The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-05 00:00:00

ENING, JANtrAitY at 1847.

Few of our readers probably remember the trial of
an action for libel under the name of " Houldsworth, v.
Gibson," which took place about three weeks ago. A
full report of it appeared in our paper of the 9th of De-
comber, to which we refer those who may wish to re-
fresh their memories on the subject. It was a case pe-
culiarly illustrative of the benefits of Lord Campbell's
amendment of the law, which enables defendants to plead
the truth of their alleged defamations. The libellous
matter was contained in an article published in the Ply-
mouth and Devonport Weekly Journal, and alleged that
certain persons, who had once been members of the
Royal Western Yacht Club, had been expelled that asso-
ciation on the ground of their being blacklegs. It set
forth the proceedings taken by the club previous to the
expulsion, and, commenting upon them, made some se-
vere, but by no means extravagant, remarks upon the
character and conduct of the offending members. Of
these remarks the plaintiff in the present case, who is
one of the ostracized, complained, and with great
appearance of honesty, put his case before the
constitutional tribunal,—a jury of his peers. Tha
newspaper proprietors justified themselves under the
new law, and rested their defence upon the truth of their
assertions. They traced the career of their opponent
and his confederates back for several ears, and found
them in various parts of the continent, and also nearer
home, practising a system of what appeared to be
fraudulent gambling and disgraceful knavery. To prove
these facts at the trial, they were compelled to bring
witnesses from a considerable distance at a great ex-
pense ; and we are informed that their disbursements
for this and other necessary purposes do not in the
whole fall much short of 2,0001. Their labour, however,
was not in vain. The jury took the same view of the

case as the Royal Wcstcrn Yacht Club and the Plymouth
and Devonport Weekly Journal, and declared, in sub-
stance, that the alleged libel was not a defamation, but a
correct description of the plaintiff and his friends. In
other words, their verdict was generally for the defend-
ants. The law, as everybody knows, gives costs to the
successful suitor, whether plaintiff or defendant, for the
double purpose of encouraging the prosecution of honest
demands and of preventing attempts at extortion. The
payment of costs, in principle, may be considered in the
light of a fine imposed upon persons who attempt
to avail themselves of the power of the law to
unworthy ends. It is a fine, too, which can be
enforced by seizure of goods, and, in default of these,
by imprisonment. So far may justice be satisfied. But
whilst the abstract idea is thus fully carried out, the
persons in whom it is developed too often receive but a
very imperfect satisfaction. They are invested with a
right to be reimbursed their expenses incurred against
their will, and in consequence of proceedings to which
the event has proved them not to be amenable ; but the
mere right is sometimes their only compensation. Even
the law cannot sque( ze blood out of a stone, nor make a
man pay money that has not got it. A man of straw, in
hatred and malice, or with a knavish design, or, as in the
case before us, with a desperate attempt to patch up a
broken reputation, may sue any respectable person. He
hardly hopes to get a verdict, and rests contented with the
reflection that he cannot be much the worse for failure,
having nothing to lose ; on the other hand, he may win.
But the defendant in any event, is sure to suffer. If the
verdict passes against him, he has to pay damages and
costs to ; if for him, he escapes 'only the former, for as
to the latter, there is none but lie who can pay. In this
predicament precisely stand the proprietors of the Ply-
mouth newspaper in "Houldsworth u. Gibson." The plain-
tiff is a person, as we are informed, quite unable to pay so
large a sum as 2,0001.; and, if we are to judge from his
manner of life, as disclosed on the trial, he is not very
likely to realise it speedily by professional gaits. Thus,
in fact, though not in theory, the whole expense
falls on the innocent party, contrary to justice, and
directly against the intention of the law. Such a result
is extremely inconvenient, even in a public point of view.
There is no duty of a public journal at once so delicate
and so dangerous as that of exposing fraud or miscon-
duct in individuals. We do not fear the accusation of
partiality or undue regard to self-interest, when we say
that the calm unflinching discharge of this duty is most
essential to the well-being of society, and ought to be
upheld and strengthened by all possible means. It
seldom happens now, whatever may have been done in
former days, that a wilful or malicious libel appears in a
ligTelaleee.woßrsatt cases
palrees
detected and villany frus-
trated public
arenever
n ama
Iporerireno print of
hsoa fen
of
ai
nndsyi tsahrnoceape
eus
st otayft I no en g.
through the agency of newspapers. The public,
we know, can express its graitucle in a fitting manner
.
when once convinced that there good occasion for it.
It seems to us that a good occasion is always apparent
in every case of fraud exposed. Here the Plymouth-
Journal has been the means of showing up a party of
blacklegs (for such the verdict of a jury has pronounced
them to be) who had insinuated themselves into good
society, and who might have done more extensive mis-
chief but for the exposure. The people of Plymouth
and its neighbourhood are, without question, indebted
to them. Yet, for all return, they are mulct in a
sum of 2,0001., and have only the beggar's satisfaction
of being honest men. Surely this is a hard case.—
Times.

SUDDEN DEATH from IMPURE AIR,

Last evening an inquest was held before Mr. W. Payne,
City coroner, at the Red Lion, Shoe-lane, as to the death
of a man, name unknown, aged about 50, who was found
dead in bed, at a miserable lodging at 26, Field-lane, on
Saturday morning last.
The deceased, it appeared had lodged as above about
two months, paying regularly every night 4d. for his
bed. lie was subject to a bad cough, and about five
o'clock, after a violent fit of coughing, was shortly after
found dead.

Dr. Lynch stated that he was called in by City police-
constable 285. Found deceased lying on his back, the
extremities cold. Tried to bleed him; only a small
quantity of dark-coloured blood flowed. Looked
around and saw quite sufficient to account for death.
It was impossible in the room to give proper accom-
modation even to one individual; the fireplace was
closed up, as were also the doors and windows; four
people had slept in the room, when there was evi-
dently insufficient ventilation for one. Most of the
lodging-houses in that locality were very defectively
ventilated; most of them were built over cesspools, and
from the chimneys, doors, and windows being kept con-
stantly closed, the poor creatures who lodged there were
obliged to breathe their own respiration over and over
again, and the effect was the same as breathing the va-
pour of charcoal, as used sometimes by suicides in
France. No doubt the
.impure air had caused a fit, by
which deceased had perished. It was well known, that
for health, a man required. a room containing 1,000 cu-
bic feet of atmospheric and therefore a room should
not be less than 10 feet high, and from eight to ten feet
square, and the chimney open, while in this instance,
that, the only means of ventilation, was closed, and such
was the case in all the lodging-houses in Field-lane and
vicinity. The room in which deceased expired was not
ten feet square.
observed if a fever
s
places, the effects might be
dread ful.
hoTuhlde CbroenaokNE out n,
The jury returned a verdict, " That the deceased died
from natural causes, nccelc.rated by the want of pure
ventilation. The jury at the same time recommend
in
nn
ssuumchming Up,
that the attention of the authorities be drawn to the
subject, so that there be a proper supervision over lodg-
ing-houses."

i of I
wI Dinl Tgt
of
GRATUITOUS
exhibitionso NS
visitorsA tt thiso t
mayh e holi-
day lbei
e:
day season it
:—The British Museum, Great
National Gallery,Ch ' •
Charing-cross.
Russell-street. The
interestingaly)UbljeLtlhCe EfoXl
Royal College of Surgeons, Lincoln's
The Museum of the
IVednesday, and Friday • any
lan-fields ; Monday, . ,
.. ,
can write an order for admission. The
qualified surgeon
inspectedp olme-
tropolis
t o gratuitouslykno ‘rnv that
• from 11 to 3. The Soane Museum,
to the public,
n application for a ticket. The
Lincoln's Inn-fields ; 0 .
East IndialHouse Museum, Leadenhall-street ; Saturday,
London M. • • M Bloom-
field-street,
Missionary Museum, upon application.
fi lds ; a collection of curiosities, the
Moor e
brought from allparts of
Society of Arts, Adelphi ; any day except Wednesday,
results of missionary enterprise . d
the ()lobe ; Saturday, Tuesday, and Thursday. Unite
Entomological Society's Museum, 0:d
member's order.
Tuesday, from 3 to 8 o'clock. Mu-
seumßond-street ; any
Geology, Craig's-court, Charing-
cross ; daily.
71 EsE —Bishop Short },as
SoDOR AND MAN AND HIS —WC •
Asaph, and if there be
been translated to the see of St.
: is fortunate event both for
I, subjoined, it a
AFFECTING FAREWELL BRTWEEN THE. BISHOP OF
My tfirouctit: ,auntcr
himself.() _ n
Saturday last (says the
Liverpool Mercury)* the High Bailiff of Douglas calleda
public meeting of the inhabitants of that town for the
re.
purpose of " voting an address" to the bishop his on
tiring from the Isle of Man. At the hour appointed a
considerable number of persons had assembled at the
Court-house ; the High Bailiff took the chair, read an
address, which he said he had prepared, and without
ever putting it to the vote, or offering or receiving any
resolution for its adoption or rejection, called upon those
present to sign it. About thirty persons having signed,
Mr. Fargher objected to the address going forth as the
act of a public meeting of the inhabitants of Douglas,
unless it were put to the vote. The High Bailiff denied
that the meeting was called for any other purpose than
to sign the address, and upon Mr. Fargher attempting
to argue the matter, ordered the court to be cleared by
the public officer. This being done, the parties so un-
ceremoniously ejected assembled outside, and carried
unanimously a resolution declining to vote an address to
Bishop Short. The reasons given were, that the Bishop
had always identified himself with the opponents of a
representative Government; that in ecclesiastical ap-
pointments ha had appointed young men ignorant of the
Manx language as pastors,
passing oxer Manx clergy-
men who had been curates for many years; that he had
failed to exert himself for the restoration of Bishop
Barrow's charity funds to their designed use—popular
parochial education throughout the island; that he had
originated the late Marriage and Registry Bill, which
was offensive to a great portion of the community; that
in one of his late published charges he expressed the
belief that the instructions of Dissenters to Sabbath
schoolchildren were seeding these innocents by thou-
sands to destruction; and that he had refused to ordain
1 the son of the late vicar of Braddan.
CHALK AND COAL FIRES !—The practical utility
of chalk as an article of fuel has been tested within the
last fortnight, according to a Salisbury paper, and with
the most satisfactory results. Surrounded with coal, it
gives a strong heat, and a clear fire, at half the usual
expense; so that to the poor in the chalk districts it
must be an invaluable boon.—The Builder.
SIGNS OF INCREASING CivlLlSATlON.—Drinking
less wine—subscribing for a monument to Shakspeare—
admiring the cuts, but cutting the jokes of Punch, and
visiting the Establishment of the Messrs. Ross and Sons,
of Bishopsgate-street, and selecting from their New In-
nations, articles for the Toilet, as Byron says—
,6 To keep you beautiful or leave you neat."

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
John Satchell, one of the officers of the palace-court,
surrendered to take his trial for wilful and corrupt
perjury.

Mr. Clarkson and Mr. Charnock prosecuted, and Mr.
tallantine appeared for the defendant.
The prosecutor of this indictment was a person named
Thomas Foulkes, and it appeared that some time in last
year an action had been brought against him in one of
the superior Courts of Westminster, and in due course,
judgment obtained for the amount of the debt and costs.
In pursuance of the provisions of a recent Act of Parlia-
ment, an application was,pubsequently made to the
palace-court for a summons against Foulkes, to show
cause why the amount should not be paid, and this Act
requires that this summons should be served upon the
party personally, and in default of his appearing or pay-
ing the amount of the debt and costs, the palace, court is
empowered to commit the party for forty days to
gaol. The summons having been granted on the usual
form, it was intrusted to tho defendant to serve upon
Foulkes, and he afterwards made an affidavit that he
served it upon him personally, on the 4th August. No
notice was taken of the summons, and the Court granted
an order for the committal of Foulkes, and he was taken
to llorsemonger-lane gaol, where he was kept for four
days, when he paid the debt and costs, and was dis-
charged from custody. The present indictment was
founded upon the affidavit of the service of the summons
upon Foulkes by the defendant, and the case fur the
prosecution was that no such service was made on the day
in question, and that the affidavit had been corruptly
made by the defendant. The evidence for the pros,-
cation went to show that, on the 4th of August, the
evening of which day the defendant swore in his affi-
davit that he had served the summons personally upon
Foulkes while he was riding upon an omnibus at Ken-
nington-cross. Foulkes had gone down to the as,iaes at
Guildford, where an action was pending in which he
was a party, and that he remained in that town the
whole day, and did not get back to the terminus at Nine
Elms until nearly nine o'clock and that after this hour
he was engaged with some of his witnesses in taking re-
freshment at two public-houses, and did not get to his
own house until over eleven o'clock at night, and the
prosecutor swore positively that the summons was not
served on him. In confirmation of this statement seve-
ral witnesses were examined, among whom were Mr.
itickley, his attorney, his clerk, and another attorney
named Burns •, and they swop positively that they
were with him the whole day, and Mr. Bick-
ley, in addition, said that he accompanied him
to his own house, and they all declared that no process
was served upon him. In addition to these facts, a
witness named Bridges was called, who stated that he was
riding in the omnibus belonging to the defendant's bro-
ther at the time named in the affidavit, and that the de-
fendant served him with the summons, mistaking him
'or Mr. Foulkes. Upon the cross-examination of the
witnesses, the prosecutor admitted that he had been en-
gaged in a great deal of litigation, and that upon a
former occasion, when a similar proceeding took place
in the palace-court with regard to a judgment that had
been obtained against him, he then represented that he
had never received any summons, but, upon inquiry, no
effect was given to that representation, and he was com-
pelled to pay the debt and costs.
Mr. BALLANTINE, on the part of the defendant, made
some severe remarks upon the casuistry of the witnesses
for the prosecution, and he called a witness who deposed,
that at the time mentioned by the defendant, he saw
Foulkes riding in the omnibus, and that he really was
the party upon whom the process was served.' It ap-
peared, however, that it was dusk at the time, and that
the witness had a very imperfect opportunity of ohserv-
hig the person who was in the omnibus, whom he sup-
posed to be the prosecutor. A number of respectable
witnesses gave the defendant a good character.
The RECORDER, on summing up, said that if the only
question the jury had to consider was upon which side
the evidence preponderated, he apprehended they would
not feel any difficulty in coming to the conclusion that
the case for the prosecution was supported by very
strong and positive evidence, while there was every
reason to suppose that the principal witness for the de-
fence might be mistaken. If the issue also was whether
the witnesses for the prosecution were perjured, he must
say that he did not think they would be justified in com-
ing to that conclusion upon the facts as they appeared,
but if, on the other hand, they believed that the de-
fendant had made a mistake as to the identy of the pro-
secutor, he would not have committed the offence of
wilful and corrupt perjury, and upon that ground they
would be justified in acquitting him.
The jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict
of Not Guilty, the foreman stating that they were of
opinion the defendant did not wilfully swear what was
false, but that he was mistaken in the person of the man
upon whom he served the process.
The RECORDER said he thought this was very likely
to have been the case.

Mr. CLARKSON then applied for the expenses of the
prosecution, which the Court ordered to be allowed, the
Recorder observing that it was a very proper case for in-
quiry.

NEW COURT.
(Before Mr. Commissioner BULLOCK, Alderman

MUSGROVE, &O. &C.)
EMBEZZLEMENT.— William Hughes, a young man of
respectable appearance, surrendered on an indictment
charging him with embezzling and stealing in August
and September last the SUM 3 of 51. and 41. 14s. id., the
property of John Rose, his master.
Mr. Doane defended the prisoner.
Mr. Cwormsos stated the case for the prosecution, and
named a further sum than the above stated in the indict-
ment. Mr. O'Brien examined the witnesses.
It appeared that the prisoner had for some time been
in the confideiatal employ of the proscutor, who carries
on business in Ratcliff. Ho was authorised by him to
receive moneys on his account, which it was his duty to
pay in on the same day, or on the first opportunity. In
September several defalcations took place, and early in
the next month a magisterial inquiry was instituted,
and the prisoner was liberated on bail, but a bill of in-
dictment was preferred. It was proved that he had re-
ceived, among others, the sum of 91. odd, which had
not been paid over in the usual way.
In his cross••examination by Mr. DOANE, the prosecu-
tor admitted that he had expressed regret that these
proceedings were instituted.
Witnesses were called to prove the payments.
Mr. DOANE addressed the jury, and warmly expa.
tiated on the previous good character which the prisoner
had long borne, and observed that the prisoner admitted
and deeply regretted that he had done wrong. Mr.
Doane submitted that he was an agent, and not a ser-
vant, as required by Act of Parliament.
Mr. O'BRIEN was of a contrary opinion, and then re-
ferred the Court to the statute.
Mr. Commissioner BULLOCK retired to consult the
Recorder upon the paint in dispute, and on his return
he made some further inquiries of Mr. Rose, the prose-
cutor, as to the nature of his engagement with prisoner.
The Learned JUDGE told Ur. Doane he might as well
proceed with his observations, and he was understood to
say, that if it became necessary the point should be re-
served.

The Learned Counsel having done so, called several
respectable persons, principally law writers and sta-
tioners, who gave the prisoner a very excellent character
for the last ten years.
Mr. Commissioner BULLOCK summed up the evidence,
and the jury returned a verdict of Acquittal, and the pri-
soner departed with his numerous friends.
Several cases of no interest were disposed of, and the
Court adjourned at five o'clock.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.

John Swallow, the foreman of the tailors in the ser-
vice of Mr. Pigott, army contractor, Fore-street, was
brought before Mr. Alderman Sidney, charged with
robbing his employer.
Mr. Hobler defended the prisoner.
Mr. Pigott stated, that in consequence of receiving
an anonymous letter, addressed to him at his country
residence, he stopped the prisoner as he was about to
leave at half-past six o'clock on Saturday. Witness ob-
served there was something bulky in his pockets, and
asked him what he had there. The prisoner replied it
was his own property. Witness desired to see what he
had, adding, that if he was honest he would not care.
The prisoner pulled from each pocket a short length of
linen, measuring six yards each. He asked the pri-
soner how he came by it. He said he bought it of a
man named Roberts, who worked for Mr. Kaye, slop-
seller, in Aldersgate-street ; that he was to give him 4s.
for it (about half its value) ; and that he was waiting
outside for the money. The porter was sent out, but
no person answering to the name or description was
there.

Mr. Alderman SIDNEY asked how long he had been
in employ, and what wages he earned ? Mr. Pigott
said he was a cutter, and he gave him 265. per week.
He had been in his employ ten years. At the prisoner's
lodgings he found some cuttings in cotton and linen,
which he presumed had been carried off by the prisoner,
from their texture corresponding with that used in the
army work.
Mr. Hobler asked if there was any mark on the
12 yards of linen by which he could swear to it ?
Mr. Pigott said there was not, but it exactly
matched the linen used in the business. He produced
a pattern.
Mr. Alderman SYDNEY asked if he could speak to
missing 12 yards or any greater quantity ? Mr. Pigott
said he could not rnies it. It would be within the duty
of the prisoner, if required, to keep an account of the
quantity used. He had cut up many thousands of yards,
but had not been required to keep an account.
Mr. Hobler urged that the case only amounted to one
of having possession of property, and not satisfactorily
accounting for it. He believed Mr. Pigott had pressed
the case with great sorrow, Qnd had no wish to see the
prisoner convicted at the Old Bailey.
Mr. Alderman SYDNEY, after some consideration, said
a summary conviction would amount to a severe punish-
ment. It would deprive his family for a time of his
earnings, and reduce them to distress, and it would
brand his character, and star.d in the way of his ob-
taining or keeping employment hereafter. It would
be long before he would regain his position in society.
He adjudged him to be imprisoned two months in
Bridewell.