The Sun.
London, England, 1840-08-31 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY, AUGUST 31, 1840.

-.r-

BKENTFORD PETTY SESSION

A decisicn of considerable importance to licensed
victuallers, residing within the jurisdiction of the Me-
tropolitan Police, was on Fi ilay come to by Colonel
Ciitherow, Rev. Dr. Walmeslev, and Messrs. Pownall,
Baillie, and Turner, the Sitting Magistrates.
On the 22d inst., Mr. Halford, of the Chequers
public-house, in the Twickenham•road, and Mr. Break-
well, the proprietor of the Coach and Horses Inn, at
Brentford-end, were summoned at the instance of the
police under the New Police Act (2d and 3d Vie.,
cap. 47. sec. 42), for having their houses open for the
sale of beer, &c., before one o'clock in the forenoon of
Sunday, the 16th inst., whereby they had each incurred
a penalty not exceeding 51.

• Tile police proved that at twenty minutes past eleven
o'clock on the day in question there were five vans and
two light chaise-carts standing at the door of the de-
fendant Halford, and in the bar parlour were seven
men and one woman, none of whom were, however,
drinking, but up stairs were six men and four women,
who had two pots on the table containing malt liquor.
There were also empty pots. On corning: down stairs
they told Halford he was serving, which he admitted.
The horses in the vans were having hay and water.
The defendant Breakwell admitted having served the
persons who came in vans to his house on the day
specified.

Mr. Sleap, a solicitor, who attended for both defend-
ants, denied that his clients had committed any offence.
The clause in the Act under which the defendants were
summoned, made an exemption in favour of travellers,
of which class were the persons who were found in the
defendants' houses. The vans were on their way from
town to Hampton Court, and as many of them came
from the eastern end of the metropolis, he confidently
contended the persons who came with t hem were
travellers" to all intents and purposes, to the extent
contemplated in the Act.
The BENCH, however, entertained a different opi-
nion, conceiving that persons who left their houses and
hired vans for the purposes of pleasure, were not
" travellers," as contemplated by the Ley,islature in pass-
ing the Act, but that if they required refreshment be-
fore the hour allowed for the opening of public-houses,
they must provide themselves with it previously.
The final decision on the point was ultimately de-
ferred for a week.

On Saturday the Court was crowded by licensed
victuallers, and others interested in the matter. On the
case being called on,
Mr. Sleap again addressed the Bench, who convicted
Mr. Halford in the sum of 635. and costs.
Mr. Halford immediately entered into three securi-
ties of 401. each, to appeal to the Quarter Session, that
the point may be decided.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

BO W-STREET.

SPEEDY JUSTlCE.—Elizabeth Eddington was brought
up on the following charge shopman to Mr. Wa-
pelt, stated that on Saturday morning the prisoner came
to his employer's shop and offered a shawl in pledge.
He saw a ticket on the corner of it with the name of
Lamb, a neighbouring pawnbroker, upon it, and ques-
tioned the prisoner as to how she came possessed of it,
when she replied that she bought it at Mr. Lamb's ;
but on his taking down a bill which is weekly sent
round to the different pawnbrokers, giving a description
of various articles that have been stolen, to see if the
shawl in question was mentioned in it, the prisoner sud-
denly bolted out of the shop ; he, however, followed her
and gave her in charge to a policeman.
One of Mr. Lamb's shopmen proved that the shawl
had been stolen from his master's shop a few minutes
before the prisoner was taken into custody.
The prisoner, in defence, said she had been requested
to pawn the shawl by a woman with whom she had but
a slight acquaintance, and that on the first witness
questioning her about it she thought there was sometbing
wrong, and ran out of the shop to find the woman who
had given her the shawl to pledge, but before she could
do so was taken into custody.
The prisoner was committed for trial. The whole
transaction, from the time the rolebery was committed
to that of the prisoner's committal, did not occupy more
than half an hour.

and the following case was proved against him :—The
prisoner went to an old lady, a friend of the family, and
telling her that his father could not immediately makz., up
a sum of money to send his grandfather to ScotlanA, ob-
tained of her 10s. on this plea.—He was fully committed
for trial.

John Lambert, an Irishman, was charged with the
following violent assault upon Daniel \Vence :—The
complainant and defendant were employed in John-
ston's stone-yard, Westminster, and on Saturday morn-
ing some of the workmen were jeering the former,
upon which he took up a block of granite weighing
more than SOlbs., and threw it at Wence's head. For-
tunately the stone fell on the poor fellow's shoulder ;
he must have been killed on the spot if it had hit
head.

The MAGISTRATE reprobated the prison -2r's brutal
conduct, and fined him 51., or two months' imprison-
ment.

LAMBETH-STREET.
Henry Ploughait, an officer of the K division, but
who is acting as a servant of the Blackwall Railway
Company, appeared, by order of the Commissioners of
Police, to answer the complaint or J. D. Norton,
Esq., the Chancery barrister, of Old•square, Lincoln's-
inn.

Mr. Norton stated that he, his son, and another gen-
tlemen, accompanied his nephew to Blackwall on the
18th instant, and o❑ their return the defendant went
up to his nephew, who had just entered the station with
a cigar in his mouth, and pulled it forcibly from him,
burning his hand with it. Mr. Norton expostulated
with him, when he jeeringly took a pinch of snuff before
him in a very insolent manner

The solicitor who appeared for the defendant stated
the man did not take snuff, upon which Mr. Norton
said his going through the action of so doing in the
manner he did was more offensive still. The metropo-
litan police were taking tickets, and acting the same as
paid servants of the Company.
Mr. Norton, jun., who gave his evidence with some
warmth, confirmed his father's statement. On his
cross-examination he admitted that the policeman told
him that no smoking was allowed on the premises, but
not in a civil manner.
The solicitor asked why the young gentleman who
had the cigar taken from him was not there ?
Mr. Norton said because he had sailed for Calcutta.
A clerk in the station said that the policeman
was a very civil man, and did nothing at all offensive
to the gentlemen in his presence.
The MAGISTRATE looked at the Railway Act, and,
finding that it was forbidden to smoke either on the
premises or in the carriages, under a penalty of five
pounds, dismissed the case.

UNION-HA L L.
In the course of the day a young female, resembling
the Queen, applied for a warrant against her husband,
under the following circumstances':—The applicant stated
that she was married on the same day as the Queen's
nuptials were solemnized, and that in three months
afterwards she was compelled to leave her husband, in
consequence of his ill-treatment of her. That since
their separation she had placed herself under the pro-
tection of it gentleman, who provided her with apart-
ments in Stamford-street, and that she neither applied
for nor wanted assistance from the man to whom she was
married. On Friday night she went to bed at her usual
time, and was awoke by the noise occasioned by the
lifting up the sash of her windows, which she forgot to
fasten when she retired to rest. At the same moment
her husband jumped through the window in•o the
room, and insisted upon remaining there, urging
his claim as husband, declaring that no power
should remove him. She tried to eject him, but finding
that her strength was not sufficient fiar the purpose, shy•
then alarmed the house, but no one would interfere, es
the interloper was her husband ; and he having assaulted
her, she now wanted a warrant against him. She added
that she wanted the process seived as soon as possible,
as she wanted to go to Windsor.
As the applicant bore a strong resemblance to the
Queen in the face, she was asked what she was going
to do at Windsor, and from her reply it was gathered
that ever since her marriage she was in the habit of
going to Windsor when her Majesty was there, but for
what purpose she refused to disclose. From subsequent
conversation with her it was evident that she was labour-
ing under the delusion that she was nearly allied to
royalty, and that she frequently placed herself in pro-
minent situations when the Queen and Prince Albert
were together, in order to attract their attention.
The MAGISTRATE granted the application.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—LirEapoor., Aua. 29.
HEARNE, CLERK V. STOWELL, CLERK.
This was an action for libel, brought by the Catholic
priest of St. Patrick's, Manchester, against the Rev.
Hugh Stowell, Protestant minister of Christchurch, in
the same city. The case seemed to excite great interest.
Mr. DUNDAS, for the plaintiff, stated the facts of
the case. On the 28th of April last a meeting was
held at Manchester to petition against the grant to
Maynooth. The defendant was Chairman, and was
received with loud acclamations. He noticed this
but to show the great power this gentleman possessed
either for good or evil. He addressed the audi-
ence, and spoke for about half an hour, princi-
cipally against Maynooth. fie came at last to the
subject of the present action, and said he would
give an instance of the truth of what he had asserted.
He gave it from a document he held in his hand,of which
he said that it had been given him by a person whose
name he would not disclose, unless the Papists required
proof, when that proof would be given. He said, " I
will just give you a specimen of what these priests in-
doctrinated at Maynooth teach these poor creatures
in reference to the way of salvation, how they grind
them down and debase almost as low as the beasts that
perish." He then proceeded to charge on Mr. Hearne
that he enjoined a penance on some poor person of so
disgraceful a character that had he done so it would
not only have degraded him in the estimation of society,
but deprived hies beyond a doubt of his benefice. He
ea e nn to prove.
she The
proceeded. L ear nd
ItCoun-
sel
ra ncame with this accusation cut and dry, and read it
out of a document which, at the proper time, he
said
then proceeded to read the statement of the de-
fendant,e w
'
commenting preparedm tig e it as
give
not believe
lie
I ve
will
itll ;
not but
nien_
the
thus :—" The circumstance which I am Doing to nar-
rate did not occur in Ireland, in the darkness of Popery
there ; but here, in Manchester, in the midst of
all our
daylight.
witnesses are prepared to come forward and
prove the
iant nr
I would will perhapsie it to yol d
not g
tion their names, lest it. should expose them to persecu-
tion ; but if the Papists choose to conic foe ward end
demand the evidence, that evidence is forthcoming, j
hear in my hand, then, a document subscribed by three
of the police of Manchester; one is not a po.iceman
at
the presery, moment, but he was at the time thac he
Furnished this document. lie states that he was a po-
liceman then, in Smedley-lane, and that one morning,
fortnight before that period, a dyer, going to his work,
asked me if I had seen a man walking on his hands and
knees the two last nights. I said that I had not, but
that I had seen him doing it the last two mornings,
and that I at first thought he was making his es-
cane, or concealing himself from some pu-sui e 4,
bet that I subsequently took him for a Cripp:e."
Who was this myste eous person? In about ten
minutes after this, the dupe (these are the wit-
ness's own words) made his appearance, crawling with
his hands and knees on the roug :est part of the
pavement. I then resalved to satisfy myself, when I
elicited the following answers from him :—I askr.d
' What are you doi ig all that about? It is penance
for my sins.—( Hear, and laughter.) I am more dls.
posed to wt es than to laugh, my dear It Bids ; for
allow me to ?ay I lament that a man should think that
he was saving his soul, and suffering the work of the
Lamb of Gcd, by thus degrading himself under the
,k)a n of a Popish Priest. I say I deeply lament it.
Could you not atone for your sins without doing that ?''
' No.' " Why ?" " Because e priest will not ad-
minister the sacrament to meat ill I have done it."
How long have you done it ?" " Four days." " How
many days more will it take you before you finish ?"
I cannot tell." " But when will you go to your
priest to know ?" When I have done it nine days
more I shall go." " How many hours do you do it
each day ?" At one time ?" " No,
" Four hours."
two in the morning, and two at night." " Do you work
at anything? " I work in a factory." Poor fellow !
working in a factory for twelve hours a day, and then drag-
gring on his hands and knees over the rough stones for four
hours a-day more. The priest should have taken his
place and done it for him. Who is your priest?'
Mr. Hearne.' What chapel do you go to?' St.
Patrick's.' is
What our- name'?' 'John O'Hara.'
You had better come on the path or go into that
field, where it will be softer and easy for you ?" Oh,
no; that will not be doing
penance.' We now looked
at his knees, which were
much lacerated. We ex-
postulated with him, but it was of no avail. He said
he was a great sinner. We insisted on his desisting,
but he resisted violently, took the sergeant's stick front
It was with great
him, and laid on us with it furiously. I
difficulty that we succeeded in subduing him, when I
deprived him of his beads, his crucifix, and The Gar.
den of the Soul,' which are now at the police station.
The undersigned police constables are ready to give
testimony of this." This was, the Learnednsel
went on to say, the libel of which the plaintiffcom-
plained, and the statement in it, he need hardly
Counsel
te
them, was utterly false. Mr. Hearne
never
the sacra-
any such debasing penance ;he never interdicted enjoined
ment to John O'Hara, or any one else,
honi s suchchurc grounds.and
He could not do so by the discipline of
'The Learned
if he did would be liable to be degraded.
Counsel proceeded to read and comment on the condo.
sion of the matter charged as libellous and then said--
;
Mr. Hearne was at that time a) Ireland, but the
, ,
moment the accusation came to his knowledge he took
steps to clear his character. Oa the 6th of May he
wrote to his attorney, Mr. G!bson, to take immediate
steps to refute the charge. Mr. Gibson wrote to Mr.
Stowell, who had said a week before that at the proper
time and place he would come forward and prove all

that he had said. This letter referred to the report in
the Mane!tester Courier, asking if it were correct, and
if ouch a slecunele_ .t reported had been read et
the meeting. Mr. Stowell, it would seem, was absent,
and did not receive that letter. Mr. Gibson, two days
after repeated the application, referred to what Mr.
Stowell had said of his readiness to prove what
he had stated, asked for a copy of the original
document, and the appointment of time and
place for the production of the original. An an-
swer was received on the 12th from Mr. Goulden, Mr.
Stowell's attorney in London, saying that Mr. Stowell
had received the letter, and that the report in the
Courier was as usual, from the rapidity with which the
Rev. Gentleman spoke, extremely incorrect, but that
the document was correctly given. Notice had been
given to produce that document, and it would, it ap-
peared, be produced. The letter concluded by re-
questing that any further communications might be
addressed to him (the attorney). Mr. Gibson wrote
in reply, asking if he was to deem this communication
final, or whether Mr. Stowell would point out what
part of this report was correct. The letter received
in reply stated teat Mr. Stowell was willing to enter
into any explanation, and, if he had been led into any
mistake, fully and frankly to acknowledge it ; but in the
present instance, application had been made through a
solicitor, and questions had been proposed, which might
lead to consequences of great importance, though not
material to the merits of the case. At the same time
it declared that Mr. Stowell entertained a firm conviction
that Mr. Gibson's client was perfectly conscious of the
substantial truth of the allegations against hug, so that,
twenty days after making this charge false from first to
last, he reiterates the miserable story, and puts it to
Mr. Hearn that he is guilty, and knows that he is
guilty. The latter declined to give any other answer,
" as Mr. Stowell held himself prepared to prove before
any legal tribunal the gener it truth of what he has
stated." But he had put no justification on the record.
He did not say in this action, on the pleadings, that the
story was true ; but he said merely that he was not
guilty ; that is, either that he did not speak the words
imputed, or did not speak them in the sense imputed.
The letter went on, it would seem, to say, " Mr. Stowell
did not entertain the slightest particle of personal feeling
egainst Mr. Hearne." Now, this was too bad. If he
(the Learned Counsel), who never saw Mr. Stowell,
were to pick up this night in the street some miserable
story dishonouring his character and endangering his
benefice, and retail this in every company, professing to
have documents which would prove its truth, what
would be said if when it was proved to be utterly false
it should be said in reply, " Oh, there was not the slightest
particle of personal feeling against Mr. Stowell ?" The
law presumes malice. If a man fires a pistol into a
crowd, certain to kill some one, will it be urged the per-
son who fires it has no malice against the man he mur-
ders. If a man slander and traduce another he has ill-will
and malice against that other. He must be taught to
keep his tongue in order, and if he has allowed his
zeal to outrun his discretion he must take the con-
sequences. The Learned Counsel proceeded to state
that he would put in the witness-box high authorities in
the Church of Rome to show that the penance said to
be imposed by Mr. Hearne was contrary to the dis-
cipline of the Church, and that if he refused the sacra-
ment to any of his flock for not performing it he would
be deprived of his benefice. It would be for the
other side to make their defence. It would not surely
be contended that this was within the limits of fair dis-
cussion. If so, eo man was safe. He need not expa-
tiate on the value of character, especially to a gentle-
man of the sacred profession of the plaintiff. The
plaintiff came before them and placed that character, as
he would place his life, in the hands of the Jury, well
:Assured that in the sacred halls of justice rich and poor,
Protestant and Catholic, met on equal terms, and that
they would give as gentlemen such damages as a gen-
tleman had a right to ask in reparation for a most se-
rious injury.
The reporter was then put in the box, but by con-
sent the speech of Mr. Stowell was read: from the
newspaper, except that portion which referred to the
document which lie read.
This being called for was produced by the counsel
for the defendant. It was a statement signed by three
police officers at Manchester, and addressed to Mr.
Pratt, a printer, in Manchester.
Mr. Cresswell said he did not, unless his Learned
Friend desired it, wish the whole of the remainder of
Mr. Stowell's speech to be read. He would only ask
the clerk to read the last paragraph, in which Mr.
Stowell disclaimed all feeling of enmity towards the
Roman Catholics.
The Rev. James Crook was then called. He stated
he was senior priest at St. Augustine's, in Manchester,
and knew the plaintiff, who is senior priest at St. Pa
trick's. He had been so fourteen years. He is much
respected, No individual priest has power to impose
such a penance as that stated to have been imposed by
him. Such a statement would, in the opinion of the
witness, i., calculated to bring him into odium and dis-
repute. If a Roman Catholic clergyman imposed such
a penance his Bishop would interfere, and would have
the power to deprive him of his benefice.
In cross-examination, the witness stated that the
priests have the power of imposing penances, but not
such as would degrade a man, either before the public
or in his own eyes. They have no power to impose a
penance by crawling on the ground. He knew of no
custom to impose such penances. Penances are partly
medicinal and partly in satisfaction for sin, but solely
in connexion with the merits of Christ. It is the
opinions of some divines that priests imposing small
penances for great offences become partakers of other
men's sins. That is a matter of opinion, by which lie
was not bound. The canons of the Council of Trent
are of authority in the Church in doctrinal matters.
The Learned Counsel was proceeding to put some
questions to the witness on points of doctrine connected
with these canons, who declined to answer them, on the
ground that they would require a careful collation of
many passages of the canons.
His LORDSHIP said he thought they were treading
on difficult and dangerous ground, and he could not say
that the witness was bound to answer the question, or
that it bore on the point at issue.
The witness, in reply to other questions, stated that
a priest had power to forgive sins under the words of
Christ—that the penance for each sin was much in the
discretion of the priest, whose authority in the matter
was somewhat similar to that of a parent over a child.
As a matter of ecclesiastical history he knew that many
persons were held up as objects of admiration in the Ca-
tholic Church who had infite .ed extraordinary penances
on themselves, but it was not on account of these pe-
nances, but on account of their general piety and good
works. On re-examination he stated the penances en.
joined by the Church are prayer, fasting, almsgiving, and
practice of self-denial.

Dr. John Hanlon, professor of theology a• May-
nooth, and Dr. John Murdock, Roman Catholic Bishop
in Scotland, gave a similar account of the doctrines of
the Church.

Mr. CRESSWELL for the defence said, the object of
this action was to suppress free discussion by the Pro-
testant people of the doctrines of the Church of Rome,
with reference to the College of Maynooth• He did not
seek to enter into theo:ogical discussion ; but they had
ample materials from tne evidence which had neon laid
before them to show that Mr. Stowell had acted only as
every Englishman might do, as any conscientious clergy-
man might think it his duty to do—come forward to op.
pose a grant to a college in which he believed doc-
trines were inculcated which might well alarm a cleri.:)-
roan of the Protestant Establishment. No one could
for a moment believe that Mr. Stowell acted otherwise
t.ia❑ in sincerity and truth ; and he put:the case on the
ground that Mr. Stowell acted bona fide, for the pur-
pose of warning against the errors of the Church of
Rome, and in the Fut! belief of the truth of what he
stated. The document itself fully exonerated the de-

His LORDSHIP, in summing up, saidithe simple ques-
tion before them was, whether the plaintiff had esta-
blished his alleged ground of complaint against the de-
fendant. With a great part of the defendant's speech
no fault conld be found ; but the plaintiff complained
thatopportunity had been taken in that speech to libel him
personally, and to say that of him which would degrade
his character No man had a right to come to a public
meeting to say anything libellous of an individual, and
then justify it by saying, " Some one put the statement
into myband, and I thought it true." The plaintiff would
be entitled to a verdict. As to the amount of damages,
they would look at all the circumstances. He thought
they would be of opinion that Mr. Stowell was acting at
least with sincerity in the matter, and he thought they
should take care not to allow their feelings for the
plaintiff to lead them into giving excessive damages on
the occasion.

The Jury consulted a few minutes, and returned a
verdict for the plaintiff.—Damages 40s.

On Saturday afternoon, a tragical occurrence
took place at Messrs. Pellatt's glass factory, in Holland-
street, Blackfriar's. A workman, named Vincent, resid-
ing at No. 10, Brunswick-street, was in the act of sweep-
ing up some coke, when a fellow-workman, named Shee,
took the broom from him. Vincent, after a struggle, suc-
ceeded in regaining possession of the broom, upon which
Shee observed, " I will serve you out," and immediately
picked up a brick and hurled it at Vincent. The missile
struck Vincent on the spine, and he immediately staggered
and fell down lifeless on the ground. The fellow-work-
men of Shee called in the police, and he was apprehended
on the charge of murder.
HOP INTELLIGENCE.— WORCESTER, AUG.
28 —Our Hop trade was brisk at Saturday's market last,
at the undermentioned currency. The duty is estimated
at 3001., and the present warm weather is very favourable
for bringing the hops to perfection ; and, although the
quantity will be small, the quality will be good. Prices.
! per cwt. :-1839, from 100 s. to 1403.; choice, 1603. to
1893. ; yearlings and 1537, from 9th. to 1263.
EGYPT.—One of our private letters from Cairo,
dated 3d inst., states that the " sidemnity of the inv,nd,„
tion of the Nile, when its waters have riZeil to a certain
height, and are let into the canals through which they are
conveyed over the acjoining country, was celebrated this
year with extraordinary pomp. Under Providence the
most spler.di..t crops are assured to us,"