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

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME CIRCUIT.--:-Kingston, April 3.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Lord DEximaN and a Special

Jury.)
CHADWICK V. HERAPATH.
This was a writ of inquiry to assess the damages for a
[be! upon Mr. Chadwick, the chairman of the North

Wales. Railway, and who also filled the same office in
the Richmond Railway, which libel was published in
Herapath's Railway Journal of the 13th of June, 1846.
_ _

The defendant pleaded that he had not been actuated
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
demurrer held the plea to be insufficient, and the present
writ of inquiry was therefore issued to assess the amount
of damages to which the plaintiff was entitled.
Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. Peacock were 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

deputyy-chairm—an 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
ditlicultits, and the South-Western were to pay 4 per
cent. for the use of the money, the shareholders in the
Ncrth Wales scheme receiving the same amount of into-

rest upon their deposits. The South-Western Com-
pany refused the money, and the amount, with an addi-
tional sum of 5,0001., was then advanced by the North
Wales to the Richmond Company, at an interest of 4i
per• cent. This transaction formed the subj' et of the
present inquiry, for it seemed that soon afterwards a
letter appeared in Herapath's Journal, professiug.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 the 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 bad 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 jourrarlie exptesssed his re-
gret that the letter had been-inserted in.ale hurry of
business, and also at the.offensire observations made use

of. Some further comsunicatiores )94. IR between
the plaintiff's solicitors and AhwielFild and the
latter repeatedly offered to insert any statement of the
real circumstances of the transaction in contradiction of
the libtllous 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
pr. seeding.
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-
'lend or 4 per cent. for their money, which would other-
wise have been locked up at their banker', s and not 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 etteh share upon which only
101. had been paid originally.
Mr. Sergeant SUEE, 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 for which there was no foundation what-
ever, and, whatever might be the result of the action,
the pleintiff would leave the court vvithout 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
libelahat might be furnished him by Mr. Chadwick.
This, however, was not done, but ho 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 later of Ryan Griffiths, he
received a communication from the solicitors of Mr.
Bulkeley 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, sad 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, he 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 DFNMAN, 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 libelous 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 pita.
The jury would, however, look at all the circumstances,
and say what damages the plaintiff was entitled to fur
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 Madan, 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 Wildo 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 for the defendant,
Mr. Sergeant Talfourd replied for the plaintiffs. His
Lordship summed up, and the jury foind for the plain-
tiffs for the full amount of damages &alined.
The next and last case on the list was withdrawn, after
anineffectual 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. Wbateley, with
whom was Sir T. Phillips, on behalf of the defendants.
Ms 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
eases 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 4
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 May, or, charged
with hating 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
some time ago begun their predatory career by stealing
any trifling property exposed at shop doors i • they then
aimed at silk handkerchiefs in the pockets of gentlemen,
and they ascended from that practice to the more diffi-
cult one of stealing the purses of ladies. After having
made many attempts without success, ono of them re-
ceived. a-severe slap in the face from a lady whose pocket
he turned inside out. They were then taken into cus-
tody, but the lady seemed to think the chastisement she
had inflicted quite enough, and refused to attend the
justice-room. An empty purse was found in the pocket
of one of them. _ .

The prisoner: said the police were mistaken.
An officer, who had upon a former occasion appre-
hended one of the boys, said, upon seeing him in the
cage, " What lis it you again 2' " Ay, ay, old fellow,"
replied the boy, "lam in for ' a skin' "(a purse). The
boy's father, one Spurrier, upon being spoken to on the
subject, said,
"There's not a greater thief in London
than my son. and I hope he'll be transported for life."
Thr mother of the boy said, that until within the last
seven or eight months her son was as good a child as
ever lived,
but he happened to get into bad compan)
and a as charged with robbery, after which he was placed