The Sun.
London, England, 1849-04-09 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTH Wei LES ClRCUlT.—ChesterrAFril 7.
The business of this circuit Wa' br,ught ti a close
about one o'clock this afternoon. The following are
some of the last cases tried :
CROWN COURT—(Before Mr. Justice ERLE).
CHARGE OF CHILD MURDER.

Bridget igtanton, 25, was charged with the wilful
murder of Thomas Stanton, and pleaded Not Guilty.
Mr. Trafford and Mr. Brandt prosecuted. The
former stated the case, to the effect that the prisoner,
who is the wife of a match-seller, came to lodge at
North Rode, near Macclesfield, in October last. In
the middle of November last her husband joined
her, and they continued lodging there till Sunday the
17th of December, the day of the alleged murder,
having with them the deceased child, Thomas
Stanton, which she suckled. On the morning
of that day, the husband being in bed, he
and the prisoner quarrelled because she had not
washed his shirt ~on the Saturday night. They
subsequently quarrelled at dinner time, when the
husband hit her a tap on the side of her head, she
having the child in her arms. She fetched the con-
stable, and told him her husband had beaten the child
and knocked two teeth out, and had hit it a blow on
the thigh, and she showed him the child. The con-
stable sent her and the child to Macclesfield work-
house; and when on her way there she was seen by
several persons, and the child appeared to be quite
well. The last place she called at:no child was seen, but
she had something under her cloak that appeared like
a bundle. She arrived at the police station, Macclea-
field, about four o'clock, and produced the child which
was dead, and she stated that her husband bad killed
it by abusing it, and knocking its head and its teeth
out. The husband was apprehended on her state-
ment, and a surgeon made a post mortem examination
and he found some severe bruises on the side of the
head, a mark on the cheek, and a bruise on the thigh.
The surgeon was of opinion that the blows on the side
of the head were the cause of death. The examination
on the inquest resulted in the discharge of the hus-
band and the committal of the prisoner.
Several witnesses were called to prove the occur-
rences at North Rode, and on the way to Maccles-
field. One of the witnesses said, that when at the
lodging-house the child had two teeth knocked out,
and looked sickly and delicate, and she said that her
husband had done it, and that she would send her
husband where he was before, for her child would
die. Cox, the constable, in his evidence, stated that
when the prisoner fetched him she said her husband
had abused her and the child, and that the latter
would die before night. Williamson, a constable of
Macclesfield, proved that the prisoner brought her
dead child to the police-office, and she said her hus-
band had inflicted the injuries on the child in bed that
morning, and that the child had died when she had
got a small distance on the way from North Rode.
Mr. Newbold, surgeon, stated that he examined the
child, and found bruises on the forehead, left temple,
left cheek, and left thigh; it had but about eight
teeth, and the two lower middle teeth were missing,
having been violently extracted. A quantity of ex-
travasated blood was found on the brain and on the
base of the skull. The bruises on the skull were the
cause of death. Five or six hours might have elapsed
between the blows and death.
The Learned JUDGE went minutely through the
evidence, and said, that if the cause of death admitted
of reasonable doubt, then, in a
serious case like this,
their verdict must be on the side of mercy. In this
case the cause of death was involved in great mystery,
and there was no direct testimony implicating the
prisoner, or even whether, supposing she inflicted the
injuries, that they had been inflicted wilfully; but
there was some evidence that those injuries had been
inflicted before she left North Rode. It was an ex-
trein, ly improbable motive to assign that the prisoner
did this act in order to charge it on her husband, and
get him sent to gaol.
Verdict—Not Guilty.
A verdict of Not Guilty was also taken on the co-
roner's inquisition.
CIVIL SlDE—(Before Mr. Justice CRESSWELL.)
LDAEL—COPPOCK v. LOMAX.
Mr. Evans, Q.C., Mr. Welsby and Mr. Townshend,
appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant Wilkins
(who was brought by special retainer from the
Northern Circuit), Mr. Egerton and Mr. Wlntyre,
appeared for the defendant.
Mr. TOWNSHEND opened the pleadings. The
plaintiff was Henry Coppock, and the defendant
James Lomax, and the action was to obtain compen-
pensation in damages for a false and malicious libel
published in the Stockport Advertiser, on the Ist of
December last, concerning the plaintiff, in his profes-
sion as an attorney, by imputing to him selfish, dis-
honest, and corrupt practices, and that when town-
clerk of Stockport he gave corrupt and dishonest
advice to the corporation in certain transactions
between the corporation of Stockport and Lord
Vernon, with the dishonest motive of benefiting
himself at the expense of the borough, and in order
ta.obtain the situation of clerk of the county court.
The defendant pleaded not guilty, whereupon issue
was joined.
Mr. Sergeant WimuNs—Does your Lordship
think that is a libel ?
The JUDGE—It sounds rather like it, but we have
that to try.
Mr. EVANS opened the case. He had to appear for
Mr. Coppock, the plaintiff in this action, who was the
a defendant paer
o f
w
town clerk of Stock
as
po
erdyitort, the clerk of the county
court, and also the clerk of the board of guardians,
who came into that court for the purpose of recover-
ing a compensation in damages for a most serious
ver, extensivea nd in
which he wrote with considerable ability. He (the
libel on his character. The libel was published in the
cSitroccuhplaotirotn, of whichAdver
i o e r
the
Learned Counsel) had always been a humble sup-
porter of the liberty of the press, always concurring
in the sentiment, "The liberty of the press; it is like
the air we breathe, without it we die," believing that
unnumbered advantages had resulted to this country
from that liberty, and believing that the advantages
hereafter to be derived were as great as those already
resulting from it ; nevertheless, he was most anxious
that this glorious institution should not be grossly
converted into an engine for the corruption of private
character, and he thought that those who used it for
such purposes were justly exposed to its consequences.
He charged the defendant with having inflicted a
grievous wrong upon his client in the publication
of a certain false and malicious libel respecting him
as a public officer—an accusation which, could it be
substantiated, would not only disqualify him from dis-
charging the offices which he held, but would also
disqualify him from acting as the professional adviser
of any man. Now, the defendant had done this not
on his own account, but as the agent of a party, and
he should prove from his own statements that he
styled himself the representative of a party politi-
cally opposed to Mr. Coppock.- No doubt he was
amply indemnified from any consequences of an ad-
verse verdict, for it was evident no expense had been
spared in bringing to his aid in that court the services
of the distinguished advocate to whom he was so
unequally opposed that day. But of that he did not
complain, but he did complain, and bitterly, of the
evay in which Mr. Lomax had met this action. They
had chtrged them with the libel, and challenged
them to justify it or prove the truth of the allega-
tions, but instead of doing so they had made a most
cowardly retreat, to avoid an investigation into their
truth or falsehood. The libel was, that Mr. Cop.
pock being the town-clerk, and the professional
adviser of the corporation, had given his clients
advice which, in his conscience, he knew to be
wrong and disadvantageous to their interest ; and
that he had done this because Lord Vernon had
engaged to give him an office of emolument.
The Learned Counsel read the article containing
the libellous matter, and commented thereon as he
proceeded. It was of great length. He asked, could
there be a more gross imputation upon a professional
man than was contained in the former part of that
article ? It was to that he more particularly called
their attention. The charge did not affect Mr.
Coppock in his public capacity alone, but was a
refection upon him as a private individual. The
Learned Counsel dilated at considerable length on the
nature of the libel, and concluded by calling upon the
jury to dispossess their minds of anything they might
have heard or read in the newspapers, and he called
for such damages as would mark their sense of the
wrong inflicted on Mr. Coppock by his libeller, in his
feelings and in his reputation.
Mr. William Rawson, clerk to the plaintiff's at-
torneys, produced a copy of an affidavit sworn by the
defendant, proving that he was the registered pro-
prietor of the Stockport Advertiser.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant WILxINS.—The
attorneys to whom witness is clerk, have never acted
as London agents to Mr. Coppock; certainly not
during the last seven years.
Mr. W. Calvert, clerk to Mr. Coppock, produced
a copy of the paper containing the libel, which he
purchased at the shop of the defendant on the Ist of
December.

Mr. Forlonger, managing clerk to Mr. Coppock—
On the 4th of December last called on the defendant,
s•iw him, and produced the copy of the newspaper
containing the libel, and pointed it out to him. Asked
him if it was an editorial paragraph. He said, "Not
all of it." Witness then said, "Ifit is not, Mr. Cop.
pock wishes you to give him the name of the author
of it." He replied, " Luckily for me I represent a
certain party, and they wish me to represent them."
Witness said he merely wished to know whether it
was an editorial paragraph or not. He said, " I can•
not say." Witness said, " You can say if you like."
He:replied, " Yes, but I must take time to consider-
-I'll tell you after the court is over." Went after the
court was over, and he then said he declined to answer
the question.

Mr. EvaNs—Do you wish the libel read ?
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS—I shall read the produc-
ion you call a libel by and bye.
Mr. E. White called---I live in Great Marlborough-