The Sun.
London, England, 1848-03-09 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT, Marck 8.
(Before D. C. MOTLAN, Esq., Judge.)
LITERARY LABOUR.7.7OBSON V HANSARD.

In this case (which has been two or three times before
tho Court) Mr. Luke James Hansard, the well-known
printer, was defendant, and Mr. D. W. Jobson, the
plaintiff, the action being brought to recover a sum of
money for writing a "Sketch of the House of Lords,"
and two reviews, for a journal called The Spirit of the
Times.

-
The case on each occasion lasted a considerable time,
and excited much interest. In the month of March last,
the defendant started a journal, having for its object the
elevation of the " social and moral condition of the
people," the plaintiff being employed on it as one of
the writers. In one of his interviews with Mr. Hansard
the plaintiff produced a "Sketch of the House of Lords,"
which he had written for a magazine. Mr. Hansard, on
seeing it, expressed a wish to have it for the second
number of The Spirit of the Times, agreeing, according
to plaintiff, to give " three times magazine price for
it.' The plaintiff accordingly gave up the article, and
also wrote a review of the works of the Rev. Robert
Hall, and one on the works of Schlegel, purchasing
the books at the request of the defendant, in conse-
quence of the publisher refusing to send them gratui-
tously. The plaintiff admitted that none of the articles
were inserted in The Spirit of the Times, because of its
" stopping short," but contended that it was the custom
in the literary world, and amongst newspaper pro-
prietors, to pay for articles written by order, whether
they were inserted or not.
In support of the custom Mr. A. B. Reach and Mr. T.
P. Healy, proprietor of The Medical Times, were ox
amined. The former gentleman could not speak pod-
Lively as to the custom, but had been informed that it
was usual to pay a gentleman for an article written to
order whether it appeared or not. Mr. Healy said if he
ordered a gentleman to write an article for his paper, he
should feel bound to pay him for it if it was not wanted.
He was in the habit of employing literary gentlemen, and
had paid them for articles which had not appeared.
Mr. Hansard distinctly denied the contract entered
into with the plaintiff. He merely took the article, with
the consent of the plaintiff, to look over at his leisure,
and put it amongst other similar contributions.
The Learned JUDGE said he was clearly of opinion
that no contract had been proved by the plaintiff, and
therefore it was useless to entertain the question of
custom . The plaintiff having failed to prove any con-
tract, he must order him to be nonsuited.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HO ME ClRCUlT.—Chelmsford, Marsh 8.

The Commission for Essex was opened on Monday.
The criminal calendar is very heavy; but the business on
the civil side is lighter than usual, there being only four
special jury cases.
William Parsons, late sergeant in the K division of
police, was tried on Tuesday for a misdemeanour, in
having conspired to defeat the ends of justice by giving
false testimony upon an inquiry before Mr. Lewis, the
coroner for Essex, touching the death of a police-con-
stable named Clark.

Mr. Clarkson and Mr. Deedes prosecuted.
The circumstances under which the charge was made
against the defendant have been so frequently reported
that it will be unnecessary to go into them on the pre-
sent occasion. It will be remembered that in June, 1846,
a constable named Clark was found dead in a cornfield
at Dagenham, under circumstances which left no doubt
that his death was the result of violence. Several long
inquiries took place before the Coroner, and in the end
a verdict of " Wilful murder against some persoa or
persons unknown" was returned. At the last summer
assizes, two constables, named Hickton and Kimpton,
were convicted of perjury upon the evidence given by
them before the Coroner, and the present charge arose
out of the same transaction.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, after several witnesses
had been examined, expressed an opinion that the evi•
dunce did not support the indictment at present before
the Court. It merely went to show that the defendant
had induced the other parties to make certain statements
to screen them all from a charge of neglecting their
duty; and, at the time when the supposed offence was
committed, there was no legal inquiry pending.
The jury accordingly returned a verdict of—Not
Guilty.
Ifm. Douglass, 27, a constable belonging to the
Eastern Counties Railway, stationed at Colchester, and
James Keys, 20, a cab-driver, were indicted, the former
as a principal in committing a felonious assault upon
Agnes Mary Ann Luen, and the latter as an accessory
in aiding and abetting in the commission of the offence.
Mr. Ryland prosecuted; Mr. Charnock appeared for
the prisoners.
From the evidence adduced, it seemed that the pro-
secutrix, a very good looking girl, sixteen years old,
was the daughter of a beer shopkeeper at Ardleigh, and
she was in the service of a family near Colchester at the
time this occurrence happened. She had been, it ap-
pears, to pay a visit to her father, and returned back to
Colchester by the luggage train at night, and when she
got into the town she inquired of the constable, Dou-
glass, whether he could procure her a cab or fly to con-
vey her home. He said he would do so, and called for
the cab driven by the other prisoner, and when the pro-
secutrix got in he said,he would see her safe home,
and she consented. The prisoner accordingly got in,
and when they had proceeded a short distance he pro-
ceeded to take indecent liberties with the prosecutrix,
and, according to her testimony, succeeded in commit-
ting the offence imputed to him. She also stated that
when she called for assistance the other prisoner drove
all the faster and took no notice of her cries.
The jury found Douglass Guilty of an assault, and
Acquitted the other prisoner.
Douglas was sentenced to be kept to hard labour for
two years.

NORTHERN CIRCCIIT.—Durham, March 7.
(Before Mr. Baron ALDHRSON.)
Mary Ann Wood, a young woman about 19 years of
age, was indicted for concealing the birth of her child.
Mr. Matthews and Mr. Seymour conducted the prose-
cution ; the prisoner was defended by Mr. Otter.
The prisoner, it appeared, was, about the 3d of
January, married at Bishop Wearmouth, to a person of
the name of Wood, a sailor. About three weeks after-
wards, while she and her husband were stopping with
Mrs. Robinson, her mother-in-law, prisoner was taken
ill in the night, and her husband called Mrs. Robinson
up. She complained of internal pain, and some remedies
were given to her, by which she seemed relieved, and
Mrs. Robinson's servant was sent to attend her and sleep
with her the remainder of the night. The servant was
asleep for some hours, and on awaking went down
stairs, leaving the prisoner alone about an hour and a
half. In the course of the forenoon the prisoner, who
appeared to be better, wished her mother to be sent for;
but, before she arrived, some circumstances occurred
which induced Mrs. Robinson to charge her with having
had a child ; and finally the dead body of a female
child, of which she admitted herself to be the mother,
was found i❑ a drawer in the bedroom, of which the
prisoner had the key. There was no doubt the child had
been still born.
The prisoner was found Guilty, but strongly recom-
mended to mercy.
His LORDSHIP said he thought it a groat pity there
had been any prosecution. The old law on this subject
was, that the woman could not be convicted of conceal-
ment except under circumstances such as would justify
the grand jury in bringing in a bill for murder. He
thought the present law not an improvement. his
Lordship sentenced the prisoner to be kept in custody
till the rising of the Court, and then to be discharged.
James Hay was indicted for cutting and wounding
John Wade, with intent to do him some grievous bodily
harm.

Mr. Liddell conducted the prosecution; the 'prisoner
was defended by Mr. Matthews.
It appeared from the statement of the prosecutor that
on the day when this occurred he was in a beer-shop at
Bury Edge, in this county, and was sitting in a room,
looking out of the window. The prisoner came
in, and before the prosecutor could turn round
to see who it was he received a blow on
the head from an iron bar about five feet long,
used to fasten a window, which the prisoner snatched up
in coming into the room. The blow inflicted a very
severe wound, and a large scar on the prosecutor's fore-
head showed the violence with which it had been given.
The prosecutor had no quarrel. with the prisoner, who
would seem to have mistaken him for some other party,
there having been some quarrelling going on just before
in another part of the house.
Guilty, to be imprisoned one year.
John Graham was indicted for the wilful murder of
Robert Ileseltine, at Brancepeth, in this county.
Mr. Warren conducted the prosecution ; the prisoner
was defended by Mr. Matthews.
It appeared that a person of the name of Lamb had
been quarrelling with Hoseltine, who having the worst
of it, ran off to a beer-house in the neighbourhood, and
called out a person of the name of Peart, who went
back with him, and commenced fighting with Lamb.
Lamb was knocked down, and Graham then desired
him not to fight any more, as Peart was too
heavy fur him. llesel tine, using some coarse
expressions, asked what ho had to do with it ; on
which Graham repeated what he had said before. On
this Ileseltine rushed at him and caught him by the hair
with one hand, while he struck him several times with
the other. Graham closed with him and caught him by
the handkerchief, when a struggle took place between
them. The attention of the bystanders was attracted
for some seconds by the other combatants, but when next
seen Graham and Reselling were in a stooping position;
one of Ileseltine's arms being over Graham's shoulder,
the other hanging by his side. It was called out that
lleseltine was hanging, and Graham was forced from
his hold, when Ileseltine fell to the ground insensible,
and in a few seconds was dead. On a post mortem
examination the death was found to be caused by suffo-
cation.
Mr. MATTHEWS then addressed the jury for the de-
fence, contending that Graham being so assailed by
ifeseltine, had only endeavoured to protect himself from
violence, and had thus caused the death of the unfortunate