The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-19 00:00:00

sponsible 'or the contents of an article, yet the defendant
could not be therefore justified in styling him "twice-con
victed," or in charging him, as he did in one part of his
libel, with obtaining his living by simony. -;`he Learned
Gentleman then proceeded to rsad and tsaninent on the As!,
and contended that his client was justly entitled to substan-
tial damages at the hands of the jury for tins ou;rageaus at-
tack on him.
The libel was then put in and reed, of which the following
are extracts:—
" Prior to the unexpected accession of Gathercole to this
living, the inh Witants, of all religious deuaininations, had
amicably co-operated fir charitable purposes. One of these
associations was a clothing society for the sick poor, under
the sole management of the ladies. But a few weeks, how-
ever, after his arrival, he intruded himself, with characteristic
impudence, into a meeting of the committee, were, after a
tirade against Dissent and Dissenters, of a most furious and
insulting character, he virtually dissolved the society, by
declaring that be should have nothing to do' with Dis-
senters, and he should expect his congregation to follow his
example. Upon the ruins of this liberal society a. (He ano-
ther, with the title of the Chatteris Church Clothing Club,
Patron, the Rev. the Vicar.' "
" It would be vain to waste a sentence in reprobation of
the character and conduct of so degraded a person as Gather-
cole; but what are we to say of ths system under which a
man, whose writings proclaim him at once imbecile, ignorant.,
and malignant, can be thus paid front the plunder of the
people, to spurt his filthy venom, week by week, upon those
of whom the world is not worthy—to revile the humble piety
of his neighbours, and, in the licensed security of his pulpit,
to hold up, with an air of smug vulgarity, their works of
faith and labours of love to the derision of his hearers."
"But, singularly enough, the same district which is suf-
fering under the ecclesiastical marauding of Gathercole, is at
this moment affording as interesting an illustration of the
benign moral effects of the voluntary principle as this clerical
nuisance affords of the pernicious tendency of the compulsory
system. Hard by the town of Chatteris is the village of
Doddington, the richest living in Great Britain, affording to
the Rev. Algernon Peyton, the rector, upwards of 10,000/.
a year. Almost under the shadow of Doddington stesple is
the village of Manea, the curate of which, remunerated for
his labours with 100/. a year, died some few weeks ago, as
we learn from the local papers, leaving a widow and three
adult children with resources barely sufficient to pay the ex-
penses of his funeral. The wealthy and respected rector of
Doddington at once took into his hands this truly pitiable
case, and, by the joint exertions of all the religious denomi-
nations in the neighbourhood, upwards of 5(X):. has been
raised for the benefit of this afflicted and destitute lady, to
which fund the Dissenters of Chatteris, who had scarcely
even heard the name of the deceased clergymen, subscribed
their money with the mat cheerful liberality. Yet these
are the men against whom Gathercole raves as' blasphemous
heretics,' with dangerous impostors ' for their teachers."
The case for the plaintiff having closed by proof of the
ciraulatien of the newspaper hi qusstion among several mem-
bers of his congregation at Chatteris, some of whom admitt
that he was " very severe on Dissenters."
Mr. Sergeant BYI.Es (with whom was Mr. O'Malley) ad-
dressed the jury fur the defendant, contending that lie was
entitled to a verdict, as the article insert( d in his paper was
not a libel, or that the verdict ought to be for nominal
damages. Every one acquaimed with the history of the
plaintiff well knew him to be a " notorious" man, and his
own counsel had admitted him to be a "convicted libeller."
Such a man could nut therefore come into Court to claim
damages for a libel on him with " clean hands," and it was
tot the jury to say whether the article complained of was not
justifiable as an attack on a public man, in dealing with
whom great latitude of criticism ought to be allowed in this
country, which was the temple of liberty, both civil and reli-
gious. Statesmen and Churchmen were alike exposed to such
observations on their conduct, and when we saw the Ministry
of the day and even the prelates attacked without any re-
mark or notice on their part, he (Mr. Sergeant Bytes) could
not help thinking that the plaintiff would have dose well to
pass by this article without. notice, as one which his public
conduct, as the vicar of Chatteris, had exposed him to.
The judges themselves and the bar were all liable to censure.
One great man, G. Fox, had written thus:—" We have an
army of lawyers, with tough consciences, and tough parch.
merits, and interminable tongues—an army of soldiers to
fight the French, an ar n.s of doctors to fight Death, and we
have an army of parsons to fight the Devil, of whom be
standeth not much in awe "—(Laughter)—and it was sot to
be expected that a man who had attacked the Dissenters
himself so violently should not rouse them into something
like a kindred feeling. If such a man, continued the
Learned Sergeant, reading from a book before him, which he
covertly insinuated to be the letters of " L. S. E." alluded to
in the libel, said that " the religion of Dissenting preachers
was merely a cloak for everything that was bad ;" that
"deceit and hypocrisy were the commodities in which they
dealt ;" that their principles were "infernal," and that they
were "an ungodly set of atheists and infidels ;" it could nut
be contended that this retort was wanton and unprovoked;
and if in the rules of his " Church Clothing Club " he had
excluded all Dissenters from participation in common
with thieves, drunkards, robbers, and persons guilty
of " other deadly sins," it was not to be con •
ceived but that he should be met with abuse
and cutting criticism in the discharge of his public
duties as vicar of Chatteris. As far,, therefore, as the gene-
ral scope of this article went, it was submitted that it was
not libellous, while as regarded its " sting," which consisted
in the imputation of " simony," the article did not bear any
such construction, for it spolte of his having obtained his
preferment as " the wages of his treachery," which implied
that the living had been given •o, and not bought by, him in
an illegal manner. If, however, the jury ghoul 1 think the
plaintiff was entitled to a verdict, the Learned Counsel con-
cluded by asserting that the smallest coin in the realm would
be an ample measure of damages to which the plaintiff was
entitled in such a case.
Mr. Baron PARKE, in slimming up the case to the jury,
left it to them to -say whether this was a libel, in the first
place ; and, if so, whether there was any occasion to justify
or excuse its publication of the plaintiff as the vicar of
Chatteris. He (Mr. Baron Parke) apprehended that no
reasonable man could doubt that such an attack on a
man as this was a libel, which in law was the writing
anything of a man which was. calculated to bring him into
discredit and odium. Was there, then, any ground for jus-
tification or excuse for its publication? It had been con-
tended by the Learned Sergeant that it was open to the de-
fendant to observe on the plaintiff's conduct as vicar of Chat-
tells, on the ground that the office of a clergyman was a
public one, and that, like stateamen, commanders, and
judges, the public had a right to criticise their conduct.
He, however, did not go along with the Learned Sergeant to
that extent, for he had yet to learn that there was any right
in the press to publish an opinion attic conduct of a clergy-
man in his parish and the method in which he might see fit
to administer its charities. If, indeed, a clergyman pub-
lished a sermon which he delivered to his parish he trade it
public property, and conferred thereby on the public the
right of observing on it and criticising it, if done fairly and
without malicious motives. Short of this there was malting
in the conduct of a clergyman which could confer on the
press any ground for commenting on him. As for the impu-
tation of simony, he certainly thought that the context did
not warrant the construction put on that branch of the
article by the plaintiff; fir it (lid not impute that he had
obtained the living by simony, for it spoke of his getting
it as the wages of his treachery. Under these circuit'.
starces, it was fur the jury to say what fair amount of com-
pensation they would award to the plaintiff for the article
complained of by him.
The jury, having retired to consider their verdict, returned
into Couri. after an absence of half an hour with a verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages, 2001.
JAMES v. THE EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY COMPANY.

Mr. Sergeant Ryles. Mr. Gunning, and Mr. Burcham were
counsel for the plaintiff, ard Mr. O'Malley and Mr. Sanders
for the defendants.
This was a c.rse involving a question of considerable im-
portance to the Eastern Counties Railway, being a claim ter
tolls alleged to be due by them to the plaintiff as the lessee
of the Commissioners for Paving and Lighting the, town of
Cambridge. Though the question was stated to be purely
one of law, which could not be decided at Nisi Prins, yet the
circumstances under which it arose anti the points intended
to be raised for the opinion of the Court may not be
uninteresting to the railway interest. It is known t,.)
all the world, doubtless, that the Eastern Counties
Railway station for this town is situate at a little
distance out of the town, the line of railway crossing the
Hills-road and the Newmarket-road, which are both carried
over it on bridges, but would otherwise have been crossed on
a level, and Coldham-lane on a dead level, there being there
gates for the safety of the public. From first. to lasi the
railway runs a distance of 2& miles within the limits of the
borough, but the points at which it crot,es the roads are all
out of what may be popularly termed " the town," the paving
and lighting not being carried up is them when this action
Was commenced, and there not being a continuous line of
houses up to them. Before the railway was opened to Cam-
bridge and now there were commisNioners appointed under
various Acts for paving, lighting, and cleansing the town,
who were empowered to collect Is. 6d., by way of toll, front
every stage-coach, diligence, er other such public carriage,
carrying passengers or parcels for hire, and 2d. for every
waggon, wain, cart, or other such carriage laden with any
goods, wares, or other merchandise coming to, or piing from,
or tout of the said town of Cambridge, besides other tolls for
all stock brought into time same These tolls the commis-
sioners may, by lease, authorise other parties to collect, and as
since the opening of the railway all the coaches whose
names have been cherished in the memory of old Cantabs,
such as the Time, the Star, the Rocket, the Telegraph, and
even Marsh and Swan's stage waggons, have depsh ted this
life, the sources of the commissioners' income would seem to
have been well nigh exhausted. A keen investigation of the
various Acts under which the town was governed and the
tolls authorised to be collected led to the belief- that they
might still be enforced from the railway company,' and the
present action was forthwith brought against them to recover
the amount of 1591., as tolls alleged to be due for the first six
months of their operations, it being contended that he was
,entitled to levy the tolls speciti, d in the Commiss (mere Act
'on each railway carriage and truck, on pas-iag through the
town of Cambridge or the precincts thereof; while the de-
fendants insisted that they did not come within any such
liability, Sr that, at all events, the toll could only I e levied on
each train.

The facts above stated having been agreed upon between
the learned counsel, it was arranged that a special verige
should be taken, in order to raise the question in dispwa ter
the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench. Subject, there.
fore, to this plan, the jury fout,d a verdict for the plaintiff
for 1591.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE,
MANSIoN-BOUSE.
A person named Henry Miller, vva, char‘ed by Mr.
Wm. Hitchcock, of Ni. 2, Friday-street, factor and
warehouseman, under the followiog circumstances :
Mr. Hitchcock stated that the rt feodant, who was not
known to him even by name, willc,Td into the warehouse,
took a seat, and refused to leave the place. In his in-
tention to remain, he was encouraged by some•persons,
who told him they would sup ply him with meat and beer,
and whatever else he might be in need ct during the
time it might be his pleAsure to stay there. Witness told
him that he must not be in the way of the business of
the house, hut finding that expostulation was useless,
caused him to he apprehentle.l, after having refers d
him to Messrs. Wire and Cnild, as their solicitors, who
acted for the house, and were qualified to transact any
business with customers.
• •
The defendant declared that he and his partn- r sent
some goods fri m M uchester, where they Carried on
business, to Mr. Hitchcock, for s.tle in the London mar-
ket ; that the male was accordingly effected, but they
could not p,evail upon the gentleman to whom they 11;41:1
remitted the goods to come t, a settlement, on which
%mount it was cA7sidered alvisable• to persevere in
mi,king the demand on the premises.
Mr. Hitchcock said he had no notion of disguising! the
fact that the house had recited the goods, 1,,,v had re-
ceived and sold them according to the instructions which
had been sent, and he was desirous to CAlle. to an imme-.
diets settlement ; but from what occurred subsequebtly;
ho apprehended that there was some doubt as to the
manner in which they had been obtained. L appeared i
to him to be rather a crooked affair, aad he,had ref •rre-1
the parties who applies!-to him tor the value- orb', pro-
perty, to Messrs. Wire and Child, whoa) it would be tau-