The Sun.
London, England, 1834-07-05 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JULY 4

(Sittings at Guildhall before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE and a
Special Jury.)
ANDERSONAP. /3RADSHAW.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover com-
pensation for the loss he sustained by the running down of his
smack by the defendant's brig.
On the 4th of November last the plaintiff's smack, the St.
Andrew, laden with potatoes, met the defendant's brig, the
Telentachus, at the Nore, and came in collision with her. The
shock was exceedingly violent, the smack in consequence
sprung a leak, and shortly afterwards went to the bottom. The
entire cargo was lost. The smack was on the starboard tack,
and it appeared by the testimony of several witnesses that it is
the custom when two vessels meet, if there be not room suffi-
cient to pass each other, for the one on the starboard tact to
keep the wind of the other and to fall astern. When the
smack was within two cable's length of the brig the crew on
board the smack hailed. No answer was returned from the
brig ; but she kept on her course, and consequently struck the
smack.

Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages to be ascertained by a
reference.

CHALMERS V. SHACKEL AND OTHERS.

This was an action for libel brought by the plaintiff against
the defendants, the printers and proprietors of the John Bull
newspaper.
The plaintiff had formerly carried on business as an agent
for a Mr. Cohoun, a merchant in Guernsey, in the corn trade.
In consequence of some bill transactions he was indicted for
forgery, tried, and convicted at the Old Bailey, and sentenced
to transportation. On an application to the Secretary of
State his case was reviewed, and a free pardon granted him.
His liberation was announced in the Times newspaper, and in
the John Bull of the 27th January there appeared an article in
allusion to it headed thus, " Verily the Whigs select choice
subjects for the exercise cf his Majesty's grace." It went on
to relate the circumstance of his pardon, styling him " Free-
pardoned Patrick Chalmers," and stating further that the
crime of fOrgery was not new to him; that he was a notorious
mob leader in a small way ; that he had attended seditious
meetings at the Rotunda, and that the Political Unions shortly
after his trial went in a body to the Lord Mayor to petition
for his pardon ; and lastly, that he was the friend of Hether-
ington, the notorious printer of sedition and treason; and the
article in conclusion made some very severe remarks upon the
conduct of the Whig Ministry. The defendants pleaded a
justification, and in support of that part of their statement that
the crime of forgery was not new to the plaintiff adduced evi-
dence of a transaction in which it was alleged that he had cir-
culated a bill of exchange, a forged acceptance, at the same
time being cognizant of it.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 30/.
No attorney appeared for the plaintiff: he instructed his
counsel himself.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

BOW-STREET.

Yesterday a well-dressed young man, named James Thomp-
son, one of the horse-patrol on the Harrow-road, was brought
before Sir F. ROE and Mr. MINSHULL, charged with the ex-
traordinary outrage described in the following evidence :
William Howarth, Esq., of 19, Bury-street, St. James's,
and of Barham Wood, Herts, a lieutenant in the army, be-
tween twelve and one o'clock on Wednesday night, was riding
on horseback from Harrow, when he met the prisoner, also on
horseback. They had passed each other, when the prisoner
called out " Hallo l" Witness rode up to him and asked him
who he was, and he said a patrol. He was rolling about on
the saddle, and witness perceived that he was very drunk, and
told him he was not fit to be on duty, and advised him to ride
to the station-house. He abused him very grossly, and told
him he was some barber's clerk, and seizing the bridle
of his (witness's) horse, trotted off towards the station-house
compelling him to go with him. When arrived near the
station-house the prisoner laid hold of his thigh, and witness,
supposing he meant to unhorse him, put his hand to his coat-
pocket, as if to draw a pistol, upon which the prisoner took a
pistol from his holster, and Handed it to witness, saying,
" There is a pistol for you—l have got another; use it, if you
have courage to do so." At that moment a carriage, in which
were the Reverend Mr. Lewis and Mr. Wray, friends of the
witness, drove up, and witness called the attention of those
gentlemen to the state in which the prisoner was. The latter
again used very violent language, and all on a sudden drew his
sabre and aimed a blow at witness's head. The weapon
alighted upon his hat, and cut it through, but without fractur-
ing the skin of the head.—(Mr. Howorth here produced the
hat. )__The blow stunned the witness, and he fell from his
horse, and recollected nothing more until he found himself in
Mr. Lewis's carriage.
Mr. Lewis, of Abbots Langley, Herts, corroborated Mr.
Howarth's statement, and described the prisoner's conduct as
most outrageous, and grossly insulting to that gentleman.
When the prisoner had made the cut at Mr. Howarth he rode
away, and witness ran after him, intending, if he could, to
disarm him, but he turned about and made a desperate blow at
him (Mr. Lewis) with his sabre, and cut off the hinder part
of the crown of his hat, but fortunately without inflicting any
wound upon the head. The prisoner then disappeared, and
witness and his friends took the horse to the nearest station-
house. Witness heard Mr. Howarth say to prisoner, "It is
in my power to do you a great deal of harm by reporting your
conduct at Bow-street, but I do not wish to do so ;" to which
the prisoner replied, " If you do report me I will blow your
brains out."

Two other gentlemen corroborated the foregoing statement,
and spoke of Lieut. Howarth's conduct as exhibiting great
forbearance.

The prisoner, in defence, admitted almost all that had been
stated, and said, with great sang froid, "I certainly made a
cut at a couple of 'em."
Sir F. ROE said that, upon looking at the Act of Parlia-
ment, he found that the case did not come within the law re-
lating to cutting and maiming, inasmuch as there was no
wound actually inflicted upon the persons of either of the gen-
tlemen complaining. The prisoner might consider himself
extremely fortunate that he had escaped being tried for his
life. As it was, he could only commit him for the misde-
meanour. He was ashamed that any one of the police esta-
blishment should have so misconducted himself ; but it was
important that the public should know that magistrates were
always obliged to any persons who would come forward with
any just grounds of complaint against officers. In such a case
as the present the Magistrates would always act up to the
strict letter of the law. Sir Frederick, after thanking Mr.
Howarth and the other gentlemen for the manner in which
they had brought forward the case, fully committed the pri-
soner for trial for the misdemeanour.