The Sun.
London, England, 1840-11-06 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)
TILE QUEEN V. WORTHINGTON.—CRIMINAL INFORMATION.
Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL-1 am instructed to move your
Lordship for a rule to show cause why a criminal informa-
tion should not be filed against Mr. Edward Worthington,
an attorney at Manchester, for a libel, which he, by his own
confession, inserted in the Manchester Newspapers, he
being indemnified for doing so. The libel, my Lord, is
upon a gentleman of the name of Ross, on whose behalf
I make this application. Mr. William Ross, who is a
very eminent and respectable cotton-printer, and
has very extensive dealings in that line, which your
Lordship knows is one of the most considerable in. the
great commercial and manufacturing town of Manchester.
My Lord, this is a most malignant libel, trying to rake up
a calumny, for which there was no foundation, respecting
misconduct supposed to have been imputed to Mr. Ross
nine years ago. My Lord, there was, in the last Session
of Parliament, a Bill introduced into the House of Corn-
mons, for extending the copyright in designs from three
months, I think, to six months, and there was a Committee
upon that Bill, a Bill introduced by Mr. Emmerson
Tennent. Mr. Ross was examined as a witness upon that
Bill as to the propriety of extending the period during
which there should be a copyright in design, a subject
which, as your Lordship is aware, must be one of very
great interest in Manchester. where cotton-printing
is carried on so extensively. Mr. Ross being examined,
was asked respecting the protection to be given to designs,
and some questions were put to him, that seem to have
been suggested by an enemy, as to his having, a number of
years ago, taken designs from a house of the name of Coates
and Co., which transaction he explained to the entire sa-
tisfaction of the Committee. The Bill did not pass, but there
was, when Mr. Ross was on the Continent of Europe, in the
month of August last a letter introduced into the Man-
chester newspapers respecting this Bill, and there %V
some reference made to Mr. Ross's evidence before the
Committee. That was a perfectly harmless letter, and
Mr. Ross bad nothing in the world to do with it—he was
hundreds of miles absent—and it imputed nothing. My
Lord, this being so, there appeared on the Bth of August
the libel of which I complain in the Manchester Guardian,
which Mr. Worthington, against whom I make this appli-
cation, has confessed that he inserted; he said it was in-
serted by Sale and Worthington, he being in partnei ship
with a gentleman of the name of Sale. I was in-
structed to move against both, but. that ebieb Mr.
Worthington said, of course, would not be evi-
dence against Mr. Sale ; and, therefore, I do not
feel justified in making the application against Mr.
Sale. It was said to roe? let Mr. Sale purge him-
self of this offence, but I,eforp 1,, pp d Pe Palled PP9il
to do so, I felt that I must lay before your Lordship
sufficient evidence to strew that be was guilty. I there

• fore abstain from making the application against Mr.
Sale, and make the application against Mr. Worthington,
who has again and again a-I:bitted that he in-
serted the article, and was indemnified for doing so.
My Lord, tin, article is malignant, it is intended to repre-
sent that on the occasion refarcd to, about nine years ago,
Mr Ross bad collu,ively entered into 'a communication
with the managing servant of the house of Coates and Com-
pany, who were eminent cotton-printers at Manchester,
that ne bad by fraud obtained a distr!osure by means of
that individual (a person r+f the name a Wright), of the
designs of Coates and Company, and that then, having
eon it them in this manner, he had printed them for. his
own benefit, which would Lave been en exceedingly dis-
honourable and disgraceful transaction, and which, if be.
.ieved to be true in Manchester, would have caused Mr.
R ,se to have been expelled from society. Your Lord-
ship must be aware bow such a theft would be regarded
among rival and honourable cotton-printers. The libel
seeks to represent that, under pretence of hiring a person
of the name of Wright, who was the manager of Coates
and Company, Mr. Ross prevailed upon Wright to die-
-lose these pattcrus. and then had them Frieted for his
(Mr. Ross's) own benefit. Your Lordship will see how
.that charge is made against Mr. Ross in the article which
Lean now read. It is in the form of a letter to the
Editor of the Manchester Guardian, being entitled
" Copyright of Designs." I need not trouble your Lord-
ship with the earlier part of it, but I will come to
that part which directly refers to Mr. Ross, and is sworn
o refer to Mr. Ross, which there is no doubt that it does.
He says, " I and many others who have a tolerable recol-
lection of the circumstance referred to, are somewhat
curious to know what would have been-the reply supposing
the question had been thus put," that is, supposing
question had been thus put in the Committee
of the House of Commons to Mr. Ross. It is
allowed that he bad explained himself, examined as. he
was, but what would have been his reply if the questions
tad been thus put to him ? Now here are the questions.
You say that at an early period after your cenopencing
the calico business you wanted a manager? Did you not
la that occasion apply to one then employed at F, x-bill
Bank, by note or otherwise, without your possessing any
previous knowledge of hisdesire to change his situa!ion? Dld
.on not request an interview, and did you not obtain one at a
public-house at Fox-hill Bank ? Were you not extremely
civil to this said Manager ? ' (" extremely civil" being in
talics) " and did you not induce him, under a pledge
.f confidence, to show you the patterns he was producing
for his employers, in order that you might have an opportu-
ni'y of judging of his capabilities, &c ? Did you not take the
aatterns so confided to you by hint," (" so confided to you"
being in italics,) " and copy them in whole or in part, and
L•ive them into the hands of your engraver? D.d not an
itectlental circumstance expose the transaction to the pro.
prietor? Did be ILA t..xpress " honest indignation"
'on this occasion? D.d he nut threaten you with
legal proceedings? Was ho not induced by the
friendly interference of a highly respectable gentle-
man to forego that exposure consequent upon a public
prosecution? Was it not one of the conditions that the
patterns then in progress of copying should be arrested, and
never be brought before the public ? And were they vot
so countermanded by you ? Were Sou never further in-
vited by the Manager alluded to, or some one else, under
a promise of Naha confidential disclosures, to revisit the
pot-house where you first had friendly converse ?
Did you not politely decline the offer, having been
previously forewarned that in case of compliance a
very told reception was prepared for you, in the
shape of an immersion in a bath of unusual dimension,
vulgarly termed a reservoir !" that is, that ho was
to be ducked. " I am. your's respectfully, '
Anti-
Humbug.' " Now your Lordship will at once see that this
in the most direct terms, by way of interrogation, charges
Mr. Ross with having opened this communication with
Wright; with having obtained patterns from him, and with
having clandestinely and fraudulently got them printed by
his engraver, then it insinuates that actions were brought,
and an exposure was then threatened, charging, iu effect,
that Mr. Ross had been guilty of the most disgraceful
conduct. My Lord, I have the affidavit of Mr. Ross him-
self, of Mr. Potter, his then partner, and 'of Wright,
the person so supposed to be seduced, showing
that there is not the slightest foundation for this
charge. There is a little mixture of truth, as there
generally is in these cases, but it is wholly perverted.
There was a negotiation between Mr. Ross and Wright.
Which Wright had opened, having stated that he
wished to change his situation, and that he was desir-
ous to go from the service of Coates into the service
of Ross ; and in the course of that communication he
produced some little bits of stuff, to show his compe-
tency, but which, instead of being engraved, were
thrown aside by Mr. Ross, and no use made of them.
The negotiation went off, but it was opened by Wright,
and Mr. Ross merely listened to the application that
Wright had made. So much for the foundation of the
imputation of his trying to,seduce Wright from the service
of Coates, and inducing hitn to disclose the se-
crets of his employers. Then, with respect to
this supposed detection of a violation of pattern,
it certainly happened that Mr. Coates made a complaint
that one point unconnected with the transaction I have re-
ferred to resent'uled one cf which he was proprietor, and
upon that complaiut bcit g made Mr. Ross immediately
desisted from making use of that pattern, but without its
having been at all taken from the patterns which were pro-
duced by Wright, and which patterns lie swears were
pieces of cloth taken from pieces whicli had been in public
sale long before, and open to all the world. Now, my
Lord, under all these circumstances these being no founda-
tion for these charges—

Mr. Justice PAiTESON —YOU may take a rule Mr. At-
toruey.—Rule Nisi granted.

- _
BOW-STREET-(THIS DAY.)

John Black, kecpar of a beer-shop in Pocock's fiel2s,
Islington, was brought before Mr. Twyford, charged on
suspicion with stealing a cash-box, containing 61, and
other property, from the house of Mr. Humphrey, landlord
'or the Pine Apple public-house, Hungerford-street, Strand.
S ergoatat Laurence, P a2id that the robbery
wascommitted in the month of March last, and from inmr.--
ma:ion he had received, he had reason to 132lievo that the
prisoner was concerned in it. He had been cn the look-
out
for him for several months, but was unable to meet
with him until the present time, as he kept out of the way.
Thomas Kinsman proved that he was well acquainted
with the prisoner for the last five or six years, and he re-
collected, about half a year back, a cash-box being
stolen from Mr. Humphrey. Wi ness happened to be
holding a horse at the door, when he saw the prisoner, ac-
conipan'ed by an old man, come out of the house with
something 1 ke a wooden box concealed under the tail of
his coat, and run away. In a few minutes aPer, the pot-
boy came out, and informed him that the cash-box had
just been stolen from behind the counter.

The prisoner said that the witness had preferred the
charge against him through spite, because he had assisted
the police in apprehending his friends for a robbery at the
louse of Mr. Porter, in Lincoln's Inn-fields, about the time
in question, for which they were convicted at the Old
Bailey, and transported. He could procure good bail to
answer the charge at any future day.
Mr. TWYFORD refused to accept of bail, and ordered
him to be brought up again on Tuesday next.
Henry Braniumll, a carman, was brought up for final
examination, charged with stewing two sacks of corn, value
255., the property of Mr. James Muggridge, corn-dealer,
Tottenham-court-road, his master, and Jenny Roberts
with receiving the same, well knowing them to have been
stolen.

It appeared that the male prisoner was sent with forty
sacks of oats, to be delivered in the neighbourhood of
Russell-square, and he was seen by his master to stop at
a house in Chap A-place, Duke-street, Lincoln's-inn-fields,
where the female prisoner was subsequently apprehended,
and take two sacks from the cart, which he emptied there.
On the arrival of the cart at its destination, tl:e two sacks
were found concealed without anything in them.
Mr. TWYFORD ordered him to be fully committed for
trial, and the female to be held to bail to answer the charge
at the next Session of the Central Criminal Court.
There were two other pi i,;oners in custody for the same
offence, but the evidence not being sufficiently strong
against them, they were discharged.
Charles Crouch'', measuring six feet two and a half,
and having the appearance of a coal heaver, was brought
up by Sergeant Chadwick, 2 F, charged on his own eon-
fesqiun with being a deserter from the Queen's Ist Dra-
goon Guards.
The defendant said tint be enlisted in November, 1834,
and deserted ,in the March following.
He was committed to Westminster Bridcweit until a
communication could be made at the Horse Guards.