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

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 he filed against him for the pthlication fas artie'e
in that paper reflecting upon the verdict of a jury of London-
derry, and imputing to them that they had hven actuated by
improper motives. lhe applica ion 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 exued 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 complained of as having been u-ed by
the Times, was consequently not in a position to cad 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 app!ication 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 con
curred wi h • him throughout they were affected each and
every one of them by his acts, and on those grounds he trusted
the Cuurt would discharge the rule wi h 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. POLLOCK, 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
pven 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. Leeky, who was not one of the applicants,
From the affidavit of the a+ torney in the cause it appeared that
Lecky was not one of the applicants, and the letter itsel was
set forth in the affidavits on which the rule nisi had been
granted, so that there was no concealment practiped 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 WALDEGRAVE
AND ANOTHER—JUDGMENT.

The defendants in this case, George Edward Earl of Wal-
degrave and William John Duff, wers. then brought up on the
floor of the Court fur 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 committed, and which have
already been frequently before the public.
The affidavit of the surgeon who hail 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 had been rescued from
Wheatly, but denied that .he 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 the police-sergeant, but stated that he had left
before the scuffle commenced. He expressed his regret at having
been present during any part of the transaction, and his willing-
ness to make any compensation to Wheatly in his power. Mr.
Phillips, the attorney for the defence, made an affidavit stating
that he had caused Wheatly to be examined by Mr. Risda and
Mr. Fisher, 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.

Mr. 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 been applied to by some
person connected with the Morning Herald newspaper for
copies of the affidavits for the prosecution, which had been fur-
ni:hed to him on the distinct 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
Vt 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 Waldegrave denied having
touched 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.
He endeavoured to seize one of them, who turned out to be
Lord Waldegrave, in-obedience to the orders of his sergeant,
when the others set upen, 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
again assaulted 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 he was there left
insensible and bleeding, the defendants driving off
home, leaving him in the read, where he was
picked up and carried 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 been present during the whole transaction, and also that
abusive 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 bf 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-
pendence could not be placed upon their accounts of the
transaction. Lord Waldegrave denied that he was the per-
son who struck Wheatly on the head, but he admitted
that, while in the fly, he was striking at the defendant's
knuckles with a cane, for the purpose of making him leave go
his hold. Captain Duff stated that he was on the road when
he was overtaken by the fly, but that could hardly be the
case unless he had run away rapidly, because it happened that
as soon as Lord Waldegrave was rescued, he got into the fly
and drove away. 'the excuse was, that they were under
the influence of wine. Now that was no excuse. It
should be recollected that Wheatly was in the exe-
cution, of his duty when he was thus assaulted, and
if six poor labourers had sallied out of a beer-shop in a
state of intoxication and had committed an assault of such
a nature, would intoxication have been admitted as an
excuse ? Neither ought it in this case. One of the de-
fendants was a man of high birth, who .posses-ed ail
the advantages of a cultivated educa'ion, and the other
was a member of a profession which •had always been
honoured as much for its humanity as for its courage, and the
duties of which ought to have taught him the necessity of
discipline ; and the lowest, when in execution of the orders
of his superior officer, as the unfortunate man Wheatly had
been at the time the assault was committed, was as much en-
titled to respect as the highest. He ought to have known that
it would have been quite as disgraceful for a soldier to des art
the post committed to his charge as for a policeman to shrink
from executing the orders of his superiors on account of any
consequences which might follow to himself. This prosecution
had been instituted by the Commissioners of Police not out of
any malicious desire towards the prisoners, but solely in the
execution of their duty. They had a large body of men com-
mitted to their charge, and were bound to protect them in the
execution of their duty. He therefore pressed the Court to
pass such a sentence on the prisoners as might deter others
trom following their example. The prosecutors had felt it their
duty not to listen to any suggestion of compromise. The pri-
soners, 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 further experience in the addresses
which they would deliver to the Court. He however felt
assured that those addresses would not have the effect of screen-
' ing the prisoners from the effects of the act which they had
committed ; and, from his own knowledge, he had the utmost
confidence that their Lordships wool! in this, as in every other
instance, grant that, of which alone the prosecutors are desirous
—the administration of the law with justice and impartiality.
Sir F. POLLOCK then addressed the Court on behalf or 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 tie have the grace of the withdr,,wal of the p'ea
of guilty, - but that was to be put down to the account- of their
counsel. Now that was an act for which the defendants' enti-
tled to great credit, for they had thereby testified their-anxious
desire to submit themselves to the justice of the Gurt, and had