The Sun.
London, England, 1840-11-05 00:00:00

MADDEFORD V. AUSTWICK.

The Court was occupied the whole of the morning with
the further arguments upon this motion, which has now
been before the Court three days. The case was no: con-
cluded when we went to press.

QUEEN'S BENCH-(THIS DAY.)

(In Baoco.)
THE QUEEN V. RICHARD DUNN.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL appeared this morning to show
cause against the application of the defendant. He said
he felt a little difficulty in addressing their Lordships on
the present occasion. It was a reproach to the law that
persons seeking protection, like Miss Coutts Burdett,
should be forced to resort to proceedings like the present.
It was with extreme reluctance that she appeared before
the Magistrates at Sessions that morning, in order that
she might not be exposed to further annoyance from Mr.
Dunn, Her sole object was to enjoy the rights and privi-
leges anis .riinutii,ies of a British subject. He hoped their
Lordships would come to the same conclusion as Mr. Justice
Bosanquet, who was of opinion that there was no grounds
for the present application. It would be for their
Lordships to say whether there were any grounds for
the exhibition of the articles in the present case.
What Mr. Dunn undertook to do was, the articles of the
peace being returned by certiorari, to show that the Court
of Quarter Sessions had no jurisdiction—that the order of
the Court was illegal and a nullity—that no respect ought
to be paid to it—and that he bad been illegally committed.
That was the shape the case now took before their Lord-
ships. He, however, contended that these articles in no
degree showed that the Court bad no jurisdiction ; but,
OH lb. contrary, that it had; and if that were so, then he
subnitted that their Lordships could not revise the judg-
ment of the Court below. No doubt had ever been enter.
tamed of the power of the Crown to grant such a jurisdic-
tion to the Court of Quarter Sessions, and no one could
deny that it was most useful, beneficial, and necessary. In
that country happily they had nollettres de cachet, or any
irresponsible authority by which a man might be deprived
of his liberty without an opportunity being afforded him
of ascertaining the nature of his offence ; and it was ad-
mitted on all hands that the power vested in the hands of
the Magistrates of compelling parties to enter into recog-
nizances had a tendency to prevent the commission
of crime. He admitted that before a person was
called on to enter into his recognizances the party
applying must swear that he is in fear of bodily
harm. That might depend upon the sex of the party,
upon her age, her condition in life, and her footing
with the party concerned—whether he was a stranger, and
whether his intercourse had been avoided and shunned; all
these would require due consideration. The Magistrates
having exercised their discretion on al! the facts of the
case, directed recognizances to be entered into, and,
having so decided, he submitted that the Court could not
at all impugn what the Magistrates had done. He had
looked over the authorities on the subject, and he could
find no instance in which a party had been so discharged
out of custody. If Mr. Dunn was entitled to be dis-
charged, it seemed to him that he could bring an action
not only against Miss Coutts Burdett, but against the
Magistrates before whom the articles had been exhibited.
He would now come to the complaint of the lady whose
name had been unfortunately dragged before the public.
She swore that she was in bodily fear—that she has no
improper motive in making the application, but that she
is in daily fear that some act of violence will be committed
against her, and that the said Richard Dunn will do her
some bodily hurt. The Magistrates at the Quarter Ses-
sions believed h r statement and granted the articles, and
he contended that the Court of Queen's Bench could not
now review their judgment or reverse their decision. The
Learned Counsel then referred at some length to the depo-
sitions of Miss Burdett and the other persons concerned,
and concluding by observing that it was clear no leniency
on the part of Miss Coutts Burdett or her friends would
induce Mr. Dunn to desist from his outrageous conduct,
and he humbly submitted that, under all the circumstances,
there was no ground whatever for entertaining the present
application.
Mr. BODKIN followed on the same side.
The COURT said the case was one of very great import-
ance, and they felt they would not be doing justice to it if
they did not give it the most deliberate consideration.
They would therefore defer their judgment till Monday.
LIBEL.—HEARNE V. STOWELL, CLERK.
This was an action which was tried at the last Assizes
at Liverpool, before Mr. Baron Rolfe, and in which a
verdict had been returned for the plaintiff.
Mr. CRESSWELL moved for a rule to show cause why
the verdict should not be set aside, and a new trial
granted on the ground of misdirection of the
Learned Judge. The action had been brought
by a Roman Catholic clergyman against a clergy man of
the Church of England. It appeared that, daring the
course of last year, a public meeting had been held at
Manchester for the purpose of petitioning Parliament
against any further grant to the College of Maynooth.
At this meeting the defendant, the Rev. Hugh Stowell,
presided, and, in the course of his speech, he read the
paper which formed the subject of the action.
It purported to be the statement of
i three police-
men, which had been placed n his hands,
who stated they were ready to come forward to testify the
truth of what they had then stated. (The Learned
Counsel here read the document which related to a
penance said to have been 'imposed on a person named
Hare, by the plaintiff, and which must be in the recollec-
tion of our readers.) Now, if Mr. Stowell stated in words
what had been written in that paper, it was clear that no
action would lie from slander, and on the second count
there was a verdict for the defendant. Now, tech-
nically, they bad a right to call this paper a libel,
although no action would lie on it, as for
slander. But he contended at the trial, that
these passages exhibited no intention to attack any
individual ; that they were merely intended to illus-
trate the doctrines of the Romish Church, that they
cast no moral or legal imputation on the plaintiff,
and that a verdict ought to be given for the defend-
ant ore the general issue, on the ground that it was
no libel, that it contained no attack on Hearn.
In his summing up the Learned Judge told the
Jury that the law of the defendant's Counsel was bad
from beginning to end, that the publication was a libel,
and that the only question was one of damages. Ile
might have perhaps added at the conclusion of the summing
up, that if the Jury agreed with him they would find for the
plaintiff. Now he (Mr. Cresswell) contended that malice
was a necessary ingredient of libel, and although the law
would, prima facie, presume malice, yet if the circum-
stances of the ease went to show that there was no malice,
that ought to be left to the Jury.
Lord DENMAN said that tile question as to whether the
circumstances of the case were such as to show that there
was no malice, and the question as to whether tile publicaa
!ion amounted to a libel were perfectly distinct, and that
if the last question had been left to the jury, he saw no
ground for granting the rule, lie would sec Mr. Baron
Rolfe egCnritotEuhsnesiutalb,ii,anctetttiiheen
alleged applied
libelfor a
cn anrt raei snte
do f
ijioudingimpuetnat:
otinol\isithrae.t. all on Mr. Hearne
The declaration in the cause having been read,
The COURT granted the vppl.cation.

COMnON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)

BRADLEY V CARR AND OTHERS

This was an action cf trespass tried before Mr. Baron
Rolfe, a Lancaster, in the last assizes. The ground of
action was that the defendants wrongly took in execution,
under a judgment of the Court Baron of Wappen of Stain_
cliff, i►► the county of York (of which the Duke of Devon_
shire is Lord of the I\larior), a cow, the property of the
plaintiff, Sarah Bradley, widow, they supposing it to he
the property of her son, against whom the judgment of the
Court Baron was directed. The defendant Carr pleaded
first not guilty, and for the three defendants it was ftirther
pleaded that the cow was the property of the son, John
Br►dley,nct of the plaintiff, The verdict was for the plantiff.
Mr. Sergeant TALI' OURD now moved for a rule 'ro enter
a nonsuit as to Carr, on the ground that this defendant
••4., •• being the steward of the Court 13aron, was a