The Sun.
London, England, 1841-05-04 00:00:00

TEI SUN, LONDON, 17. MAY 4, Nil.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
HOUSE OF LORDS, MAY 3.

The Lord Chancellor was engaged all day in the House al
Lords in further hearing the appeals of Campbell Ste.itart,
in which, after hearing Mr. Pemberton for the respondents,
their Lordships reserved their judgment to a ture day.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, MAY 3.
his HONOUR was occupied the entire day in hearing the
arguments of Counsel on a motion respecting the taxation of
a solicitor's bill of costs.
Thy: case possessed not the least feature of interest.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, MAI' 3.
In consequence of its having been announced that the Earl
of NValdegrave and Captain Duff were to be brought up for
judgment this morning, every avenue to the Court was
crowded long before 10 o'clock. Immediately the doors were
opened, the Court was completely crammed, and many barristers
who had arrived late were unable to obtain admission.
The officers of the Court, however, on this as on every occa-
sion, did their utmost to afford every accommodation and
assistance to the press. On our admission we found the Earl
of Waldegrave and Captain Duff sitting in the place usually
occupied by the solicitors. The noble defendant presented a
very youthful appearance, looking scarcely older than a school-
boy. The gallant defendant, who was seated by his side, ap-
peared considerably his Lordship's senior.
The Judges took their seats on the bench at 10 o'clock, and
the first ease called on was
THE QUEEN V. LAWSON.—CRIMINAL INFORMATION.
In this case Sir Frederick Pollock had obtained a rule to
show cause, calling upon the defendant, the printer of the
Times newspaper, to show cause why a criminal information
should not be filed against him for the publication of an article
in that paper reflecting upon the verdict of a jury of London-
derry, and imputing to them that they had been actuated by
improper motives. The application had been made at the in-
stance of some of the members of the Jury.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL showed cause against the rule,
and contended that the article in question did not exceed the
fair limits of discussion; that it did not impute anything to
the members of the Jury, individually, and that Mr. Lecky,
the foreman of the Jury, and one of the applicants, having
published a letter on the subject which contained language
much stronger than that compf'ained of as having been used by
the Times, was consequently not in a position to call upon
the Court to interfere summarily in his behalf, but must be
left to his remedy by indictment or by action.
Lord DENMAN-If you can show that this application ema-
nates from Mr. Lecky alone we may perhaps call on the other
side.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then proceeded to argue that the
other applicants had merely acted as instruments of Mr.
Lecky, the foreman, and at his instigation. He read affidavits
to show that they would never have made this application,
had it not been for Mr. Lecky, and argued that having eon•
curred with him throughout they were affected each and
every one of them by his acts, and on those grounds he trusted
the Court would discharge the rule with costs.
Sir W. FOLLETT followed on the same side, and contended
that none of the applicants stated that they had no cognizance
of the letter before it was published, and that they were
bound to show that, or that they had taken some means to
prevent the publication of the letter, in order to entitle them
to the interference of the Court.
Sir F. Pommel:, in support of the rule, submitted that no
conduct of Mr. Lecky's could prevent the other gentlemen
of the Jury from coming to the Court for protection, and that
even if they knew of the letter they were not bound to inter-
fere to prevent its publication. The application had been made
to the Court by four ,gentlemen of the Jury only, without any
connection with Mr. Lecky, who was not one of the applicants,
From the affidavit of the attorney in the cause it appeared that
Lecky was not one of the applicants, and the letter itself was
set forth in the affidavits on which the rule nisi had been
granted, so that there was no concealment practised on the
Court.
Lord DENMAN said that the Court was of opinion that
there was no proof whatever that the other Jurymen had in-
terfered to prevent the publication of the letter of which they
had cognizance, and that therefore the Court could not inter-
fere—the rule nisi must be discharged, without costs.
THE QUEEN v. THE EARL OF WALDEC;RAVE
AND ANOTHER—JUDGMENT.

The defendants in this case, George" Edward Earl of Wal-
legrave and William John Duff, wero then brought up on the
lour of the Court for judgment on an indictment to which they
had pleaded guilty, for an assault on Charles W. Wheatly, a
police constable, on the sth June last.
Several affidavits were read describing the circumstances
under which the assault had been comnlitted, and which have
already been frequently before the public.
The affidavit 9f the surgeon who had attended Wheatly, set
forth that in consequence of the injuries he had received he
was unfit for the active duties of a policeman, and that if dis-
charged he would be incapacitated from ever getting his own
living, as his brain was still affected by its injuries.
In mitigation of punishment the affidavits of the two de-
fendants were put in, in which they stated that at the
time of the occurrence they were under the influence
of wine, and that they had been guilty of no
breach of the peace until they were taken into custody.
The Earl of Waldegrave admitted that he was the person who
had been taken into custody and who bad been rescued from
Wheatly, but denied that le had inflicted the injuries on
Wheatly, and further stated his belief that the defendant Duff
had left the party before the scuffle commenced. His Lordship
expressed his deep regret for what occurred, and his willingness
to make every reparation in his power. The defendant Duff ad-
mitted having seen thepolice-sergeant, but statedthat he had left
before the scuffle commenced. He expressed his regra4 at having
bean present during any part of the transaction, and his willing-
ness to make any compensation to Wheatly in his power. Sir.
Phillips, the attorney for the defence, made an affidavit stating
that he had caused %neatly to be examined by Mr. Risda and
Sir. Fi'her, surgeons, who stated their opinion, that although
he was not yet recovered from the shock his brain had suffered,
yet that they were of opinion that a few months' rest would
completely restore him. Mr. Keate, Sergeant-Surgeon to the
Queen, and Mr. Liston, Surgeon to the University Hospital,
stated it as their opinion that Wheatly would have re-
covered long since had he been able to take perfect
rest. Some persons residing at Hampton Wick, who had known
Wheatly, stated that previous to this occurrence Wheatly had
been in delicate health. The attorney for the defendant made
an affidavit complaining of the affidavits for the prosecution
having been published in the newspapers with a view to prejudice
the case.
Sir. CHAMBERS then addressed the Court in aggravation of
punishment. 'With regard to the publication of the affidavits,
he had to state that, it being expected that the defendants
would have been brought up for judgment on Thursday, the
solicitor for the prosecution had teen applied to by some
person connected with the Morning Herald newspaper for
copies of the affidavits for the prosecution, which had been fur-
ni:lied to him on the d;stinet understanding that they should
not be published until after judgment had been passed
upon the defendants. They appeared, however, in that newspa-
per on the Friday morning, headed " The Waldegrave Outrage."
The Learned Counsel then proceeded to state the case as it
appeared: from the affidavits. Here were two persons of rank
and station in the community who had, first of all, been guilty
of obstructing a police-officer in the execution of his duty, and
afterwards of assaulting him severely. It appeared that Lord
SI aldegrave had a residence at Strawberry-hill, in the
immediate vicinity of Twickenham, Kingston, and Hampton
Wick ; that on the day in question he and the other defendant,
and four other persons, who had been dining with him, sallied
forth under the influence of wine, as they themselves stated, and
stopping opposite a public-house in Hampton Wick, were met
by Sergeant Churchill at the time they were about to knock at
the door of an old woman who kept a mangle. They came up
to Churchill and accosted him, and were replied to with tem-
per and civility, when they commenced meddling with the
bridle of his horse. Lord Walderave denied having
touelied the horse, but Duff did not. Churchill
said, " Speak to me as much as you like, but do
not meddle with my accoutrements." They then began
to abuse him, and to make a noise. At that moment Wheatly
came up, and the sergeant directed him to show his light upon
the party, and see if he could recognize them, and also to go
and take the number of the fly. He was endeavouring to do
so, when he was pushed down and assaulted by the party.
lie endeavoured to seiZe ono of them, who turned out to be
Lord Walde-Trave, in obedience to the orders of his sergeant,
when the others set upon, and struck him on the head while
On the ground, and rescued the prisoner from his custody.
That then the whole party ran to the fly, and drove
off. That Wheatly attempted to get into the fly
to recapture him, whom he seized by the legs, when he was
&gain aSsaiilted by the persons within, struck on the head by a
person on the box, thrown down to the, ground, when the

wheel of the fly passed over him, and 'fie was there left
insensible and bleeding, the defendants driving off
home, leaving him in the road, where he was
plelitiA up and tarried to Kingston. The affidavits of
the defendants presented few circumstances of mitigation.
There was no affidavit from the person who drove the fly, and
whO was sober, nor from any person who had an opportunity of
witnessing the transaction, except from themselves. They
stated that they were under the influence of wine at the time
this transaction took place. The Earl of Waldegrave admitted
having bean present during the whole transaction, and also that
ribuSive language had been used by one person, although he denied
that he was the person using it. Capt. Duff admitted his
presence at the commencement of the affair, when Wheatly
was struggling on the ground with Lord Waldegrave, but that,
having succeeded in rescuing Lord Waldegrave, he walked
away, but, as they were under the influence of wine, great de-
e P
de-
pendence could not be placed upon their accounts of the
tdheeniehdeatdh,atbahte ihveas
admittedth
er-
:on who strucli
tranStteti9th Lordt,iWil.n7al:,.dieugrao‘u•e
d dant's
that while in the fly, was striking the re.f 5n
knuckles with a cane, ?or the purpose 9f making him !Pave
hit, hold. Billtstited that he was on the r 0;,...
fie when
*a4 kti'eriakeit by the fly, belt that Mid hardly be the
case unless he had run away rapidly, beeatise it 1144 i :tett that
as soon as Lord Waldegrave was rescued, 116 gdt ifitO the fly
pia dl•ge away. The excitse was, that they were Under
Ore influence of Wine. Now that was net excuse. It
should be recrilleeted that WiteatlY *a§ iii th.s, ex&
raesi
6ftxnactisoteitx4tioe
nature,tf
1p ionolt:NoazeAl
°jai
ettbl:Aiotaeiutteionaris:iagon.
intoxication
ioitaocidfahi
tt4i
do
highilthehrfidai
ibn oes
ittabetsidoee.
bean
s,lpe
idbeer-shopstutoe:fdt.
to.fietii
gde
suchind6aeniai
ttAtion of his ditty when he Was thus assaulted, and
aff
in
s
s
who
th 4 auvaninges of a cu
edif tidn4 fife other
was a member of ptofession which had alWiqg been
eit
htmoured as much hit. its humanity as for its courage, and the
duties of whichottelt to have taught him, the necessity of
discipline ; and the lowest, when'in ekeeittittri a the orders
of his superior officer, as the unfortnnate man Wheatly had
been, at the time the assault was Cormnitted, was as much en-
titled to respect as the highest. Hp ottght to have krrenvn that
it would have been quite as disgraceful for a soldier to degnt
the post cm-Omitted to his charge as for a policeman to shrltils
from executing the orders of hit .ittiperiors on account of any
consequences which might follow to hirtiself. This prosecution
had been instituted by the Commissioners of Police net oat of
any malicions desire towards the priSotiersi bat solely in the
e*ctitiO Qt. their They had a large body of men cam-
ihittb'd.tB thblr eliarae, and Were bound to protect them in the
execution of their duty. He therefore pressed the Court to
pass 8116 a sentence on the prisoners as might deter others
frtim followiog their example. The prosecutors had felt it their
duty hell to listen to any thoggestkm of compromise. The pri-
tenets, by their wealth, had been enabled to command the ser-
vices of the most talented and able men at the bar, by
whose advice they had already profited in withdraw-
ing their plea of not guilty, and the benefit of whose
services they would still farther experience in the addresses
Which thby iodic' deliver to the Court. He however felt
assured that those addresses wottld not have the effect of screen-
ing the prisoners from the effects of the act which they had
bolter fitted and, from his own knowledge, he had the utmost
confidence that their Lordships would in this, as in every other
..-the grant that, of which alone the prosecutors are desirous
administration of the law with justice and impartiality.
instance,
Sir F. Por.Loor then addressed the Court on behalf of the
defendant, Captain Duff, and complained of the injustice done
him by the publication of the affidavits for the prosecution in
the. Morning Herald of Friday, under the head of " The
Waldegrave Outrage." The heading was sufficient to show the
animus by which that publication had been directed. Every
act of the defendants' lives seemed to have been tortured by
the Learned Counsel for the prosecution into an argument in
aggravation of punishment. The defendants were not even to
be permitted to have the grace of the withdrawal of the plea
of guilty, but that was to be put down to the account of their
counsel. Now that was an act for which the defendants were enti-
tled to great credit, for they had thereby testified their anxious
desire to submit themselves to the justice of the Court, and had