The Sun.
London, England, 1853-12-14 00:00:00

STEINBERG V. DYNES.-SLANDER.

Mr. Serjeant Wilkins, with Mr. Hawkins, appeared
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Serjeant Shee, with Mr. Peters-
dorff, for the defendant.
Both the plaintiff and defendant in this case are at-
torneys, and the action was brought to recover damages
for certain slanderous words alleged to have been uttered
by the defendant reflecting on the plaintiff's character.
The defendant pleaded not guilty.
It appeared that the plaintiff had been articled clerk
to Mr. T. Symes, a brother of the defendant, and on his
death had become the attorney of another brother and a
sister of the defendant. Proceedings had been taken in
Chancery with regard to the will of Mr. T. Symes, in
which the plaintiff acted for the defendant's surviving
brother and sister, to whom the defendant had said, in
conversation, that he was " surprised at their employ.
ing Mr. Steinberg, as he was a rogue and a thief, and
would rob them through thick and thin."
The defendant's brother and sister having proved that
he had made use of the words complained of, and denied
in cross-examination that they had previously asked his
advice with regard to the manner in which the plaintiff
conducted their affairs,
Mr. Serjeant Shee addressed the jury for the defendant
submitting that words spoken by one brother to another
regarding family transactions ought clearly to come
within the category of a privileged communication.
Lord Campbell, in summing up, told the jury that it
seemed to him upon the evidence that the words alleged
in the declaration had been uttered, and that there was
no privilege attending the occasion when they were
spoken. If this was their opinion, they would find for
the plaintiff. The question of damages was entirely for
their consideration.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages
501.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Nov. 13.

;Sittings at Nisi Prius in London, before Mr. Justice
Cresswell and a Common Jury.)
HUGHES V. SAINT.

This was an action to recover compensation for an
assault, and the damages were laid at 5001. The defen-
dant pleaded that the plaintiff first assaulted him, and
that thereupon he necessarily committed the alleged
assault in his own defence. .

Mr. Serjeant Byles and Mr Simon appeared for the
plaintiff • and Mr. O'Malley, Q.C., and another learned
gentleman, were for the defendant.
The plaintiff in this case was a groom, and he was for-
merly in the service of the defendant, who was a keeper
and owner of race horses at Epsom. In his service he
remained until the 6th April last when he left, in conse-
quence of the circumstances stated below.
The plaintiff, in his evidence said—l have been in the
defendant's service for nine years, off and on, and I
slept in the harness-room. There was another groom
named John Leyton, and on the evening of the 6th of
April last he went out. A little after nine o'clock the
defendant came to the saddle-room as I was stripped and
just getting into bed. lie said " Tom, where is Jack ?"
meaning Leyton. I said "He is gone down the street,"
and he said, " Street be d—. I will let you know, you
whether you will let him go down the street or
not." I said, " I cannot help it, sir." He then took a
stable shovel and made a blow at my head, but I jumped
on one side and escaped it. He instantly took it up
again and knocked me down, and I was in the act of
getting up again when he struck me again. I cocked up
my arm to save it, and the corner of the shovel-blade
struck right into my arm at the elbow. I dropped my
arm, and said, "My arm is broken," and he said, "Yes,
you —, and I will break your head." He instantly
raised the shovel and struck me on the head, and I fell
down insensible, and remained so for about two hours.
When Leyton came back I was bleeding from the nose,
mouth, and arm. I was very ill through the blows on
my head, and I am even up to the present unable to
work.

In cross-examination, he admitted that he had been
twice in prison, and that once he was convicted for three
months, and on the other occasion he was acquitted.
He denied that he attempted to strike the defendant
first. About six o'clock in the morning he went to a
chemist's, and afterwards he went to the Downs, and
remained there until two or three o'clock, and at night
he slept at a beer-house. The day afterwards he went
to Mr. Fennell, a surgeon, at Wimbledon.
Mr. Edwin Fennell, the surgeon, stated that there
was a severe bruise upon ,the plaintiff's arm, and the
skin was a little broken. He constantly complained of

pain in his head. Witness attended hiM froM the be-
ginning of April till the end of June, at first daily, and
afterwards every other day. Plaintiff complained of a
singing in his ears and deafness, which frequently fol-
lowed a blow on the head.

In answer to this case, witnesses were called on the
other side.
The defendant himself stated that he went to the
saddle-room, a little before nine o'clock, and the plain-
tiff was there, partly dressed, smoking his pipe. Wit-
ness told him to go to bed and put out the fire and light.
About 11 o'clock he saw a light in the saddle-room, and
he went there and found the plaintiff getting up, dressing
and preparing to go out. He inquired where he was
going, and the plaintiff answered him impertinently, and
threatened to bundle him out. The plaintiff put his fist
up to strike him, and witness, who had his left arm in a
sling, took up the shovel with his right hand. The
plaintiff struck at witness, and the shovel touched his
arm slightly. Witness never struck at him at all. Wit-
ness had enjoined the grooms not to be both out at the
same time. It was necessary the horses should be
watched, especially as he had horses then about to run
at Epsom.
Cross-examined—He was a good-tempered man. He
admitted that he had been twice before a magistrate,
once for taking a dog into a train, and another for riding
too far on the railway and refusing to pay the extra fare.
On both these occasions he was accused of assaults. He
bad never horsewhipped the plaintiff. He had driven
witness's wife out, but witness never horsewhipped the
pair of them when they came back. He never struck the
plaintiff, and he never in his life beat any other groom.
Mrs. Saint said—She went into the saddle-room on
the night in question to call her husband, and both the
plaintiff and defendant were quite quiet, and did not
appear to have been quarrelling. The next morning she
paid plaintiff his wages, and he then complained that his
master had broken his arm. _ _

John Leyton, the other groom, said that when he got
home the plaintiff told him what had happened to much
the same effect as stated in his evidence. The wound
on the arm appeared slight, and there was a bit of rag
over it, and a little blood, just as if a finger had been cut.
The jury found averdict for the plaintiff—damages 201.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.—Dec. 13.

OLD COURT.
(Before the Recorder.)

William, Latimer, a gentlemanly-looking young man,
said to be very respectably connected, surrendered to
take his trial for misdemeanor.
The offence imputed to the defendant was that on the
9th November, he had wilfully exposed himself to a
young girl named Mary Anne Pinfold, a nursemaid, who
was at the time accompanied by three children. The
occurrence took place in the Seven Sisters'-road,
Hornsey, and the evidence for the prosecution was of a
nature to well raise a doubt as to whether the defendant
had wilfully committed the act imputed to him.
The Recorder observed that if it was any satisfaction
to the defendant and his family to hear his opinion upon
the charge, it was that it had arisen entirely through a
mistake.

The jury said it was unnecessary to call any evidence
to the character of the defendant, as they were of opinion
that he had no intention to commit the offence imputed
to him, and ho would leave the court without the slight-
est imputation upon his character.ut
The Recorder said ho
Lev
been sent there.
concurred with the jury.
on
the
The charge ought never to
Mr. Clarkson said that,
express his partto
of the respectable
family of the defendant, he
eegge
obliga-
tion for what had been stated by
his lordship.
the only satisfaction they could receive in th I
etpainfulwas
position in which they had been so unnecessarily placed.
A verdict of not guilty was then taken, and the de-
fendant was ordered to be immediately discharged.
George Henry Snide:, 22, was indicted for stealing a
coat, the property of Thomas Hutchings.
The prosecutor in this case was a clerk in the London
and Westminster Bank, and it appeared that on the 30th
of November he went to a place of refreshment in Cheap.
side known by the name of His Lordship's Larder, for
the purpose of dining, and hung his overcoat upon a peg
in the dining-room. The prisoner had been in the habit
of frequenting the "Larder," and was there on the day
in question, and the waiter saw him go deliberately up to
the peg where the prosecutor's coat was hanging, un-
fasten it, and then walk off with it. The moment the
prosecutor missed the coat he gave information to Mr.
Jones, the proprietor of the establishment, who, from
what the waiter said, immediately suspected the prisoner,
and he at once took the necessary steps to discover his
residence, and upon proceeding there, accompanied by a
policeman, a search was made, and a pair of gloves that
had been in the pocket of the stolen coat was found
underneath his bed.
The landlady of the house also proved that on the day
of the robbery the prisoner had a great coat on when he
came in, and that up to that time she had never observed
such a garment upon his person.
The jury found the prisoner guilty. Sentence was
postponed.
Just before the grand jury were discharged they
brought in a true bill against several persons for fraud
and conspiracy, in connexion with the Leman Estate
Fund.