The Sun.
London, England, 1849-08-22 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN ClRCUlT.—Liverpool, Aug. 20.
CIVIL SlDE—(Before Mr. Justice WIMITMAN

STANSFIELD V. SOWLER.

This was an aCiiononihecasefora n alleged libel
on the plaintiff,
published in the Manchester Courier
of April 21, of which the defendant is the registered
at
he plaintiff;justification.
and Mr. Sergeant Wilkins, Mr. Cromp-
proprietor, to which the defendant pleaded its truth as
Mr. Martin, Q.C., and Mr. Atherton appeared for
pe:nrde appeared
nfn
ir o ;nil e the d
eonpce
en,i ng
that o fn
nt ht eh e Lleoatrhn eodf
ton, and Mr. Sowler for the defendant.
Counsel,Apltil
lasta a
parish meeting was called of the rate-
payers of Burnley, for the purpose of electing the
churchwardens and sidesmen for the parish. In the
parish is a chapel of ease, at Habergham Eaves, and a
difference had for some time existed between the Rev.
Mr. Master and his parishioners as to the appoint-
ment of a churchwarden for Habergham Eaves, and
on its being proposed to elect a churchwarden, a reso-
lution was moved by the plaintiff to the effect that the
meeting should be adjourned to that day twelve-
months. This resolution the Rev. Mr. Master, who

was in the chair, refused to put to the meeting, •:and
disturbance ensued, a person named Emmott being
proposed to the chair. This disturbance was put an
end to by Mr. Mastercommencing Divine service, and
the meeting adjourned to the churchyard. An ac-
count of these proceedings was published in the
Blackburn Standard, which was copied by the Man-
chester Courier, and commented on by the editor, and
it was of these comments that the plaintiff complained
as libellous, and calculated to injure his character.
The article complained of was as follows :
" DISGRACEFUL PROCEEDINGS IN BURNLET CHURCH.
" We have elsewhere copied from the Blackburn
Standard a report of certain proceedings at the annual
vestry held in Burnley Church on Easter Tuesday. For
a detail of the circumstances that gave rise to the dis-
graceful scene we must refer our readers to the report
itself, which bears internal evidence of having been
drawn up carefully and accurately. The chief actor ap-
pears to have been a Mr. George Stansfield, a barrister,
formerly connected with the northern circuit, and now a
magistrate of the county, carrying on the business of a
banker. A short extract from the report will show that
the conduct of this Mr. Stansfield rivals in virulence the
conduct of the most unscrupulous of Mr. Bright's fol-
lowers in the parish of Rochdale. A series of illegal
propositions are made to the meeting by Mr. Stansfield,
to which the Rev. R. M. Master, the excellent incum-
bent of Burnley, with manifest propriety, refuses to
listen."

The report then goes on to say :
"On this Mr. Stansfield again proposed an amend-
ment, to the effect that as Mr. Master had not acted
with impartiality in refusing to put the amendment to
the meeting, he do now vacate the chair, and that a per-
son of the name of Emmett, a dissenter, do take it. Not-
withstanding Mr. Master declared immediately he should
do no such thing as leave the chair, Mr. Stansfield put
his amendment to the meeting, without giving any one
time to make any remark, calling for a show of hands on
his behalf, but never asking whether any one was opposed
to it. This movement was received with acclamation by
the Chartists, who immediately called upon Emmett to
take Mr. Master's place (the steps around the font), se-
conding their words by acts illustrative of their political
creed, forcing Emmett, nothing loth, up towards Mr.
Master, and threatening to lay violent hands on the
latter gentleman to dispossess him of his place, by such
cries as Pull him down!" Throttle him!' Seize him by
the legs!' &c. Mr. Master's friends immediately rushed
to his support, and drove back his assailants. In the
melee great uproar was made and several blows were
struck. This continued for some time, during which
the chairman sent for the police, and at the solicitation
of his friends called for a show of hands on behalf of
Messrs. W. and J. Smith. There being no abjection
made, he declared them duly elected, and then dissolved
the meeting.
" During the greater part, if not the whole, of this
riot, Mr. Stansfield stood by and never attempted either
by word or deed to check it. He denounced the
dissolution of the meeting as illegal, asserting that
Mr. Master had lost his authority over it ; and when
charged with advising the rioters not to leave the
church, did not deny it, though it was then
Stansfield time r for the thecommenintimated
cementMr.of MasterD
thativie n
he service.ap p
r Mr.ovedof
the police being sent for, but when they came he pre-
vented them from acting according to Mr. Master's wish
in clearing the church. On this Mr. Master intimated
that he should immediately commence Divine service,
and that he should hold any one guilty of disturbance in
the church amenable to the law. On his entering the
reading desk Mr. Stansfield deliberated a few moments,
and then walked quietly off, followed by the rioters.
" Mr. Stansfield's position as a magistrate and a banker
would bespeak his respectability. As for his degree of
barrister-at-law, we suspect it was always honorary,' in
every sense of the word, and that, although he was a
member of this circuit, he was a' silent' member, being
one of the ' briefless' fraternity. If our memory do not
fail us, he is the person who, a few years ago, at Lancas-
ter, broke faith with Mr. Baron Alderson, and drew
down the just rebuke of that high-minded and most able
judge, by failing to bring into court a certain document
which he had promised his Lordship to go for, and send-
ing instead a stupid note to the judge, full of ignorance,
presumption, and disrespect. The circumstance must
be well known to the bar of this circuit."

The libel proceeded :
" What are we to think of a well-dressed demagogue,
professing to be a Churchman, who could not only coun-
tenance but counsel the brutality which was exhibited
towards the Rev. Gentleman, who, we have good reason
to know, conducted himself with remarkable temper and
forbearance in the discharge of duties which the law
compels him to perform, and who is esteemed by all
classes, but the bad, in the neighbourhood in which his
lot is cast."

He did not complain of being termed a " briefless
barrister"—that was no imputation upon any man ;
but he did complain of being accused of having, as a
magistrate and banker, broken his proinise to Mr.
Baron Alderson, and, instead of sending to his Lord-
ship a document which he had promised to send, of
having written to him " a stupid note, full of ignor-
ance, presumption, and disrespect." The facts of that
imputation were these :—Two men were indicted at
the Lancaster spring assizes for 1847 for having
conspired to cheat the Yorkshire Insurance Com-
pany, by sending in a larger claim for compen-
sation for loss at a fire than they were entitled
to. This policy had been deposited with Mr.
Stansfield, as a banker, as a security. To
prove the charge of conspiracy it was necessary to
produce the policy of insurance. Mr. Stansfield was
not subpoenaed to produce it, but some one said that
he had it ; upon which Mr. Baron Alderson asked
twrahteer,es
bhoxe
him to be examined; and he then said that he
i wn
atsh. e aHs sei zwe
acso utrhte, n asoitdtinbgis
or-
dereditotrhdeshmipagis
had the document in his possession, but he had been
requested by the prisoner's attorney not to produce
it, and not having received any subpoena he had not
brought it ; but the policy was in Lancaster. Mr.
Baron Alderson said to Mr. Stansfield in an angry
manner, "Do you come here, sir, to defeat the ends
of justice ?" Mr. Stansfield said, " Certainly not."
Mr. Baron Alderson then said, "Then go and fetch
it, sir." Mr. Stansfield then left the court under the
impulse of the moment, but not being bound to pro-
duce the document, and irritated by Mr. Baron
Alderson's manner and observations, he addressed to
his Lordship the following note, which was the
" stupid note—full of ignorance, presumption, and
disrespect"—alluded to _ _

" Lancaster, Feb. 21, 1848.
" My Lord,—Your Lordship is pleased to impute to
me in open court a desire to defeat the ends of criminal
justice, and to threaten me. I came, my Lord, to Lan-
caster without subpoena from anybody, as, I believe, to
promote the ends of justice, not to defeat them; and it
will not affect me one shilling whether the jury give a
verdict in favour of one side or the other, neither
directly or indirectly. I shall not submit, my Lord,
to such treatment, or to your further imputations. I,
therefore, beg leave to decline further attendance at the
assizes.

" I am, my Lord, your obedient servant,
" GEORGE STANSFIELD.

" The Hon. Mr. Baron Alderson,"
That note, the Learned Counsel for the plaintiff said,
was a very proper note, and such a one as he would
have himself written under the same circumstances.
Mr. Baron Alderson had no right whatever to order
him to produce the policy. If the policy were re-
quired there was a proper legal course to take, by
serving Mr. Stansfield with a subpoena duces tecum to
insure its production. On the publication of the libel
complained of, Mr. Stansfield's attorney wrote to
Mr. Sowler, requesting to know who the writer was.
In answer to that Mr. Sowler offered to give equal
publicity to Mr. Stansfield's account of the transac-
tion. This answer not being satisfactory, the present
action was brought.
On the part of the defendant, on cross-examination
of the witnesses called to prove the disturbance at
the parish meeting and what took place in court at
Lancaster, it appeared that several of the persons
present at the parish meeting were Charti6ts, sad the

His LORDSHIP having summed up,
The jury retired, and after a short absence, found
a verdict for the defendant.
The case was not concluded until six o'clock,
having occupied the whole day.
CROWN COURT.—( Before Mr. Justice PATTESON)
William Jabez Davies was indicted for having
feloniously concealed and embezzled a part of his
estate with intent to defraud his creditors and In
violation of the bankrupt laws.
Mr. Mond and Mr. Pollock conducted the prose-
cution; the prisoner was defended by Mr. fobbett.
It appeared that the prisoner was formerly a
plumber and glazier at Manchester and had peti-
titioned the Court of Bankruptcy in Manchester, and
had been adjudged a bankrupt. He had afterwards
concealed and embezzled some of his goods. The
the prisoner had passed his examination, nor that he
had ever been examined before the commissioner.
For those omissions the Learned Counsel for the
defence demurred to the indictments, relying on the
case of " Rex s'. Walters," as, until the bankrupt had
been examined before the Commissioner, and had had
the opportunity of discovering his property, he could
not be indicted for fraudulently concealing it. The
Learned Counsel for the prosecution contended that
the section of the statute sth and 6th Victoria,
creating the offence, did not require that the bankrupt
should have been examined, and that the offence was
complete without it.
the Crown on the demurrer. judgment upp or ted thisfor
construction i His
iA
°ito
D sur
;hien sgtai vtiuntge , andudg ngeanyte s

The prisoner was then called on to plead over to
the felony, and pleaded Guilty.
Sentence was deferred.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.
William Isaac Fitch, a traveller in the service of
Messrs. Morgan, Martyre, and Co., wholesale sta-
tioners, was placed at the bar charged before Sir Peter
Laurie with embezzling various sums of money to the
amount of 900/. and upwards.
Mr. France, of Goaliman-street, solicitor, attended
to prosecute, and stated that h. only intended to ad-
duce such evidence against the prisoner as would justify
the Alderman in granting a remand. They had fottod
out defalcations to the amount of 2001, and there was
little doubt that if time were given others to a still
greater extent would be found. It would seem that
the prisoner's practice was, that, having kept some
moneys back, when he got other sums of money, he
then paid up the old amounts.
Mr. Frederick George, of the firm of Morgan,
Martyre, and Co., No. 2, Farringdon-street, said the
prisoner has been eight years in the firm as a town
traveller. It was his duty, as well as that of others,
to enter daily into the cash-book all sums of money
they received.

Sir PETER LAURIE—Then no running account was
allowed. For in all cases of embezzlement the pri-
soners attempt to make that their defence.
Mr. George said such was not the case. They
were bound to enter the amounts received in the
cash-book every day. On Saturday last, in conse-
quence of a letter written to a Mr. Trimming, re-
specting his account, and requesting payment, as the
arrears had been going on longer than usual, that
gentleman called, and produced the receipts which
he held in his hand. The first invoice for goods was
dated Oct. 13, 1848, and ended Dec. 12, 1848. On
the 17th of February, 1849, there is a receipt in the
prisoner's handwriting for 201., signed W. Fitch.
On the same paper, dated the sth of March, there is
another receipt of "By cash 11/. 12s. 61, discount
165.; for Morgan, Martyre, and Co.; signed W.
Fitch." The next invoice began Dec. the 26th, and
ended 27th of February, 1849, and amounted, for
goods delivered, to 301. 33. Upon that invoice there
was a receipt also, in the following terms :—" By
cash, for Morgan, Martyre, and Co., 301. 3s. W.
Fitch."

Sir P. LAURIE—Did he pay the money on those
days? Mr. George—He did; but what he paid was
to settle other quarters' accounts that ought to have
been paid.

Mr. France said, that if the case was adjourned
there would be plenty of cases against the prisoner,
for the firm had ascertained that morning that he had
received no less a sum than 104/. on the 4th of Au-
gust, which he had not accounted for. He therefore
hoped the Alderman would grant a remand.
Sir P. LAURIE said the embezzlements appeared to
be so extensive, that he should remand the prisoner
for a week ; in the meantime perhaps the prosecutors I
might make more important discoveries.
The prisoner, who wept much while at the bar,
declined saying anything, and was conveyed to the
Compter.

CLERKENWELL.
John Davies, a ruffianly looking fellow, dressed as
a navigator, was placed at the bar, before Mr. Combe,
charged by Mary Stevens, a married woman, residing
at No. 1, Dorset-street, Balls-pond, Islington, with
having commited a brutal assault upon her.
The prosecutrix, who was supported into court, in
consequence of the injuries she received, exhibited a
most frightful countenance, having her eyes dreadfully
swollen and blackened, and her nose broken. With
difficulty she stated that yesterday morning the pri-
soner met her, and challenged her with having robbed
him on the previous night. She denied the charge,
when he swore that she was the same person, and
threatened that he would have her life, on which he
struck her several violent blows on the head and face,
and kicked her on the bead, legs, and body, until she
was left for dead, and she knew no more of what hap-
penedttil she was attended by a surgeon at her own
residence.

Mr. COMBE inquired whether she knew anything
of the prisoner ?—Witness replied in the negative,
with the exception that he lived in the same neigh-
bourhood as herself.

Prisoner (sullenly)—l met her last night, and she
robbed me of 7s. 6d. I work hard for my money.
The prosecutrix positively denied this, and pro-
duced several witnesses to prove that she was at home
with her family all the night before.
Sergeant Judd, 44 N, said that he was bringing
some prisoners to this court from the station-house at
slosnlienrgbtoenatyinegstaenrddaficmkoizing
her bead and dashed it against a wall. She fell
ber%wenahfter wbehieshawh ethes epi zreid.
senseless on the ground, and had it not been for the
assistance of himself and other officers he felt satisfied
that the woman would have been murdered. On
being taken into custody he made a most desperate
resistance, and it required six policemen to take him
to the station-house.

Mr. COMBE asked him how he got his living.
Prisoner (gruffly)—l work on the railway.
Mr. COMBE—You are a perfect brute. You had
no right to ill-treat the poor woman in the way you
have done, even if she did rob you, which is plainly
disproved. I shall fine you 31., and in default of
payment six weeks' imprisonment in the House of
Correction.

He could not pay the fine, and was conveyed to
prison.