The Sun.
London, England, 1847-04-06 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
ROME ClRCUlT.—Kingston, April 5.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Lord DE/oust and a Special
Jury.)
CHADWICK v. lIERAPATII.
ffi
This was a writ of inquiry to assess the dafmtahgeesNfoorrtha
libel upon Mr. Chadwick, the chairman o
the Richmond Railway, whi ch libel Wales Railway, and who also filled],
was
os h
ecde ne
Herapath's Railway Journal of the 13th of June, 1846.
he had not been actuated
The defendant pleaded that
by any malice in publishing
the libel, and that he had
apologised for it, in conformity with the statute, and
paid 51. into court
'
'as compensation. The Court upon
beinsufficient, and the present
demurrer held the plea to
was therefore issued
to assess the amount
ofwr writ of
damagesinquiry i
tory
which the plaintiff was entitled.
Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. Peacock mere for the plain-
tiff; Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr. Bovill for the defendant.
From the statement of the Learned Counsel for the
plaintiff it appeared, that while he filled the office of
deputy-chairman to the North Wales Railway, and
chairman of the London and Richmond, a negotiation
was entered into for the loan of 20,0001. to the South-
Western Railway Company by the North Wales Com-
pany, the latter not being able at the time to use their
capital or their works owing to some Parliamentary
difficulties, and the South-Western were to pay 4 per
cent. for the use of the money, the shareholders in the
North Wales scheme receiving the same amount of inte-
rest upon their deposits. The South-Western Com-
pany refused the money, and the amount, with an addi-
tional sum of 5,0001., ‘a as then advanced by the North
Wales to the Richmond Company, at an interest of 4i
per cent. This transaction formed the subjc ct of the
present inquiry, for it seemed that soon afterwards a
letter appeared in Ilerapath's Journal, proressiug to be
signed by one Evan Griffiths, a shareholder. in the
North Wales scheme, and in which, in very offensive
terms, the present plaintiff was charged with misappro-
priating the money of the the shareholders, and, instead
of employing their funds in furthering tho works of the
railway, that he had lent it to a failing scheme, where it
would probably all be lost, and at the same time sug-
gested that the plaintiff had an interest in the contracts
upon the Richmond Railway, and that the transaction
was for his own personal benefit. Immediately upon the
Publication of this letter application was made to the de-
fendant for the address of the writer, and it then appeared
that there was no such person as Evan Griffiths, a
shareholder in the scheme, in existence, and in the next
number of the defendant's journal be expresssed his re-
gret that the letter had been inserted in the hurry of
business, and also at the offensive observations made use
of. Some further communications took place between
the plaintiff's solicitors and the defendant, and the
latter repeatedly offered to insert any statement of the
real circumstances of the transaction in contradiction of
the libellous letter ; but this, it appeared, did not satisfy
the plaintiff, who required that the defendant should
state from his own knowledge that there was was no
foundation for the charges that he had male, but this,
it appeared, he declined to do, and hence the present
prpceeding.

On the part of the, plaintiff the libel was put in, and
evidence also given to show that, so far from there being
anything injurious to the interests of the shareholders
of the North Wales Railway in the transactions with
the Richmond Company, they were highly advantageous
to them, and that they were enabled to receive a divi-
dend of 4 per cent. for their money, which would other-
wise have been locked up at their banker's, and riot have
yielded any profit. It was also shown that, instead of
the Richmond Railway being at that time a failing
scheme, the shares were at a premium of 61. upon 101.
paid, and by the subsequent arrangement and amalgama-
tion with the South-Western Railway Company each
shareholder received 201. for each share upon which only
101. had been paid originally.
Mr. Sergeant SHEE, for the defendant, said he wished
the jury to understand that his client admitted that he
had incautiously inserted in his journal a charge against
the plaintiff fur which there was no foundation what-
ever, and, whatever might be the reult of the action,
the plaintiff would leave the court without the slightest
imputation upon his honour. Mr. Herapath had all
along admitted his error, and had endeavoured to make
all the atonement in his power. Immediately after the
publication of the libel, he inserted a notice expressing
his regret at the offensive expressions that bad been
made use of towards Mr. Chadwick, and he repeatedly
offered to insert any statement in contradiction of the
libel that might be furnished him by Mr. Chadwick.
This, however, was not done, hut he was required to
state as of his own knowledge that the charges
were false, which it was impossible for him as a man
of honour to do, particularly as, immediately after
the publication of the letter of Evan Griffiths, he
received a communication from the solicitors of Mr.
Buikeley Hughes, M.P., who was then chairman of the
company, the plaintiff being the deputy-chairman, in
which he was called upon to contradict the statement
that he (Mr. Hughes), to whom the charge was sup-
posed to refer, had had any share in the transaction of
the loan to the Richmond Railway Company, and that,
on the contrary, he had protested strongly against that
step being taken, and had instructed his solicitors to
take proceedings against such of the directors as they
might consider had been guilty of a breach of trust in
the transaction. Under these circumstances- it was im-
possible for the defendant to take upon himself to state
what the real facts were ; but, if Mr. Chadwick had
furnished him with such a statement, lie would gladly
have inserted it; and he therefore submitted that the de-
fendant had done all in his power in reparation, and
that it would be very unjust to make him pay heavy da-
mages in such a case. The Learned Counsel then
stated that, eventually, a letter was written by the se-
cretary of the Richmond Railway with the knowledge of
the plaintiff, in which a full contradiction was given of
the charge that had been made against the plaintiff, and
that this letter was immediately inserted in the defend-
ant's journal, and, at a public meeting of the share,-
holders of, the North Wales Company, the defendant,
who had made a purchase of shares expressly for the
purpose of enabling him to do so, addressed the meet-
ing, and publicly expressed his regret at having inad-
vertently admitted the attack upon the plaintiff in his
journal ; and, under such circumstances, he said, he
could not help expressing his surprise that the present
action should have been proceeded with.
Evidence, documentary and parole, was then put in, to
prove the statements referred to by the Learned Counsel,
and the letter to which he alluded as having been
written with the sanction of the plaintiff, embodying a
distinct contradiction of the charges that had been made
against him, and it was proved that this was immediately
inserted in the journal of the defendant.
Lord DENMAN, in summing up, said that with regard
to the publication of the libel the defendant had no de-
fence, for he had no business to insert a letter from an
anonymous person making libellous charges, and, if he
did so, he was responsible to the party aggrieved. He
had pleaded that he had made a sufficient apology, and
the letter that had been read, which was sent with the
knowledge of the plaintiff, certainly put a very different
complexion upon the case with regard to that plea.
The jury would, however, look at all the circumstances,
and say what damages the plaintiff was entitled to for
the attack that had been made upon his character.
The jury, after deliberating for about five minutes,
found a verdict for the plaintiff--Damages 501., including
the 51. paid into court.
In the course of the day the application was renewed
for the admission of Edmund Garbett, the attorney, who
was committed by the Court last week to bail, but the
Lord Chief Justice said that as the Central Criminal
Court, where the prisoner would be tried, was then sit-
ting, he should not interfere.
CROWN SIDE.
John Durdan, the younger, a publican at Kingston,
was indicted for a criminal assault upon ayoung girl who
had been in his service.
The details of the case are quite unfit for publication.
Mr. Locke prosecuted, and Mr. Chambers appeared
for the defence.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty of a common
assault.
Lord Chief Justice Wilde finished the criminal busi-
ness this morning, and then tried some common jury
causes ; and it is expected that he will sit again to-day
to assist in disposing of the remaining business of the
assize.

OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Monmouth, April 3.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Sergeant GAZELEE.)

REES AND OTHERS V. PROTHEROE.

Witnesses were called this morning fur the defendant,
Mr. Sergeant Talfourd replied for the plaintiff's. His
Lordship summed up, and the jury found for the plain-
tiffs for the full amount of damages claimed.
The next and last case on the list was withdrawn, after
an ineffectual attempt made by Mr. Sergeant Talfourd,
with whom was Mr. Rickards, the plaintiff, to have it
deferred to Monday, on the ground of the absence of a
material witness ; and opposed by Mr. Whateley, with
whom was Sir T. Phillips, on behalf of the defendants.
llis Lordship then proceeded to try prisoners. Mr.
Sergeant Allen also assisted in clearing the calendar.
There were thus three courts sitting during the greater
part of the day, disposing of the Crown business. By
six o'clock, when they rose, there were only nine or ten
cases remaining untried. These, however, were all of
the heaviest and gravest character in the calendar,
standing out in contrast to those tried to-day and yes-
terday, which were almost without an exception, such as
in any other county would have been disposed of at
sessions.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
Two boys, neither of whom was more than 12 years
of age, were brought before the Lord Mayor, charged
with haiing made several attempts to pick the pockets of
ladies who were passing through the streets.
The prisoners, although of such tender years, were
well known to several of the City police. They had
Seine time ago begun their predatory career by stealing
any trifling property exposed at shop doors ; they then
aimed at silk handkerchiefs in the pockets of
and they ascended from gentlemen,
cult one of steal.
a severe 'smUts.
that practice to the more dial-
the purses of ladies. After hiving
made many atifg
he turned insido our,. They without success, one of them re-
ceivedtell), face from a lady whose pocket
hut the lady seemedquite enough,were then taken into cus-
tody,t,o think the chastisement she
had inflicted
justice-room. An empty purasned refused to attend the
of one of them. was found in the pocket
The prisoners said the police were mistaken.
An officer, who had upon a former occasion
heeded one of the boys, said, upon secinghini
0
cage, " What !is it you again ?' Ay, ay, old feliLtrh "
replied the boy, " I am in for a skin' " (a purse). The I
boy's father, one Spurrier, upon being spoken to on the
-uhject, said, "'There's not a greater thief in London
than my son, and I hope he'll bi, transported for life."
Tho mother of the tis,y said, that until within the last
seven or eight months her son was its good a child as
ever lived, but he happened to get into bad company
and was charged with rubbery, after which he was placed

amongst the most depraved thieves. From that moment
he became quite careless, and would only become worse
by being sent for punishment amongst experienced
prisoners.
One of the policemen said the boy certainly exhibited
a total insensibility to disgrace, for, when in the cage and
questioned about his conduct, &c., he began to dance
and gave what is called the " double shuffle."
The LORD MAYOR considered the case was one which
showed the necessity of increasing the responsibility of
parents with respect to the dishonest conduct of their
children. He hoped that her Majesty's Government
would, amongst their other great efforts for the benefit

of society, include the consideration of the deplorable
state of the thousands of poor children in the me-
tropolis, whose condition appeared at present to be
inevitable.

The wretched boys were remanded, and both swag-
gered out of the justice-rcom.
John Hounslow, a man in the service of Messrs. Cham-

hers, ironmongers, was brought up, charged with having
poisoned himself.
. . _

It was stated that the unfortunate man had attempted
to destroy himseif in consequence of a suspicion enter-
tained that he had been concerned with another in

robbing his masters. A person named Johnson has-been
in custody for some days upon the charge of having
plundered the premises of a large quantity of nails, and
the prisoner was remanded until the day on which John-
son is to undergo a second examination.

GUILDHALL.
Joseph Alexander, the Polish refugee, was brought
before Mr. Aldeiman Wood for final examination,
charged with uttering a forged acceptance for .500 L,
whereby Messrs. Fuller, the bankers, were defrauded of
that amount. He was further charged with a forgery at
common law, in respect to a letter purporting to be
written by a person against whom he had brought an
action; and he was also charged with stealing a half-
crown.
The room was crowded to excess.

Mr. Robinson, the barrister, appeared with Mr. Taylor,
a solicitor, on behalf of Messrs. Fuller; and Mr. Lewis

conducted the prosecution on behalf of the other parties.
Mr. Jones defended the prisoner, and Mr. Wolfe ap-
peared on behalf of Alfred Wilbearn, otherwise John
Brown, who was charged with being an accomplice in
defrauding Messrs. Fuller.
The charge of stealing the half-crown was first en-
tered upon.
On the IGth ult. Alexander called in at a Mr. Alex-
ander's, a furrier, in Uniun-etreet, Spitaltields, and asked
Mrs. Alexander to read a German letter to him. Her

husband was present, but had occasion to leave the room,
and her back being towards the fireplace., where the pri-
soner stood, he had an opportunity of purloining a half
crown, which had been marked by the ser7ant and pur-
posely left on the mantelpiece. When he left, the half-

crown was missed, and he was followed and given into
custody in Chiswell street. Upon hearing the charge
he at first exclaimed, " My God, I have no silver;" but
lie afterwards said there was a conspiracy ag4inst
and that the marked money was paid to him by prose-
cutor in 1/. worth of silver, and in liquidation of a debt
of 81. The servant identified the marked half-crown

taken from the prisoner by the police, and Mr. Alexander
swore he did not owe the prisoner Si., or pay him 1/. in
silver, or pay him anything.
In cross-examination by Mr. Jones, the prosecutor
explained that the prisoner represented to his wife that
he was at, acher of languages ; but that he was not
engaged to teach her, as he had been understood to
say.
Mr. Alderman WOOD committed him on this charge.

The second charge was for uttering a forged letter,
purporting to admit having received a quantity of skins,
for the value of which he had brought an action against
the simulated writer.
Mr. Lewis, in statiry, the case, said that it would be
observed that the forged letter bore a post mark in the
vicinity of the residence of the alleged writer, and that
two blank letters addressed by the prisoner to himself
were found at his lodging. They were posted in the
like manner, and the object was to have them ready to
be filled up in any way that would best sustain the
action brought for a suppositious debt. The production
of a letter which had reached the plaintiff through the
post would of course tell with the jury. Mr. Lewis ad-
dressed himself to the law of the case, to show that an
indictment for forgery would lie where the instrument
forged was of less importance than a will, writ, or
deed.
Mr. Alderman Noon said he would take it that the
forging of any writing for the purpose of doing wrong
to another amounted to forgery in law.
Mr. Jones submitted that, as an action of debt was
pending in another place, no proceeding could be taken
in this Court in respect to the subject-matter of it that
would have the effect of getting rid of the suit. The
magistrate wonld otherwise be trying the case of debt.
Mr. Alderman WooD said, it was quite competent to
the prosecutor to proceed with any criminal charge as
soon as he discovered the necessary proofs.
Mr. Harris Michael, a furrier, in Castle street,
Houndsditch, deposed that he had received two lawyer's
letters, demanding a debt of 971., one a year ago, the
other six months ago. He owed the party nothing, and
handed the letters to his solicitors, Messrs. Wire and
Child. No writs were issued by them, but he was served
with a writ by a third attorney, who was employed by
the prisoner. This was on the Ist of March last. (A
letter was then put in, bearing the post-mark," Bishops-

. -
gate Within, July 6, 1845." It I;egan by stating that
the writer feared, from the tenor of the prisoners letter,
that he supposed he (the writer) had sold the skins,
but he had not done so ; he had left them to be sold by
commission, as the marks had not been removed well
enough. The writer offered to accept a bill for 501., and
referred to another transaction in mink skins. It was
signed " Harris," and addressed to the prisoner Alex-
ander.) The witness said he was as often called Harris
as Michael. The signature to the letter was an imitation
of his signature, but he never wrote that letter or any
other to Alexander, and never had any transaction in
mink skins or any skins. He owed him nothing, and
never did owe him anything.
Mr. Alderman WrooD doubted whether the letter was
such a one as would lead a jury to find against the sup-
posed writer on the trial of the action. The action was
for the value of furs deposited with Mr. Harris. The
letter was not precisely an admission of possession of
such property.
Mr. Lewis said, it was not a question whether it was
sufficient, but whether it was intended to be sufficient.
Whether it admitted only receiving authority to sell, or
the actual deposit of the goods, would be quite a question
for the jury.
Mr. Child spoke to the proceedings he took for Mr.
Harris.

The officer deposed to receiving the forged letters,
amongst a number of other papers, as documents left by
the prisoner with Mr. Gates, a solicitor in Thanet-place,
who issued the writ for the prisoner.
Mr. Gates said, the papers he delivered to the officer
were left by the prisoner for care only, and were not
papers delivered to him as evidence to be adduced in any
proceeding, nor papers upon which he had been con-
sulted. He had declined acting any longer for the pri-
soner as his attorney, before the prisoner showed him
the letter produced.
Mr. Alderman WOOD struck out the evidence as to
what was said between the prisoner and his attorney, as
being a privileged communication which the attorney
had no right to reveal, even in a criminal case, without
the sanction of his client. If such communications
were not privileged an accused person would, to some
extent, be deprived of the means of defending himself.
The prisoner was commit ted on this charge.
The third case was against Alexander and Wilbeam,
alias Brown, jointly.
Mr. Robinson opened the case at some length.
'We have recently stated the substance of the evidence.
At the end of December the forged acceptance of
5001. was paid at Messrs. Fullers'. On the 16th of
February Alexander gave charge of two persons, named
Nicholas Kerp and the prisoner Brown, for committing
that offence. Brown got away before they reached the
station-house, and Alexander also slipped off; but there
was abundant evidence against Kerp, and he was com-
mitted for trial. Alexander was subsequently appre-
hended for stealing the half-crown, and a few days after
Brown was discovered at a coffee-shop in Soho. On the
way to the station-house he confessed he was the party
who uttered the bill, but said it was Alexander, who
had given him and Kerp into custody, that furnished
them with the bill. In consequence of his communi-
cativeness, the solicitors to the bankers sent his clerk to

the station-house to invite him to make a voluntary
statement. This statement was the principal new evi-
dence tendered to-day. It was made in the presence of
a policeman, taken down by the solicitor's clerk, ani
signed by the prisoner.
The confession states, that he was working as a painter
when Alexander called upon him on the 28th of Decem-
ber, and said he wanted him to do something particular
for him. lie went to Alexander's lodgings, 'stopped
there that night, and next morning Alexander said he
had a bill of Mr. Kerp's to present, and he had 1001. to
receive out of the amount. He wanted the informant to
present it, and he took him to Samuel's clothes shop, in
Stretton-ground, and furnished him' with new clothes,
that he might go respectably. Alexander then took him
to the Royal Exchange and introduced him to Mr. Kerp,
saying, " This is the man I can trust it with." Kerp
replied, " It is all right," and handed the bill to Alex-
ander, who looked at it, and then gave him (Brown) the
bill and showed him the bankers (Messrs. Fuller). He
obtained the 5001., and found Kerp, Alexander, and a
stranger together. Alexander said, " Don't pull the
money out here." They all went to the Royal Exchange,
where he, by Kerp's order, gave Alexander two 501.
notes, and the four 1001. notes to Kerp. Alexander said
he must have gold for his notes, and he gave one to in-
formant to change for him, and went himself with the
other. They each obtained gold for their notes, and
while they were there Kerp came in to change his notes.
On leaving the bank, Alexander received the 50 sove-
reigns from informant and went away. Informant
walked with him as far as the Mansion-house, where
Alexander said he had better go back and wait for Kerp.
He did so; but after waiting a short time he returned
alone to the outfitter's shop at Westminster.
This statement is at variance with the outfitter's evi-
dence, which represents that Kerp, and not Alexander,
had Brown, the painter, transformed into a gentleman
on the morning the bill was uttered.
Mr. Alderman WOOD declined admitting Brown as a
witness, and said he must leave that to the discretion of
the judge.
The defence upon this charge was reserved.
Mr. Alderman Wool) committed the two prisoners for
trial, one for uttering, and the other us accessory before
the fact. •
The proceedings occupied above six hours.
having he!en foul
Alfred Blaclaup, a youth about 16 years of age, the
found
oSuHt P- S TREE7'.
son of a respectable
Church and Co.,carpenter and builder at Hackney,
was placed at the bar 134 Mr. Arnold, charged with
brewers, at Cambridge-heath, with in-
tent to commit a felony.
_ 17preinises of Messrs. Joseph