The Sun.
London, England, 1834-07-14 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

WESTERN CIRCUITT—WiNcnEsrEa, JULY 12.
The Judges will not dine on this occasion at Strathfield-
saye, as had been hitherto customary, on the day previous
to the Commission.

Mr. Justice PATTESON opened the Commission on
Thursday, and went to the Cathedral on Friday ; but Lord
DENMAN did not arrive here until one o'clock on Friday,
and, what is also very unusual, he went to Court without
having previously attended divine service, a circumstance
which astonished some of the natives.
The calendar is not heavy. It contains only thirty-two
names, of which there are three for arson, one for a rape,
and the remainder for ordinary offences.
The cause list is unusually long ; there are twenty-one
causes entered for trial, of which five are to be tried by
Special Juries. Mr. Justice PATTESON presides in the
Crown Court, and Lord DEN:ILAN in the Civil Court.
(Before Lord DENMAN and a Common Jury.)
SEDUCTION--JOSEPH V. CAVENDEN.
The Plaintiff is an old clothes-dealer ; the Defendant a
tobacconist, carrying on business in Portsmouth. This was
an action for the seduction of the Plaintiff's daughter.
Sarah Joseph, a very pretty and interesting-looking girl,
nineteen years of age, was the daughter of the Plaintiff. In
October last, as she was passing by, the Defendant, who is
a widower with three children, called her in to take a mes-
sage to her father. When she went to his parlour he asked
her what she thought of settling herself in the world ? She
said that she could not think of abandoning her religion, as
she was of the Jewish persuasion. " Nonsense," said he,
" I'll make you happy." He put his hand on her mouth.
She fainted, and did not recover for half an hour, when
she found herself much flurried. " thank you," said she,
" now that you have first ruined me, to perform your pro-
mise and marry me." " I'll do it before a month," said
he. He requested her not to tell her father. She saw
him again about a week or ten days afterwards, but not
since. She is now in the family way. Her father found
it out in May last, and sent her to Mrs. Child's to lodge, to
whom he pays 235. a week for her board and lodging. As
she performed the domestic duties, her father was obliged to
hire a servant in her stead.

Cross-examined by —Mr. Sergeant BOMPAS.—Never
spoke to the defendant before this took place, though he
used to have dealings with her father. Never saw her
brother or father since she left on the 3d of May. Never
saw her father's attorney until this morning. He did not
call to examine her.

The question being repeated to her by the Court she
recollected that the attorney called on her on Wednesday
in this town.

Mr. Sergeant BOMPAS, for the defendant, observed that
no man could be safe, if they pronounced a verdict for the
plaintiff on such evidence as that of his daughter, who
contradicted herself. He would call several witnesses
to show that she had long since abandoned the paths of
virtue.

Several witnesses having given evidence to that effect,
Lord DENMAN told the jury that if they believed her to
be so profligate as to require no solicitations to seduce her,
their verdict should be for the defendant ; but if they
thought that she had merely erred in a few instances, and
that her mind had not been entirely debauched before her
knowledge of the defendant, their verdict should be for the
plaintiff.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 40s.

HOME CIRCUIT.—HERTFORD, JULY 11.
CIVIL SIDE.-PATNIORE V. NICHOLSON.
Mr. CLAnicsoN opened the pleadings. The plaintiff,
George Peter Patmore, claimed the balance of a year's sa-
lary, which the defendant had contracted to pay him as edi-
tor of the County Press newspaper. The defendant denied
the contract, and pleaded a set-off to more than the plain-
tiff's claim.

Mr. THEsstoEa stated the facts of the plaintiff's case.
The plaintiff, a gentleman of great literary talent, had long
been the editor of the Court Journal, a publication of con-
siderable note in London. The defendant was a most re-
spectable solicitor at Hertford. In 1831, Mr. Nicholson
having heard of the merits and abilities of Mr. Patmore, he
became anxious to effect an engagement with him to edit
a paper professing Tory politics, to be circulated through
the county. And, accordingly, on the sth of July, Mr.
Patmore entered upon his duties as editor of the County
Press ; it being understood that, as he was the editor of a
Londonjournal, his attendance at Hertford would not be
required more than one, or at most two days in the week.
The salary then agreed upon was 2251. a year, the 251. be-
ing allowed for travelling expenses, and he was to have
apartments provided for him in the town. On these terms
the paper was published. It met with extreme success ; so
much so that every one considered he was not sufficiently
remunerated for his services, and an increase of payment
was proposed to him in his character of editor. Mr. Patmore
engaged a gentleman named Evans as sub-editor, whose duty
it was constantly to attend at Hertford, to superintend
the getting out of the paper. A meeting took place be-
tween the plaintiff and the defendant in the presence of
Evans, to agree upon the terms on which the new ar-
rangement was to be conducted. The sum of money
offered Patmore, out of which he was to pay a sub-editor,
and other expenses not connected with the printing and
stationery, was not then accepted, as the plaintiff did not
consider the remuneration sufficient for his services. It was

11.30 proposed that the day c.,fpublieatim should I;ft
from Tuesday, the day on which the Count,d 'changed was
orizinally published, to Saturday, the same `).av as the rival
publication appeared. This took place or., the' ijti, of July,
1833. On the 15th of September tb 4
letter to the defendant, which was pr-,, plaintiff wrote a
Evans (the letter was read). `tented to him by Mr.
T -
to edit the paper, pay sub-editor
1 , b.nd meet other inciden-
iDiaintiff asked 6001.
tats. The defendant expressed :iimself willing to agree to
the terms proposed, and Mr : Evans was engaged by Mr.
Patmore at 100/. a year 'salary. Ho wever, in March, 1833, plaintiff suddenly 'received notice of discharge from
Mr. Nicholson. It w",is admitted that the salary was re-
gularly paid up to -!anuary, and the plaintiff claimed the
balance of his salary to the end of the year, which was
about 250/, the sum which he now hoped to have the ver-
dict of the Jury for.
Mr. Evans knew Mr. Patmore. Knew him in July,
1832. Was then editor of the Court Journal. In July,
1832, witness was engaged as sub-editor, at 100/. per an-
num, horsekeep, &c., salary to be paid by Mr. Patmore.
After he was engaged he saw Mr. Nicholson and Mr. Pat-
more together. There was a great deal of conversation.
No proposition was made by Mr. Nicholson. Mr. Nichol-
son wished Mr. Patmore to come down two days a week.
On Tuesdays were the latest days he could come on ac-
, count of his engagements, or at the higher rate of salary.
No engagement was come to. Witness had several com-
munications with Mr. Nicholson. He delivered the letter
of September 15, 1832, to Mr. Nicholson. (The letter
was then read.) On the following 'week Mr. Patmore
came to Hertford. Witness had been previously engaged.
Saw Mr. Nicholson, but he said nothing on the subject of
the letter. Mr. Nicholson might have mentioned the en-
gagement with Mr. Patmore, but not in any precise terms.
He said, I think, " Now I have acceded to his terms." I
received money from Mr. Nicholson for Mr. Patmore.
Once a bill of 1001., more than once 50/. He judged it
to be for the salary. He had received 501.-100/. I think
a cheque for 100/. After 15th September, Mr. Patmore
came down on an average twice in three weeks. Witness
went to London every week, as sub-editor, to consult with
Mr. Patmore. In his judgment Mr. Patmore conducted
the paper properly. The paper was changed from Tuesday
to Saturday for publication. In March, 1833, he found
his place was occupied by Mr. Bayley. At my request
Mr. Nicholson offered me a situation on the County
Press. The application was by letter for the sub-editorship.
By Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS--Mr. Nicholson answered
his letter. He had reported for the Atlas. He never had
the management of a paper. The engagement he had was
with Mr. Patmore. At first when he was engaged, Mr.
Patmore came down regularly, not so after ; and his con-
duct became the subject of complaint by Mr. Nicholson
frequently. They had an interview, and there were many
complaints made. The market columns were sent from
London. He (witness) collected local information. A
Mr. Gardener was employed before he came down. He
had no particular instructions where to go. Mr. Staughton
complained that he did not, get the copy in time. Over-set
matter was sometimes a waste. He never knew five
columns over-set. It frequently happened that matter was
over-set. The London markets were sent by a Mr. Gar-
dener in time. He had not heard Mr. Patmore and Mr.
Nicholson. After September Mr. Patmore never said,
" I will go, and take Mr. Evans with me." Mr. Patmore
said his time was more valuable in London. He recol-
lected something about distress, even in tears ; it was in
consequence of something that passed between him and
Mr. Nicholson. It might very likely be in consequence
of his having to go if Patmore went.
Re-examined by Mr. THESSIGER—Nothing from Hat-
field was ever purposely put aside. He had been once at
Hatfield House to report a dinner.
Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS for the defendant, observed it
was certainly a most extraordinary mode of proving the
plaintiff's case, to rest it simply upon the evidence of Mr.
Evans, whose testimony merely went to prove that the, de-
fendant had said, " Now that I have acceded to Patmore's
terms, &c." From such evidence was it to be inferred that
there was a contract, and that the plaintiff was to
receive a salary of 600/. a year ? He must say it was
impossible. The letter of the plaintiff dated September 15,
1832, proved that, instead of an increase, a reduction in the
expenditure of the Paper was contemplated. Another
letter of the plaintiff would prove that in July, 1832, the
plaintiff wished to know if his services were likely to be per-
manently employed on the paper, and proposing, on the re-
ceipt of an extra 100/. per annum, to make arrangements in
London for obtaining advertisements, which could not be got
to the paper by any other means. In that letter the plain-
tiff observed that the newspapers and magazines cost about
651. per annum, and requested to be allowed that sum, or
even less, say 50/., for procuring them from his own re
sources. How would that fact correspond with a contras
for 6001. a year ?
Evidence, with letters of the plaintiff, were then put in.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, Damages 10

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

BOW-STREET.

John Richards, a stout-made young fellow, was placed at
the bar handcuffed, and with his legs tied together with
strong ropes, charged with begging in the streets, and also
with assaulting two of the new police.
He was committed for one month to the House of Cor-
rection.

UNSTAMPED PUBLICATIONS.—John Bulger and George
Walls, were brought up in custody of Poulson, one of the
Stamp Office employees, charged with selling the People's
Hue and Cry, and the Weekly Police Gazette.
Poulson, accompanied by Scattergood, met Bulger in
Russel-court, Drury-lane. They purchased a Police Ga-
zette of him, and they afterwards met Wall in Middle-
row, St. Giles's, of whom the purchased the Hue and Cry
paper. These were both unstamped newspapers. Wall,
when taken into custody, threw himself down upon the
pavement, roaring out " Rescue !" The mob began to en-
courage him, and but for the assistance of one of the F. di-
vision, he would have escaped. Bulger asserted that it was
his first offence ; but Wall, on the other hand, was recog-
nised as an old offender.
_ _

Mr. MlNsffuLL said that some punishment must be in-
flicted on Bulger, whom he committed for fourteen days
to the House of Correction. With regard to Wall, recog-
nised as an old offender, he must be committed for two
months. Such publications must be put a stop to ;it was
the determination of Government to stop them, and in fu-
ture he should in such cases inflict the utmost penalty of the
law.