The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-30 00:00:00

rbtrbr 12ti4ti011

40,
VICE-CHANCERY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. WIGRAM.)
LETTS P. THE BLACKWALL RAILWAY COMPANY.
This was a suit instituted against the Blackwall Railway
"Inpany, for compensation for the loss of tithes, so occa-
:pled by the construction of their railway. The facts have
ready appeared fully in The Sun.
His lioxotmt delivered judgment to-day, and decided that
In the case of certain houses specified in the bill, the com-
pany should pay 2s. 9d. in the pound, in that of others the
rate originally paid, and with respect to some other points he
term.reserved his judgment.
The cause was ordered to be mentioned the first day after

- EEN'S BENCH.—(THIS DAY.)
THE-E LATE CASE OF MILITARY FLOGGING AT
THE
-N HOUNSLOW.
sss ---e-, ON THE PROSECUTION OF MR. WAKLEY v.
-•,..ILLINT AND COOKE, THE PROPRIETOR AND PUBLISHER
Or THE " MEDICAL TIMES."
Generals
In this case a rule had been obtained by the Attorney-
.stieral, at the instance of Mr. Wakley, M.P., and
LCoroner for Middlesex, calling upon the defendants
show cause why a criminal information should not
filed against them for the publication of an
ride in that periodical of the Ist of August,
Mt, which charged Mr. Wakley with having conducted the
Well-known inquiry at Hounslow into the death of White, a
Private in the 7th Hussars, in an improper and disgraceful
priner, with having hinted, and suggested, and suborned
ue soldiers who came before the court to give evidence,
Irid with being in the habit of sharing the fees of post-mor-
‘,l examinations with Mr. Erasmus Wilson, whom he, in
L'id capacity of coroner, was in the habit of appointing to
make such examinations.
Mr. COCKBURN, Q.C. (with whom was Mr. Ballantine),
Showed cause against the rule. He said these proceedings
"Laze out of a matter which would, no doubt, be still in the
recollection of their Lorahips, namely, the inquiry at Houns-
re into the death of a soldier named White, a private of the
Hussars, who died after receiving corporal punishment in
„t
▪ e barracks in question. The punishmeat was inflicted on
the 15th of June, and he died on the 11th of July. The in-
quest was commenced on the 15th of that month, and was
adjourned from time to time, for intervals of about a
week each, until the jury arrived at the opinion that the man
had died from the punishment to which he had been sub-
jected, Several articles appeared at that time in the Medical
Times commenting upon the cor.duct of Mr. Wakley in con-
ducting the inquiry.
Lord DENMAN said, if he recollected rightly, the article in
question was much more than a mere comment—it attributed
conduct to Mr. Wakley out of court in connexion with the
inquest, which certainly could not come under that defini-
tion. It contained comments on what happened in court.
Mr. Como:runts said, no doubt the article complained of
consisted of comments on Mr. Wakley's conduct in prose-
cuting the inquiry. Although he did not mean to set up
that all the expressions used were justifiable, yet he intended
to contend that there was so much irregularity in the way in
which the inquest was conducted, that many of them were
perfectly so. Besides, the whole matter had been freely
commented upon by Mr. Wakley in the House of Com-
mons, and at a public meeting at which he presided,
showing that the defendants had a perfect right
to comment in a like manner, not only on the policy of
the punishment, but on the way in which Mr. Wakley con-
ducted the inquiry. Having read the alleged libel at length,
and the medical opinions which were included in the article,
be went on to read, and to comment on, the affidavit filed by
Mr. Wakley, which detailed the nature of the inquiry and
the cause of the various adjournments. The course adopted
at the inquest, with respect to the medical testimony, was
completely at variance with the Act of Parliament—namely,
the 6th and 7th Wm. IV., c. 81—which detailed the course
still adopted at inquests with respect to such evidence. Mr.
Wakley had held a vast number of inquests, and therefore
could not be ignorant of the line of conduct, which the Act
pointed out. That Act enacted that it should be lawful for
a coroner to issue his order to compel the attendance of the
Burgeon who attended, or who was present at the death,
of the person on whom the inquest was held, or
if no ono so attended him or was present at his death,
then some medical gentleman residing in the vicinity;
and that if the jury were dissatisfied with his
or their testimony, that the jury should supply
the coroner in writing with the name or names of
Illy Medical practitioner or practitioners whom they might
Wish to attend, either for the purpose of giving evidence, or
!toy the purpose of making a post theemrtm examination.
Novo when he told their Lordships that surgeons were of
the first class, and sent down by Sir John Macgregor, and
that Mr. Wakley must have known that their testimony
Ought to have been taken first, and that he gave them the
:` go by," and took the evidence of Mr. Wilson in the first
tnatance, they could not but be of opinion that Mr. Waklev
Pad acted in direct contravention of the Act. Instead Of
?earing the evidence of Mr. Day, who was called in the first
zalitstance to examine the body, and who made that examine-
and who being unconnected with the army was an on-
:_4_4BBed witness, Mr. Wakley, according to his own state-
141t, asked Mr. Day a question, and because he was not
Satisfied with the way in which he had performed the cross-
a n?inatian, he thought proper to suggest to the jury the
sPlaointment of another medical gentleman, and he appointed
011;7; Wilson, who had been his pupil—a protege of his
• If the gentlemen so sent had been allowed to give
their evidence in the ordinary and legal way, no imputation
would have been thrown, as he contended there was, on their
tT
_eBtiln°_nY and credibility in the minds of the jury. The '
rahatritihede
of Fizinirsyelvithaesn proceeded with the affidavit. It stated '
adjourned on the 27th, for the purpose
affording another medical gentleman time to make an ex-
amination. On his way home, in his carriage, he met Mr.
sisilson in Oxford-street, and after informing him that Mr.
Day had omitted to examine the man's spine, he desired him
to so, and to make a report to the jury; that examination
were excluded.
but the medical gentlemen connected with the army
rexcluded. After detailing the qualifications of Mr. Wilson,
7 affidavit concluded by a positive denial of the charges
conveyed in the article, that he had never shared the pro-
ceeds of post-mortem examinations with Mr. Wilson, and that
in.:onducting the inquiry he was actuated solely by a con-
-01.1 ti.tious desire to promote the ends of justice. The affidavit
Oakley
Wilson entirely corroborated the affidavit of Mr.
s„,'''ey- The Learned Counsel then proceeded to read and
.rptraent on the affidavits filed in reply. The affivadits of
Healey and Mr. Cook stated that they believed that the
atatements in the articles in question, with a few exceptions,
;fere true, and that they were written and published solely
,1*;)! the public benefit, and not for any other object whatever,
`" inquiry having been one of the utmost importance to
Ipedical gentlemen. The words " partner in the post-mortem
oea" were not susceptible of the interpretation which had
been put upon them, and were not intended to convey that
they shared the proceeds of such examinations. It meant
that the frequency with which Mr. Wilson was so appointed
and the fees which he received in that capacity, and Mr., Wakley, as coroner, looked like a partnership in post-mortem
examinations on account of this frequency, and not that Mr.
Wilson handed Mr. Wakley part of the proceeds. Mr.
Wakley admitted having employed Mr. Wilson 25 times,
Dar
thathe had employed other medical men as frequently.
Dr. Hall sought the publication of the medical testimony
in the Medical Times, as he and the ether medical men had
not a fair opportunity of adducing it before the coroner.
Mr. Wilson had been for some time sub-editor of the Lancet,
and had been under great obligations to Mr. Wakley, which,
he (Mr. Healey) thought was calculated to bias his opinion,
and to render him an unfair witness. Then Mr. Wakley
presided at a meeting at Exeter-Hall, which was called for
the purpose of forming a society to promote the abolition of
corporal punishment. Several privates of the Guards were
present. The Learned Counsel read a report of the speech
which Mr. Wakley made, from the _friorning Chronicle, that
stigmatised the infliction of corporal punishment as most un-
civilized and brutal in the highest degree, and recommended
that a subscription should be set on foot to liberate
the two privates Cook and Mathewson, who gave
evidence at the inquest, and produced a cheque which
Mr. Collett, M.P., had sent with that view. He also stated
that the warrant under which the punishment was inflicted
was signed before the meeting of the court-martial, and
that it was most improbable that a commanding officer,
under whose direction it was called, would modify the punish-
Ment which they considered ought to be inflicted. He
also replied to the various articles which had been pub-
lished in the newspapers reflecting upon his conduct. Now
he (Mr. Cockburn) did say that such language and such a
Proceeding on the part of Mr. Wakley disentitled him to
the interposition 1.,f the Court. After the inquest had been
held—immediately of er—he came forward and presided
!t a public meeting, and in an inflammatory speech,
're* from the exercise of his public functions, ad-
verted to the circumstances under which that in-
quiry was made—the circumstances which occurred
at it, and questioned the authority of the court
Inertial, and those who sat at it—a line of conduct most
reprehensible in one filling a judicial situation. Therefore,
he repeated, that he was not entitled to the protection of the
Court. The affidavit went on to set forth:that an advertise-
,futeist had been published in the Lancet, which he (Mr.
'"ealeY) believed was inserted for the purpose of raising
Subscriptions for Mr. Wakley, for the way in which he had
nducted the inquiry. He might truly say, that Mr.
Wakley was the proprietor of the paper. Then Mr. Wak-
ley had adopted an excellent plan to combat the statements
Put forward in the Medical Times, as, in reply to a question
from Mr. Craven Berkeley in the House of Commons, he stated,
no doubt well knowing that it would find its way to the
public; that the alleged libel " was written by a stupid
tirryer, who knew as much about medical matters as the
yon. Member, judging from the way in which he had read
of"
the The next affidavit was that of Dr. Reid, who was one
army medical staff, and who stated that the man had
Ted from pleura, or inflammation in the lining membrane of
Pet heart, and complaining that the conduct of Mr. Wakley
had caused the evidence of the medical gentlemen to be
looked upon with suspicion. Next there was the affidavit
?f Mr. Day, who was the surgeon find appointed by the
jury. He stated that
me hem abeg
rexreianemd i n e
asd the
ttoe
b to dh
ey we
ai tuhs e Mer
f.
Wilson, and that
death ; and that, rty ethat concurrence, he
was surprised at the tetimog n
gave at the inquest, namely, thaty
the contraßeiciionWofilstohne
i
muscles during the punishment had caused
deaamation,
which ultimately led to the unfortunate man's
also complained that Dr. Warren and the other
medical
,gentleman were not treated with that courtesy which they
aad a right to expect from a court of justice. The medical
gentlemen were not allowed to be present in the court
during the last day, thus again acting in opposition to the
usual practice, and casting suspicion on their testimony,
Whereas Mr. Wilson was ushered in with a sort of flourish,
as a Most competent person to speak to the nature and ap-
pearances of the human skin ; he was first asked if he had
It Published some books on the subject. He said he had,
t'cling that they were out of print, and that he could not recol-
lect their titles. Might it not be affirmed, with considerable
ars?t.b, that Mr. Wakley knew the opinions of Mr. Wilson on the
onjeret of corporal punishment, and that he employed him in
nilll.o to destroy the testimony of the other medical gentle-
th'in ? After some further remarks, he concluded by trusting
the Court would discharge the rule.
at ler- Baum-Imm followed on the same side. He referred
itud
hneeitdh toh the summing up of Mr. Wakley at the inquest,
lake t'llt at his conduct, in the whole matter, was mire
leileuthliadot. t of an advocate than of a judge ; that
thit
hirfluenced and prejudiced the minds of the jury, and
thegreat object was to create for himself popularitj.,
promotion of the ends of justice. When he read
tee ritdeP9rret of the meeting at Exeter Hall, it struck him that
the in sa which he delivered placed him wholly beyond
davit lerposition f tLe Court. Dr. Hall, from whom an affi-
co_ e?uld not be obtained on account of his being at the
Good Hope, agreed with the other medical gentle-
theirtMr. Wakley bullied them, and completely nullified
testimony in the minds of the jury. 'Then the speech
article at EXetoo.rwl_Thl contained
.terms as strong as those of the
h c he complained.
to
pport ATTORNEY-GENERALofthsrole. thneen
saproceeded
astom
rmore address
incl
inclined
Ccart in 8,
believe.that the sentiments of his Learned friend ( .
Which au tame) Wer'
•
„mild those his client, than ~(Arinleins iii
participate with auy sincerity, because he had
w7,ll',Krt_ Wakley, if not with having committed perjury,
stree uponLeworn jeanitical!y. A direct attackhad been
' ar. Wakley iu 43 Capacity as MOM; but he