The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-18 00:00:00

MIDLAND ci le CUlT.—Derby, March 17.

The Right Hon. Sir N. C. Tindal and the Hon. Sir
Thomas Coltman arrived in this town about two o'clock, and
opened the commission for this county with the usual for-
malities, after which their Lordships proceeded to attend
divine service at St. Mary's Church.
The Lord Chief Justice took his seat in the Nisi Prius
Court., at ten o'clock this morning; and Mr. Justice Coltman
at eleven, in the Crown Court.
The list presented fourteen causes for trial, of which four
were marked tor'special juries; but of these three are by the
cams plaintiffs, and one only, if any, of them will be tried.
They are said to be in respect to the right to hold races here.
The other is an action of ejectment—Doe, dent. Thornhill v.
Thornhill—by the devisee against the heir-at- law, to recover
possession of a very valuable property on the ground of the
insanity of the testator, in which Mr. Cockburn, Q.C., is
coining down specially, and which will be commenced to-
morrow morning, and will probably last two long days.
Of the common jury cases, four are cross actions, two only
of which will therefore be tried. The list was thus reduced
to 10, of which five were at 4 o'clock disposed of, and the
remaining three will be, probably, in the course of the day.
The calendar is numerically, but not otherwise, heavy, there
being 59 prisoners and 45 cases for trial ; of which two ate light
cases of burglary, two. also light, cases of robbery. one of
breaking and entering a dweLing-house, three of breaking
and entering warehouses, one offurgery (no evidence offered),
two of stabbing and wounding, one of a felonious assault upon
a woman, one of horse-stealing, and two of riot and assault
upon peace-officers.
Down to 4 o'clock to-day nothing bad occured in either
court justifying any report.
In consequence of the anticipated duration of the great
special jury cause above referred to, for three days at least, the
commission day at Leicester has been postponed from Friday
till Saturday, on which latter day only the borough business
will b. taken. The county business will, therefore, commence
there on Monday morning next.

NORFOLK C UlT.—Cambridge, March 16.

NISI PRIUS COURT.—(Before Mr. Baron PARKE and a
Special Jury.)
MICHAEL AUGUSTUS GATHERCOLE, CLERK, V. MULL

Mr. GUNNING (with whom was Mr. Sanders) stated, that
this was an action in which the plaintiff sought to recover
damages from the defendant for the publication of a libel of
and concerning him in the character of vicar of Chatteris,
in the Isle of Ely, to which the defendant had pleaded only
the general issue. The plaintiff was a clergyman of the
Established Church, and had lately been presented to- the
vicarage of Chatteris, a parish situate in the fens of Cam-
uls .
learning, Ineaanr
tso,"greasto
though born and educated a Dissenter, had at the age of 25
d
character he had obtained the high opinion of all who knew
lifeb ri dhgee ,
ha and
by great
containinggr,at as
iad
ir
attainedlatioii of
embraced the doctrines of the Established Church. In this
him, and having recently been presented to this piece of pre-
ferment, which was said to be worth 2,0001. per annum, he
had set about the discharge of his high duties with great zeal
and industry. This was a most difficult task, and he had not
been so fortunate as to escape the attacks of the press; fur
on the 7th of January in the present year there rppeared in
the Nonconformist, a weekly dissenting journal, an article
which formed the groundw•oik of the present action. That
publication was the sole property of the defendant, who was
a well-known Dissenter, a man of talent and wealth, and who
had recently contested the borough of Southwark, in opposi-
tion to Sir W. Molesworth. When the article in question
appeared, the plaintiff applied to the defendant for the name
of the author, and that bring refused, he had no alternative
left but to appeal to a jury for protection from what he could
not but feel to be a most wanton, unprovoked, and malicious
attack upon him in his sacred character, and one which
could only have proceeded from the worst personal motives,
though the writer professed to aim at the Church rather than
its unworthy minister. In that article the plaintiff was
spoken of as " the notorious Gathercole," " the apostate
Gathercole," and a "twice-convicted libeller." But, though
true it was that Mr. Gathercole had, whilst engaged in con-
ducting a periodical, been indicted and made criminally re-
sponsible 'or the contents of an article, yet the defendant
coald 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. The Learned
Gentleman then proceeded to read and comment on the libel,
and contended that his client was justly entitled to substan-
tial damages at the hands of the jury for this outrageous at-
tack on him. _ _ .

The libel was then put in and read, of which the following
are extracts :
" Prior to the unexpected accession of Gathercole to this
living, the inhabitants, of all religious denominations, had
amicably cooperated for 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 he 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 arose ano-
Llier, 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 Gri.ther-
cole; but what are we to say of two system under which a
man, whose writings proclaim him at once imbecile, ignorant,
and malignant, can be thus paid from 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 steeple is
the village of Mane*, 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 500%. 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 most cheerful liberality. Yet these
are the men against whom Gathercole raves as blasphemous
heretics,' with dangerous impostors' for their teachers."

e case for the plaintiff baying closed by proof of the
motile-ion of the newspaper in question among several mem-
bers of his
_congregatice at Chatteris, some of whom admitted
that he was " very seviTtron Dissenters." '- :"
Mr. Sergeant BYLES (with whom was Mr. O'Malley) ad-
dressed the jury for the defendant,/cOntending that lie was
entitled to a verdict, as the article inserted in his paper was
not a libel, or that the verdict. ought to be fur nominal
damages. Every,one acquainted 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 not therefore come into Court to claim
damages for a libel on him with "clean hands," and it was
for 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
Statesthen and Churchmen were alike exposed to such
obser rations on their conduct, and when we saw the Ministry
of the Jay and even the prelate's attacked without any re-
mark or notice on their part, lie (Mr. Sergeant Byles) 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-
ments, and interminable tongues—an army of soldiers to
fight the French, an army of doctors to fight Death. and we
have an army of parsons to fight the Devil, of whom he
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 not
be contended that this retOrt, was wanton and unprovoked ;
and if in the rules of his " Church Clothing Club " lie hail
excluded all Dissenters from participation in common
with thieves, drunkards, robbers, and persons guilt;
other deadly sins," it was not to be con •
ceived but that lie ' 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 wa;
not libellous, while aa.regarded its "'sting," which consisted
in the imputation of " simony," the article did not bear any
such construction, for it spoke of his having obtained
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 should 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 summing 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-
teris, on the ground that the office of a clergyman was a
public one, and that, like statesmen, 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 of the 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 made 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 nothing
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, for it did 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 circum-
stances, it was for the jury to say what fair amount of corn-
pensation they would award to the plaintiff for the article
complained of by. him.
The jury, having retired to consider their verdict, returned
into Court after an absence of half an hour with a verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages, 2001.
JAMES V. THE EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY COMPANY.
Mr. Sergeant Byles. Mr. Gunning. and Mr. Burcham were
counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. O'Malley and Mr. Sanders
for the defendants.
This was a case involving a question of considerable im-
portance to the Eastern Counties Railway, being a claim for
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 Frites, yet the
circumstances under which it arose and the points intended
to be raised for the opinion of the Court may not be
uninteresting; to the railway interest. It is known to
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 last the
railway runs a distance of 2/1 miles within the limits of the
borough. but the points at which it crosses the roads are all
out of what may be popularly termed " the town," the paving
and lighting not being carried up to 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 commissioners appointed under
various Acts for paving, lighting, and cleansing the town,
who were empowered to collect Is. 61, by way of toll, from
every stage-coach, diligence. or other such public carriage,
carrying pas'engers or parcels for hire. and 2d. for every
waggon, wain, cart, or other such carriage laden with any
goods, wares, or other mer..handise coining to, or going from,
or out of the said town of Cambridge, besides other tolls for
all stock brought into the same These tolls the commis-•
sinners 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 Centel's,
such as the Time, the Star, the Rocket, the Telegraph, and
even Marsh and Swan's stage waggons, have departed 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 specified in the Commissioners' Act
on each railway carriage and truck, on passing through the
town of Cambridge or the precincts thereof; while the de-
fendants insisted that they did not come within any such
liability, er that, at all events, the toll could only be levied on
each train.
The facts above stated having been agreed upon between
the learned counsel, it was arranged that a special verdic
should be taken, in order to raise the question in dispute for
the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench. Subject, there-
fore, to this plan, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff
for 159/.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-ROUSE.

Joseph Myers, ;K:, was on Monday brought up on a
wars ant, in which he was stated to have been, together
with other persons, found feloniously in possession of a
number of ten-pound notes of the Warwick and Lea-
mington Bank, was again put to the bar yesterday.
Mr. Mullins, of the firm of Bush and Mullins, ap-
peared for the prosecution, and Mr. Hobler attended for
the prisoner.
The evidence of Superintendent Roby, of the Lea-
mington police, was read, and Mr. Roby stated that he
had a witness to produce who could swear to the identity
,)f the prisoner, so that he should be justified in remov-
ing the prisoner to the place in which the robbery was
committed.
Thomas Archer, of No. 6, Cullum-street, Lime-street,
bootmaker, was then tailed upon the pant of the prose-
cution. He stated that he bad been examined before
Mr. Russell, the magistrate at Leamington, when the
warrant which was produced had been granted. In the
examination which then took place he had spoken of a
person named Myers. The prisoner was that person.
Mr. Mullins intimated that the identification just es-
tablished was sufficient to justify the Lord Mayor in
sending the prisoner to Leamington in the custody of
the superintendent.
Mr. Hobler submitted that a more accurate identifica•
tion was necessary, as the warrant upon which the pri-
soner had been apprehended charged him with having
been feloniously in possession of stolen notes. I
The Loan Mayon expressed a desire to have satisfac-
tory information as to the identity of the prisoner.
Mr Mullins (to the witness)—Are yon sure that he
is the person mentioned in the warraut ? 'Witness—l
swear that he is the same person.
Mr. Hobler—How do you know that he is the man ?
Witness—l saw him in a certain transaction upon money
and bank-notes. They were Leamington anti v
amick
notes. I detailed about them to the magistrate.
Mr. Mullins—Was the transaction relating to the
parcel of notes specified in the hand-bill? Witness—
Yes. I saw the notes counted and taken to the prisoner
up stairs, at the prisoner's
soner say, house, and I heard the pri-
,. vsre can't give more for them then we have
offered, for they are all following numbers, and on that
account not so valuable, or words to that effect." I had
had the notes in my own hands, and I knitsv they were
part of the notes referred to in the bill offering the
reward.
Mr. Hoblecr—How came you to have the notes in your
bawls? Witness—Because the party who had them,
who was a clerk in the Leamington banking house was
in distress, and he came to m©. I had ktioNn him,
having been myself in business at Leamington. He came
to me in the early part of last spring. I first of all met
him promiscuously in the streets. A man named Blaney
put the notes into my hands, and I saw them counted.
A man was going to sell them to the prisoner. I can't
swear to the exact number, but I understood they were w
to the amount of 1,0001. in 10/. notes. They were old
notes, all looking as if they had been in circulation for
some time.
Mr. Hobler—You never saw them in Myer's hand ?
Witness—Never.
Mr. Hobler—Why, then, did you say that you saw
s
them in his hand ? Witne
to— . I never saw them
in his hand. I never meantssay o
s, o. I went with a
to m
man of the name of Jennings Myers 's house, and Jen-
nings had the notes in his possession when we went to
the house. Jennings is one of the parties named in the
warrant.
Mr. Hobler—Pray, have you ever been in trouble your-
self ? Witness—l don't know what you mean.
Mr. Hobler—Have you ever been in any difficulty ?
Witness—l was once in a difficulty about a half sovereign,
but I received damages for that.
Mr. Hobler—Have you ever been at Worship.street
Police-court for an assault ? Witness --Yes. I was
there for an assault upon a child. It was brought
against me by a woman of the town for the purpose of
extorting money from me, and I was honourably ac-
quitted.
Mr. Hobler contended that the witness's statement
was not sufficient evidence upon which to send his client
to Leamington on such a serious charge.
The LORD MAYou--(to the witness)--Are Toil sure

itiiii

the prisoner is the man—of-Who'm Jr-y-81is;
—Certainly ; I know him perfectly wol,
The Loan MAxott—lffixa satisfied, sad deliver up the
prisoner to the superintendent.
The prisoner was then taken away.
The case excited a great deal of interest, and during
the, examination the Justice-room was crowded to
excess. • .

r1i(121 WATER AT LONDON-BRIDGE THIS DAY.
Morning 57 minutes after 4. I Evening .. 15 minutes after 5