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

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

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

STANSFIELD V. BOWLER.
This was an action on the case for an alleged libel
on the plaintiff, published in the Manchester Courier
of April 21, of which the defendant is the registered
proprietor, to which the defendant pleaded its truth as
a justification.
Mr. Martin, Q.C., and Mr. Atherton appeared for
the plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant Wilkins, Mr. Cromp-
ton and Mr. Sowler for the defendant.
It appeared from the opening of the Learned
the
parish
Counsel, and from the evidence, that on the 10th of
April last a parish meeting was called of the rate-
payerspurposegof electingln
parish.
Eaves,
and a
difference had for some time existed between the Rev.
churchwardens
iofs
achapel Burnley,
n a o
ease, f s
r d e s thema t e
a fobr e r theean i
f
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 Rey. Mr. Master, who
was in the chair, refused to put to the meeting, and a
disturbance ensued, a person named Emmott being
proposed to the chair. This disturbance was put an
end to by Mr. Master commencing Divine service,and,
the meeting adjourned to the churchyard. An ac-
count of these proceedings was published in the
clulactekr Courier,burnStaizd andard,
cwomhicmhewntaed o
was
copied
by t h
by
e the
editor, 'lfaannd.
asit wi
jahs of
elia these
si,e sand calculatedcomments
tto injure
plaintiff
his
complained
character.
The article complained of was as follows :
" DISGRACEFUL PROCEEDINGS IN BURNLEY CRU'RCIT.
" We have elsewhere copied from the Blackburn
Standard a report of certain proceedings at the annual
vestry held in Burnley Church on Easter Tuesday. Far
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 Emmott, 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 objection
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
time for the commencement of Divine service. Mr.
at a ritafia aked, ror, t,~..a{..~..n.~t...,~nvplr•-•,"
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 ono 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 ho 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 wo 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 till
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 promise 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
where he was. He was then sitting in the magis-
trate's box in the assize court, and his Lordship or-
dered him to be examined; and he then said that he
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 juatira ?" Atr Rtanefiold •aid, " 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 lion. Mr. Baron Alderson,"
That note, the Learned Counsel for the plaintiff said,
was a very proper note, and such a one as be 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.
isetzuarmb tei o
atn
On the part of the defendant, on cross
of the witnesses called to prove the d
the parish meeting and what tookplacoef
tinhe persona
tata
Lancaster, it appeared that several
present at the parish meeting were Chartist., and the