The Sun.
London, England, 1822-08-08 00:00:00

21?'

and poignant charge. There was next—" unprincipled and
wicked design," but that was general still, though approaching
to the libel. "As if the conviction may be set aside by any
evidence which the prisoner and his coadjutor, the editor, may
have the impudence to fabricate." Again, "My opinion is,
that the affidavits have been fabricated by the editor of the
Durham Chronicle himself." " The depositions originated in
a foul conspiracy to rescue this delinquent from the sentence of
the law, which, in terms of radical cant, is styled to award to
innocence its due, and to crime its right punishment.' " The
plaintiff caused a letter to bevritten by his attornies, Messrs.nrkitt and Phillips, of Newcastle, to give the defendant an
opportunity of explanation. The answer of the defendant was,
"that he had sent the letter to the author, and his reply would
determine which of them defend the action ; but I never will
condescend (Lord bless us, gentlemen 1) I never will conde-
scend to make the apology required. Francis Humble.' " For
this
,charge of an act of deliberate baseness this action was
brought. One circumstance more he had to mention : the cla-
nriages were laid at 10L purposely, advisedly, and with a strict
attention-lo the object of the action. The plaintiff wanted none
of the-defendant's money. He Wanted -only to wipe off, by the
verdict of a jury, the foul stain falsely, and wickedly attempted
to be fixed upon him.
George Walker. formerly printer of the Du ill anz ChroOcle,
proven that Mr,„Willian4a was editor andproprietor.
In his crosg.-eiatnination by Mr. Sergeant Hu tr. oca, he
-stated that he lmew of no other person connected with the paper.
He was paid by Mr. Williams. The: only guarantee he had,
was a verbal assurance by Mr. Kirton; an attorney,, that he
should be paid, whatever happened.
Mr. Hayes, Clerk of the Crown, produced the indictment and
judgment against Spencer. •
Mr.-Wolfe stated that Spencer had been under his charge.
In cross-examination, he said that the amount of the robbery
was 4001. which the prisoner's father returned to witness.
David Tindall, clerk and servant to C harles Spierman, Esq.,
_
the Magistrate who took the affidavits, proved the swearing of
the affidavits and the signature of the Magistrate.
Cross-examined.:---Mr. Spierman was infirm for many years.
There were many other Justices in Durham. Witness knew
none of those who made the affidavits before. Mr. Spierman
was not in bed. The affidavits came ready prepared. They
were all sent up together to his master, who read them for a
considerable time. He did not know whose hand-writing they
were.

Mr. Walker was re-called by Mr. Sergeant Hum.ocic. He
should have been inclined to think the writing was Mr. Vetch's,
who occasionally was employed by Mr. Williams.
Mr. Walters, the Chief Justice's clerk, produced' the affi-
davits, -which he had from Mr. Broad, Mr. Justice Bayley's
clerk. • . _ .

, They were read. They consisted of statements to establish
an alibi for Spencer.
The clerk of the attornies for the plaintiff 'proved the corre-
spondence with the defendant, which was read.- • He also prov-
ed that the defendant avowed himself amenable alone for all
that appeared in the paper.
The plaintiff's letter to Mr. Justice Bayley was then read,
and the letter in the 'Advertizer , signed " Veritas," containing
the alleged libel.• •
Mr. Wolfe was -re-called by Mr. Sergeant HunLocx, and
stated, that Spencer was sent to the hulks, and transported
for life.
Mr. Sergeant Huumcx addressed-the Jury, tor the defend-
ant. They would judge how highly the. plaintiff valued his
loss of profits and of character, when he estimated the damages
at 10/. The plaintiff had not submitted the affidavits privately,
but published them in his newspaper. Was . that the way
to act in such a case? He did impute blindness and cre-
dulity on this subject to Mr. Williams. Was there any thing
to prove that the affidavits were not a tissue of perjury_? Who
was the Magistrate selected ? Who wrote them ? Who con-
gregated the persons ? One of them swore it was moonlight,
when the moon was not five,- days old.• Was there not rash-
ness, impropriety, indelicacy, 'chargeable upon the plaintiff?—
He was the grossest and most Talpable dupe of silly perjured
individuals. Was there any printer in England who was not
a hireling :?•• • There Was no" printer or speaker but was a hire-
ling. The affidavits were false—they were a fabrication. The
plaintiff lent himself to the fabrication, and that was' all that the
defendant had charged. He confidently called upon them,
therefore, to give their verdict for the defendant.
Mr. Baron Woon said the plaintiff had set himself very
officiously to collect affidavits, and wrote a letter to Mr. Justice
Bayley. If he had confined himself to writing, there would
be no blame attached to his conduct. But what bad he done ?.
He went a ()Teat deal farther. He published not only his own let-
ter, but all the affidavits. This he conceived was very improper
conduct, because it could be with no other view than to bring_
into contempt the administration of justice and the verdicts cf
juries. This conduct deserved to be reprehended, and he did not
blame the defendant for reprehending it. Whether in doing so he
had gone too far, was for them to say. It had been said that the
verdicts of juries were open to discussion. If that was consistent
with the law of the land, it was a most mischievous practice.
It certainly deserved in the present case proper animadversion.
If they thought that it was fair arid proper animadversion, they
would find their verdict,-for the defendant; if otherwise, they
would find for the plaintiff; with such damages as they thought
proper. • . •
The Jury retired for some time, and returned with a verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages Is.

HOME CIRCUIT.-LEWES, AuG. 6.
CROWN SIDE-MURDER.

James Wiggens was indicted for the wilful murder Of Henry
Lilliott,: at Brighton, on the 20th of April last.
Mr. ANDRWS conducted the prosecution. It appeared in
evidence, that on the day mentioned in the indictrmir, the pri-
soner and the deceased had set two boys to fight on the beach
at Brighton. Some altercation. took place as to the merits of
each combatant; mutual reproaches followed, and as soon
as the boys had ceased fighting, the pii,;oner attacked the
deceased and offered to fight him. The latter being the
lighter man of the twO, after a round, in which the deceased
got the worst, declined the combat, but still continued to
jeer the prisoner upon the subject of a defeat in which he.
was beaten by some other man in three rounds, and sad, that
if he, the deceased, had more weight he would be a matc'i for
him. After provoking- him for some time in this manner, the
prisoner fell upon the deceased..knocked him down, and whilst
he was on the ground kicked him two or three times be-
tween the hip and the back. The deceased being released,
lie walked home, apparently not much hurt. • This was on
Satuzday. On the Monday following he complained of a
pain in. his back, but continued to work for six or seven days
afterwards at his business as bricklayer, when he, was obliged
to lie in bed, from which he never rose again, and expired on
the 2d of May.._ He was examined after death by two surgeons,
who stated, that there appeared to be no marks of violence upon
the body, either externally or internally, which could produce
death. They attributed mortality to a fever produced by ex-
citement of the constitution, in consequence of the blows he hal
received.. Between the hips and the region of the kidneys there
was the mark of a slight contusion, but not such as would have
produCed death: The deceased had been previously in good
health.

The prisoner called two or three witnesses to give an account
of the transaction, but their evidence did not differ materially
from that of the witnesses for the Croirn. _ _

The LORD CHIEF BARON charged the Jury, that they must
acquit the prisoner of wilful Murder, there being no evidence
of any malice aforethought to sustain that, part of the charge.
If, however, they were of opinion that the prisoner had occa-
sioned the death of the deceased, they would be justified in
finding him guilty of manslaughter.
The Jury found the prisoner Guilty of Manslaucler only,
and the Learned Judge, afteranimadverting upon the cowardly
brutality of the prisoner in kicking the deceased whilst on the
ground, the latter being no match for him in self-defence, sen-
tenced him to six months imprisonment in the County Gaol.
James Tiltey and David Barnett were indicted for burgla-
riously breaking and entering the dwelling house of Elizabeth
"Watson at Petworth, on the night of the 18th of April, and
stealing therein three Chichester and two Arundel Bank notes
for the payment of 1/. each, two cannisters, containing a quan-
tity of tea, and a gun her property.; and Henry Leggatt was
indicted for receiving the gun, knowing it to have been stolen.
Mr. CußwooD conducted the Prosecution, and Mr. NOR-
TON the Defence.

The,Jury found all the prisoners Guinn—Death.

On Tuesday week, a true bill was found
the LiverPool:Grand Jury against Mr. T. B. Johnson, for a
libel on M.S.* M‘Gibbon. The libel charged that lady and
several other performers at the Theatre with having e itered
into a conspiracy to compel Mr. Vandenhoff to quit the stage '
by unfair and harrassing behaviour towards him.