The Sun.
London, England, 1849-11-14 00:00:00

THE NEW MAYORALTY.

The following gentlemen have, in their respective
boroughs and cities, been elected to the dignity of Chief
Magistrate for the ensuing year:—
Axbridge—R. Trew.
Arbroath—William Johnston.
Birmingham--Mr. Lucy.
Bideford—Mr. Evans.
Bath—Williatn Dowding.
Bristol—J. K. Haberfield (fourth time).
Bolton—T. L. Rus,hton.
Boston—M. Staniland (re-elected).
Bradford—Alderman Forbes.
Berwick—Capt. Smith, R.N. (la-elected>
Banbury—Richard Goffe.
Bradford—Mr. Forbes.
Buckingham—Richard -Chandler (re-elected).
Brechin—Dlvid Guthrie.
Bedford—C. F. Palgrave.
Cambridge—H. S. Foster.
Chesterfield—John Walker.
Cardiff—Charles Vackell.
Carmarthen—W. Davis.
Derby—James Haywood.
Durham—Robert Thwaites.
Devises—George Waylen.
Doncaster—W. Dunhill (re-elected).
Dover—G. Finnis.
Dorchester—W. D. Tapp.
Devonport—E. St. Aubin.
Exeter—E. A. Sanders.
Edinburgh—Right lion. William Johnston.
Gateshead—George Hawkos (re-fleeted).
Gloucester—C. Smallridge.
Hertford—Y. Crawley.
Hastings—G. Sorivens.
Hull—J. W. Palmer.
Halifax—Alderman Cropley.
Haddington—George Motir6
Inverness—Mr. Simpson.
Ipswich—T. B. Ross.
Kendal—C. B. Crewdson.
Leeds—Alderman Bateson.
Lancaster—J. Dockray.
Leicester—J. Munday.
London—Alderman Farncomb.
Liverpool—J. Holmes.
Lynn—W. Meyse.
Lanark—Dr. Fleming.
Monmouth—John Mayon.
Macclesfield—T. T. Swanwick.
Manchester—John Potter (re-elected).
Maidstone—Charles Scudamore.
Northampton—Alderman Parker.
Norwich—Henry Woodcock.
Newcastle-on-Tyne—J. Crawall,
Newport (Monmouth)—J. B. Batchelor.
Nottingham—Richard Birkin.
Oxford—Alderman Sadler.
Portsmouth—Alderman Bramble (second time).
Preston—J. German.
Salford—Alderman Langworthy (re-elected).
Sheffield—Thomas Birks.
Sunderland—W. Orde.
Stamford—Alderman Althorp.
Sudbury—Dr. Scrimshaw.
Shrewsbury—J. Birch.
Salisbury—Dr. T. R. Moore.
Shaftesbury—William Storey,
Southampton—Rd. Andrews.
•
Stirling—John Sewers.
Thornbury—E. G. Councel'
Totnes—Wm. Bowden (re-elected).
Tynemouth—Wm. Linskill.
Wallingford—Robert Payne.
Wisbeach—H. W. Ward.
Wakefield—J. Holdsworth (formerly M.P. for the
borough).
Wolverhampton—W. F. Fryer.
Windsor—Mr. Hansom.
Wigan—R. Darlington.
Weymouth—G. C. Welsford.
Winchester—Mr. Faithful.
Yarmouth—Mr. Gourley.
York—G. H. Seymour.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 13.
(Sittings in Banco.)
WAKLEY V. COOKS.

Mr. Sergeant WMILINS having obtained a rule in this
case, on behalf of the defendant, calling upon the
plaintiff to show cause why the verdict returned in his
favour before the Lord Chief Baron, during the Mid-
dlesex sittings after Trinity Term ast, should not be
set aside, and a new trial had, on the ground of mis-
direction, and also because the damages, 3501., were
excessive.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, with whom were Mr. Ed-
win James and Mr. Bramwell, now showed cause. The
action was brought, as will be remembered, to recover
compensation for libels published in the Medical Times,
a periodical medical newspaper, of which the defendant
is the proprietor. The article alleged to contain the
libellous matter for which the defendant is civilly
responsible, reflected in strong language upon the
conduct of the plaintiff in the discharge of his duties
as Coroner, on the body of Thomas White, a soldier,
who died of inflammation of the pleura, and of the
lining membrane of the heart, superinduced, as was
alleged, and generally believed at the time, by a
flogging, in which the deceased received fifty lashes, at
the cavalry barracks at Hounslow, in pursuance of a
sentence previously passed upon him by a court-martial.
Besides animadverting upon him in this respect, the
article in question contained charges against him having
reference to hitn in a more public character, amongst
others, that he went shares with Mr. Wilson in " post
mortem fees," and that he had taken steps at and imme-
diately before the inquest for the purpose of creating a
charge of murder, by corrupting witnesses, and by com-
mitting Mr. Peacock with a view to draw up an inqui-
sition of murder, and also by excluding certain wit-
nesses from the inquiry, in consequence of which the
officers of the regiment were made to appear to have
acted culpably in the progress of the inquiry, and sub-
sequent execution of the sentence. The Learned
Council now contended against the rule, that the de-
fendant in charging the plaintiff for his conduct at the
inquest, had acted upon the erroneous notion that the
office of coroner was analogous to that of a magistrate
having the power of exercising summary jurisdiction, and
that his duties were similar to those of the magistrate
when taking evidence on an accusation. The two were
different in:several respects, the situation of the coroner
being frequently, indeed generally, of a more critical
character, inasmuch as he had to conduct an inquiry at
which more or less excitement always prevailed, and
then, if he thought it necessary to take much evidence
on any particular point, he was accused of partiality for
one reason, and on the other hand, if he thought it on
any account advisable to dispense with it, he was met
with the same accusation for some other reason. The
charge, therefore, that the plaintiff intended to get up
a charge of murder was absurd, whilst the means by
which it was alleged he endeavoured to do so were un-
proved at the trial. The misdirection complained of
consisted in some observations which the Lord Chief Baron
made on the practice of coroners, in excluding the evi-
dence of witnesses whose conduct might afterwards
be investigated; but as your Lordship now said, no
misdirection could be maintained upon that ground, as it
was obviously competent to a Learned Judge to make
such explanations on subjects connected with judicial
proceedings of any kind whatever, as might serve to
render the case more clear in the minds of the jury, so
far as it turned upon such! practices. The plea, stating
that Mr. Wakley was a libellous jouonalist, because a
verdict had been passed against him in an action of
Cooper v. Wakley, the record in that case ought to have
been produced at the trial, because the plea did not state
the fact, that that action had been brought and had so
terminated. With regard to the charge, that the plain-
tiff shared post mortcm fees with Mr. Wilson, it was
answered by the establishment of the denial, as there was
only one fee to iho coroner for an inquest, however long
it may be, and a post /nor/ern examination did not lead to
any additional fee. It was necessary for the administra-
tion of justice that the Courts should especially protect
persons exercising the lower class of judicial functions,
inasmuch as charges which their Lordships might
receive scathless would be a serious injury to a
coroner, justice of the peace, or stipendiary magistrate,
as to which Mr. James referred to the case of Outram
v. Morewood, in 3(1 East. On the question of excessive
damages, the amount of which was' anything but, dispro-
portioned to the grossness of the libel, it was one which
the Court must have great difficulty in dealing with, if it
supposed that the amount was excessive, some of the
allegations being proved, and others disproved.
Mr. Sergeant Wenstisis and Mr.DEARSLEY supported
the rule; and contended that the libel was not gross or
vulgar, and that were it such as the Attorney-General
characterized it, the jury would have given 1,0001.
damages, instead of 3501. The libel uttered by the
plaintiff against Mr. Bransby Cooper had been admitted
by the Attorney-General, at the trial, in the most
express terms, as he undertook to admit the libel, if it
were admitted on their own part that it was uttered
twenty-eight years ago. Mr. Dearsley made the required
admission, and sat down perfectly satisfied that the
Attorney-General had admitted the libel. The evi-
dence not only supported many of the charges contained
in the alleged libel, but Rent far to justify and render
imperatively necessary a serious investigation into the
conduct of the plaintiff as Coroner for Middlesex. The
observations of the Learned Chief Baron upon the prac-
tice of coroners had had a decided effect upon the find-
ing of the jury adverse to the defendant, and they
submitted that upon that ground alone he was entitled
to a new trial.
The LORD CHIEF BARON having expressed his opi-
nion that the damages were not excessive,
Mr. Baron Parke, Mr. Baron Alderson, and Mr. Baron
Rolfe, gave judgment against the rule, concurring in the
Lord Chief Baron's observations on the amount of da-
mages,which they considered were not excessive, because
a great portion of the libel affecting the plaintiff in
his public character had been disproved. With regard to
the ground of misdirection, first, because the Learned
Judge had made observations, and th© practices of
coroners excluding certain witnesses, and, secondly, in
reference
to his observations on the charge against the
plaintiff, that he was a libellous journalist, it could not
be maintained on either point. If it were entertained
on the second point, then it could only affect the costs of
the particular plea which addressed itself to that fact.