend before the board. I had
occasion to complain of the guardians, and Mr. Ferrell, !the
Poor-Law inspector, attended and investigated the circum-
stances, and he suppressed his indignation at the manner in
which I had been treated. I denied being drunk before the
board. I was no more so than lam now. The guardians
misunderstood what I said. I wish to know if they dont
always give the inmates in custody for being drunk.
Brannan—Not if quiet. The dining-hall yesterday was
in an uproar, all the people coming out. The defendant
has been here twice before, and acted in the same manner
at the workhouse.
Mr. liemmish—The clerk is here, and he will contradict
all the prisoner has said.
Mr. Tyrwhitt—The question is whether or not the de-
fendant was drunk. What is to be done with a wilful
man like you? They might have given you in charge if
they liked at first, or turned you out, but they did not do
that. You have been proved to have abused the Board.
If you were not properly treated, and wished to complain,
you knew how to write. I must send you for 14 days, and
you may be sent for 42. Ynu are a wilful man.
The defendant was then locked up.

The Duchess of Parma arrived three days back
at Munich, where she intends to remain for a few days.
The Grand Duke Ferdinand of Tuscany has also arrived
in the Bavarian capital, and taken, up his residence at tbo
palace of Prince Luitpold.