The Sun.
London, England, 1858-12-24 00:00:00

THE SOT,- LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING; - DECEMBER 24, 1858

society men for 10 years, but I was determieed to
get rid of them and employ " rats."
Mr. Chambers—Rats! What are they ?
Witness—Non-society men are called "rats."
(Great laughter.)
Mr. Chambers—And you set a trap to eatchthem.
(Renewed laughter.)
Witness--No, I did not.
Mr. Chambers—But you caught some by your
trap—yoar advertisement, promising high wages.
Witness—lt was not a trap. There are always
more " rats" than non-rats. It is the usual practice
to pay extra for night-work, and I always did pay
it. When daily papers were introduced into Sheffield
the pay was fixed at 5d., and 3d. per hour for every
hour atter ten o'clock. That was fixed by the men
themselves, and the masters paid it very unwil-
lingly. I paid it myself. It is not true, as stated
in the libel, that I am indebted for any improvement
in my position in life to my marriage. Twelve years
ago, as stated in the libel, I received money from
the society as an unemployed member of the trade
society. I have told some of my men to insert ad-
vertisements of parties at a distance. They were
advertisements which had been ordered, but which
had expired. I will swear I never had advertise-
ments not ordered set up from other newspapers. I
have not pursued such a practice. I have not done
it occasionally in the sense you mean. I may have
done so in single instances for special reasons, but I
have not done so lately. I have over and over again
told the compositors to give up setting news and to
put in advertisements which had expired. But the
libel says " dummy advertisements," and they are
fictitious ones. I put advertisements in the daily
paper gratuitously which are published in the
weekly paper. This is only a temporary arrange-
ment, because the daily paper has not been estab-
lished long enough to get advertisements. " Dum-
mies" are false, fictitious, unreal, made-up adver-
tisements. I have known men who are no men at
all, but merely clothes stuffed up, who were dum-
mies. (Laughter.) I wrote the heading to the bill
—" Malice and Envy Trampling on Truth and
Justice." In that bill I characterised the statements
in the libel as malicious and false.
Re-examined—None of the new men whom I have
employed have complained of the rate of wages
they receive.
Wm. H. Whybrew—l am a journeyman printer
in plaintiff's employ. I was one of the new men. I
wrote to him in consequence of the advertisement
in the Times. On receiving as answer I went to
Sheffield, and engaged with him at 30s. a week. I
agreed to work 60 hours a week for that sum. We
had an arrangement as to extra and night work.
Mr. M. Chambers objected to this class of evi-

dente.
Mr. Baron Martin considered it admissible, as the
libel charged the plaintiff with endeavouring to
grind down his men.
Examination continued—l was to be paid 6d. an
hour for extra day, and Bd. an hour for midnight
work. Since I entered the employment I have
averaged within a shilling or two of £2 a week. I
do not work on Sundays.
Cross-examined—Midnight work is after 12
o'clock. I have 30s. a week certain. I work on all
three papers. lam a compositor. Ido not profess
to be the best of the lot. Ido not earn the highest
wages. There are 14 compositors. Ido not recollect
Charles Hall. I have heard his name. Mr. Harri-
son pays us himself. I entered his service on the
4th of Oct. I have never belonged to the society.
Before I went to Sheffield I was in an office in Lon-
don. I was at book or piecework. I believe the
men in that branch have also rules and regulations.
There are two of the 14 compositors here—the men
at the highest and next highest wages. The men
came from various parts. I have made as much as
£2 3s. in a week with Mr. Harrison.
Re-examined—l have heard no dissatisfaction ex-
pressed in the office.
George Ridge—l am a printer and stationer at
Sheffield. I am in the habit of employing journey-
men. I have union men in my employment. I
pay 28s. a week for ordinary work, 6d. per hour for
over hours, and after 10 o'clock at night, 9d. an
hour. There is no union amongst the master prin-
ters in Sheffield. Ido not find the rules of the men
an impediment or otherwise.
Cross-examined—l am still in business. I printed
a newspaper for 20 years. I employed union men
for some time. We had a very serious strike. I
then got new hands, but afterwards took back some
union men. I knew Mr. Harrison's three papers.
Henry Fielding—l am a journeyman-printer, and
one of the plaintiff's new hands. 1 went to him on
the 2d Oct. I agreed for 355. a week, and 6d. per
per hour overtime. I have since averaged a little
over £2 7s. a week. I have heard no complaints in
the establishment. Ido not belong to the union.
Cross-examined—l am still with Mr. Harrison.
I have mentioned to him that I may leave. lam
generally thought a good hand. I came to him
from Liverpool. I worked there on the Northern
Daily Times. There we worked piecework. We
began at 6 o'clock in the evening, and worked till
3,4, or sin the morning. After leaving there I
was working in a jobbing house.
Re-examined—l am leaving Mr. Harrison in
order to better myself.
Thomas Algar—l am a bookseller and stationer
in Sheffield. I employ printers. My men are not
connected with the union. I have no scale of wages.
I pay what I think the men are worth. The highest
last week earned 455., the lowest 245. I used to
employ union men.
Cross-examined—The 455. man was a litho-
grapher. I employ about five men.
William Hodson—l am a shoemaker in Sheffield.
I am employed to sell Mr. Harrison's paper, the
Sheffield Times. My sale was among the saw-
grinders and colliers. Since they gave up the
Sheffield Times the circulation of the Sheffield
Daily Telegraph has increased. They gave up the
Sheffield Ti»zes after the handbills were put out.
My sale fell from 35 to 24. The placards were the
only cause of the falling off. I was threatened at
the factories if I took Mr. Harrison's paper in to
sell.

Cross-examined—There was not a tarn-out of the
colliers in Sheffield about the time. I speak of the
weekly paper. I did not sell the daily paper. I
have 4s. a week.
Robert Goodehild—l sell the Weekly Sheffield
Times. Before October I used to sell 80 a week. In
consequence of the placards my sqle fell to under 50.
Cross-examined.—The placards were stuck up in
the public-houses.
George Downing—l am a razor-smith by trade.
I have been employed by Mr. Harrison to post pla-
cards. I was employed to post his answer. I have
sold his papers. My sale fell off after the placards
were published.
Cross-examined—l used to sell 350 a week of the
halfpenny paper ; the number was reduced one-
half. I was paid 225. a week.
William Ashwood—l am a newsan'ent in Sheffield.
After the placards my sale of Mr. Harrison's papers
fell to one-half. I used to sell about 100 to 112 of
them weekly. I now sell only 42 copies. The
falling off was decidedly attributable to the placards.
They caused great excitement.
Cross-examined—The placards were distributed
and posted.
The particulars of the defendant's justification,
furnished by him under an order of the court, were
then put in.
The defendant's counsel having intimated their
intention not to call any witnesSes,
Mr. E. James proceeded to sum up the case of
the plaintiff. He said if this had been a mere
squabble between two newspaper proprietors the
jury would never have been troubled with the case,
but there could be no doubt that the publication
was a wicked and malicious attempt on the part of
the defendant, fighting behind the screen of the
trade union, to destroy the property of the plaintiff
by bringing to bear against him a power which
exercised an influence they could scarcely under-
stand, and which must prove fatal to his position
and prospects unless their verdiet vindicated him.
The defendant stood before them utterly unjustified.
He had made no apology ' • and although he might
suggest he had merely published the document as
an advertisement, it bore internal evidence that it
must have proceeded from him. He had been con-
nected with the plaintiff's paper, and it was clear
he must have furnished the information for the
libel. Mr. Harrison had denied positively the alle-
gations made against him. To his credit he was
not above stating he had once received relief from
the society. He had do wish to interfere with the
rights of labour—he only sought to protect the
rights of property. What had he done ? He had,
in point of fact, made no reduction of wages—he
had only discharged these society men, as he had a
perfect right to do.
Mr. M. Chambers, for the defence, said there
could be no doubt that this was an attempt by the
plaintiff to ruin the defendant. A great deal of ir-
elevant matter had been introduced which the jury
must dismiss from their consideration. The ques-
tion of the legality or propriety of trade unions was
one with which they had nothing to do. The de-
fendant was a newspaper proprietor, and the action
was brought against him for the publication of this
alleged libel as an advertisement. The plaintiff had
never asked for an apology, but had at once com-
menced his four actions. It now appeared every
allegation was proved by himself. He admitted he
had inserted advertisements which had never been
ordered or paid for. What were these but dummy
advertisements ? Every witness stated that the
mischief to the plaintiff, if any, had arisen from the
placards, and not from the advertisements. He was
lthe
u conclusionsgge
prepared tocontend the evidence for the plaintiff
showed every allegation made substantially true.
s t,i
onh sa do nothingfwteewh rai
e readerr
st oodfo themi with
gh thehandbill,
dr adraw
offrom
deductionsowmitith
Defendantsathr

as to Mr. Harrison's conduct. As far as he was
concerned the plaintiff had admitted all that was
stated. A good deal hadbeen said as to the tyranny
of the trades unions, but the masters called by
plaintiff proved that in Sheffield at least this union
was no tyranny, no impediment. This man had
brought workmen from every quarter, and yet there
had been no interference with them. The conduct
of the Sheffield society was a pattern and example
to all such bodies. The learned counsel then went
in detail through the alleged libel, and contended
that every fact stated in it was clearly proved. As
to the reflections and conclusions of the writers,
that was a matter with which the defendant had
nothing to do. If the plaintiff was annoyed at
having his paper spoken of as a feeble and al-
most defunct journal, why did he not retaliate
on the defendant ? What was such a statement
but a mere incident of paper warfare. The plain-
tiff himself had next day published a placard
which was clearly libellous, and vet he had
ventured to bring four actions without so much
as asking for an apology. In any event the evi-
dence all showed that the damage to the plaintiff
arose from the posting of the placards, and not
from the publication of the advertisement, for which
alone the defendant was responsible.
Mr. Baron Martin, in summing up, expressed his
regret that some arrangement had not been made
between the parties. The defendant had pleaded
"not guilty" and a justification. The first question
for the jury was whether this was a libel or not ;
that was a question for them ; but it was his duty
to tell them what a libel was ; it was defined to be
a publication calculated to injure the reputation of
another by exposing him to hatred. What could
more tend to expose to hatred a man who had risen
from the ranks himself than to say that he was en-
deavouring to grind down other workmen, that he
was trampling on the .rights and privileges of the
working classes, and seeking to avoid doing justice
between man and man ? In his opinion there was
no doubt his paper was a libel in point of law. The
second question for the jury arose on the plea of
justification : in a civil proceeding for libel the de-
fendant was allowed to plead that his statement
was true. If they believed this plea was made out,
they ought to find for the defendant ; but if it was
not, then their verdict should be for the plaintiff.
The gist of the libel was that the plaintiff had un-
reasonably reduced his wages. As to his dismissing
the men, there could be no doubt trade unions were
lawful, but they had no right to dictate to their
masters as to other workmen. (His lordship hav-
ing then read the portions of the document com-
plained of, and gone through the evidence, con-
tinued.) If thejury were satisfied that the publi-
cation was a libel, and that the justification was
not made out, the next question for them was as
to the amount of damages. As to this they should
exercise their own discretion. The defendant said
he was not the only person who had published this
libel, and contended that the damage to the plain-
tiff, if any, arose from the acts of the other parties.
The jury should exercise their Oiviejudgment and
common sense. He would recommend them not to
allow themselves by any suggestion to be led into
an attempt to perform the impossible task of
distributing the damages among the several parties.
The plaintiff could not unite all the wrong-doers
in one action, and if he was to be met in that way
he might lose his damages altogether. If a man did
an unlawful act he was responsible for it, and had
no right to complain if a jury gave damages
against him.
The jury, after a few moments' consideration, re-
turned a verdict for the gaintiff—damages, £5OO.
Mr. M. Chambers asked his lordship to stay exe-
cution on the ground of misdirection. He contended
the jury should have been told the witnesses proved
that all the damage to the plaintiff arose from the
posting of the placards. He also made the applica-
tion on the ground that the damages were excessive.
Mr. Baron Martin refused the application on the
first ground ; as to the second, he was not satisfied
with the amount ; but, if the plaintiff consented,
he would not refuse to stay execution, it being dis-
tinctly understood that he had expressed no dis-
satisfaction with the finding.
Mr. Mellish, for the plaintiff, consented.
Execution stayed.
nARRISON V. HINCHCLIFFE.
This was another action arising out of the same
transaction, brought by the same plaintiff against
the printer of the handbills.
When the case was called on there was some
difficulty in getting a fresh jury, and his lordship
suggested that it should be made a remanet. After
some discussion, the suggestion was adopted.
Mr. Baron Martin expressed a hope that the par-
ties would now make peace, and put a stop to the
posting of these placards.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.—Dec. 23.

Mr. Thomas William Capron surrendered to take
his trial upon an indictment charging him with
assaulting Mr. Mowbray Morris. The indictment
contained three counts varying the form of the
charge.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine and Mr. Giffard were
counsel for the prosecution ; Mr. 'Montagu Cham-
bers, Q.C. and Mr. Metcalfe were for the defence.
Mr. Ballantine, in opening the case, said the pro-
secution was instituted against the defendant for
assaulting and inflicting upon the prosecutor griev-
ous bodily harm ; and it would be his duty to lay
before them the circumstances by which the investi-
gation was surrounded.
James Ellis, examined by Mr. Giffard—l am a
police-constable 255 B. On the night of November
5, I was on duty near Buckingham-gate. At half-
past 10 o'clock two cabs drove up to No. 13, James-
street. I saw a gentleman get out of the first cab,
and Mr. Capron got out instantly from the second
cab. I saw the defendant make a rush on to Mr.
Morris, the gentleman who got out of the first cab.
He struck him over the head and shoulders with a
light walking stick. Mr. Morris was taking a
picture out of the cab at the time. I ran up and
got between them and laid hold of Mr. Capron to
prevent any furthur assault. Mr. Morris said,
" Take him away—he is mad—he is drunk." Mr.
Morris then said he would not give him into cus-
tody. Then Mr. Capron got into his cab, and the
complainant came up and asked me to take Mr.
Capron's name and address. Mr. Capron then tried
to strike Mr. Morris again. Mr. Morris then said
he would give Mr. Capron into custody, and I took
him to the station-house- At the station-house he
lsiaoipt have given him a thrashing before, and I
I have given him a black eye to go to church
with in the morning." Mr. Capron was detained
for an hour, and as Mr. Morris did not come, he
was let go. Mr. Morris came ten minutes after-
wards.
Mr. Mowbray Morris was then called into the box.
the assault was taken as proved, and he
..was not
examined in chief.
Cross-examined by Mr. Chambers—l am the pro-
secutor. lat first refused to give Mr. Capron into
custody, but he was afterwards taken into custody
by the policeman. I then went to see the brother
of the lady to whom I was to be married on the
following day. lam a barrister, and practised at
Jamaica. I knew Mr. -Capron some years
now
ago, as
astudent
for certain, but I believe about that time—our ac-
quaintancein
wtahe Temple. In 1853—1 don't know
for
and he invited me to his
house, and introduced me to Mrs. Capron. He
went out hunting with me.
The Assistant-Judge—This is not objected to;
but Mr. Chambers, may I ask what relevancy this
has to the case of assault ?
After some discussion as to withdrawing the two
first counts of the indictment, the examination pro-
ceeded.
Witness—l invited him to hunt with me. I be-
lieve I did not say that was to cement our union.
It was arranged that Mrs. Morris and Mrs. Capron
should exchange visits. In the year following the
renewal of our acquaintance we dined together
perhaps half a dozen times, irrespective of his visits
to rrie in the country.
I sent them opera tickets,
and also for the French and German plays, and
occasionally perhaps
down to June in that year I
sent Mrs. Capron bouquets of a morning.
Sergeant Ballantine did not at all object to these
matters of five
years ago being fully gone into, but
he thought it right to say that he should, have to
produce documents and allude to circumstances. of
a truly painful nature.
After some discussion, the learned sergeant said
he would not object; let it go on, and the result
would show whose feelings he was most anxious to
spare.
Witness—l may have sent bouquets when Mr.
Capron: was out, but if so I did not know whether
Mr Capron was from home or not. When I visited
I did not know whether Mr. Capron was out or
npt.' I did not in June, 1853, stay alone with Mrs.
Capron in the drawing-room two, three, or four
hours at a time, but in the summer of that year, I
do nrbt know the time, I frequently visited Mrs.
CaprOn, and saw her alone. I wish to speak accu-
rately, and to give every information required, but
I cannot speak with exactness of events which oc-
curred five years ago. I was in general shown up
stairs, and might have remained two hours at one
time. I did not to the best of my recollection ever
send any letters to Mrs. Capron under cover to
Bass. Ido not remember anything of the kind.
Mr. Capron's house was in South-street, Grosvenor--
square. In July I met Mrs. Capron in the Park.
She did not ride down to the boat-house in my car-
riage. We wclit down to the boat-house, and
rowed on the Serpentine. I went to the Star and
Garter, Richmond, once with Mrs. Capron. I can-
not say that I returned at 10 at night. I took Mrs.
Capron to the Beulah Spa Hotel, but do not recol-
lect it was on the day I met her in the Park. I

took her to Thames Ditton, and we gined at an inn
on the side of the water. I also took her to the
Trafalgar, at Greenwich. We might have returned
about 10 at night, not so late as 12. Mr. Capron
was out of town on the Ist of August. I cannot
say whether I went out with Mrs. Capron that
night. I don't recollect whether on the 2d of Au-
gust I took Mrs. Capron to the theatre, but I admit
that I did take her to the theatre. I don't know
that Mr. Capron was out of town. Ido not recol-
lect dining with Mr. and Mrs. Capron on any par-
ticular occasion just prior to the naval review. I
had not made arrangements to go to that review,
more probably the reverse. I recollect Mr.
Capron going out, as was understood, yachting, and
as matter of history I know it was about that time.
I recollect his leaving town to go yachting. I
never took her out and remained out till 12 o'clock.
I recollect nothing of the sort. I knew that
Mr. Capron came from yachting, and I think I
did not see him after he retnrned. I frequently
saw Mrs. Capron. I was in the habit of going out
of town. Bass, the maid, brought me a note to
the Oxford and Cambridge Club from Mrs. Capron.
I took her to my lodgings in Pall-mall, and wrote
an answer.
The Assistant-Judge asked if this was evidence.
Sergeant Ballantine—l have the most complete
answer to it, and desire it may be most fully gone

into.
Court—Do you pursue that course of exami-
nation, then ?
Sergeant Ballantine—lf Mr. Capron had any
complaint to make against Mr. Morris, why did he
not take the proper legal course ? We want pro-
tection from violence.
The Assistant-Judge understood the object of the
inquiry was with reference to the assault. Had it
been committed ?
Sergeant Ballantine—Mr. Morris has come here
to meet these matters, and it is now obligatory to
go on with it. I said at the outset I was fully
prepared to meet these imputations, however pain-
ful the duty, but those who have brought them for-
ward must hear the answer. I hope the examina-

tion may go on.
Witness—l am so desirous of perfect accuracy.
that I will not speak of anything that I do not re-
collect well. I recollect giving Bass (Mrs. Capron's
maid) a letter—l believe for her mistress. I don't
recollect when Mrs. Capron went to Richmond. I
don't know that it was on the same day that I went
to Richmond. She came once to my lodgings, but
did not stay. I saw Mrs. Capron at Richmond and
walked with her to the railway station. I did not
return that night in a cab with Mr. Bowlby. The
next day Mrs. Capron left Richmond, and went to
live at the Queen's Hotel, Bayswater. I visited
there once or twice, and made her a present of a
writing-case. Do not recollect a work-box as well.
I took Mrs. Capron to tho Star and Garter, with
Mr. Bowlby, who was acting as her solicitor in a
suit of divorce which she had then commenced

against her husband for cruelty. We dined there
and Mrs. Capron's brother came in before dinner was
over. I sent for the landlord and asked him how it
was that a person had intruded into a private room.
Mrs. Capron mentioned the brother's name when she
saw him. An action was brought against Capron
for his wife's expenses at the Queen's Hotel, but it
was put off and the expenses paid. Mrs. Capron
returned to her husband on the Bth of November.
I saw her at Eastbourne; that was before she re-
turned to her husband. The next I saw of defen-
dant was in Paris. In July, 1854, he assaulted me
in the Place Vendome, and was tried by the Tri-
bunal of Correctional Police and fined 100 f. I was
not then present through a mistake as to the time
I could be absent from Paris attending to my
duties in London, but I was present in the first
instance, after the assault was committed. I em-
ployed an avocat. I did not know, never heard,
that the newspapers had reports of the proceedings.
I afterwards saw him at the Exhibition of the
Royal Academy in 1856. I was accompanied by a
friend and his brother. The defendant said to his
(witness's) friend, " I had the honour of being in-
troduced to you by. Mr. Mowbray Morris. He is,
I believe, your friend. It is right you should
know what he is, and I tell you what he is—that
he is a scoundrel and a coward. My name is Ca-
pron." It was to that effect. He repeated it aloud.
I went to get a policeman to give him into custody,
but was advised by my friends not to do so. Capron
was then left to take what proceedings he thought
fit to bring the matter before some judicial tribunal,
if he felt aggrieved.
Sergeant Ballantine—And you have at last done
so, as he would not?
Witness—Certainly. I have seen two pamphlets,
but I did not take any proceedings against him
respecting them. I do not know that Mrs. Capron
is now in a lunatic asylum, but I heard so a few
days since. I never saw her after she returned to
her husband in November, 1853. I was married
the day after the assault now in question.
Re-examined—When I was assaulted by de-
fendant in Paris, my wife, since dead, was with
me. She lived with me down to the day of her
death, and she •
was fully acquainted with my
visits to Mrs. Capron, and knew the object. When
that assault was committed I was walking by the side
of Mrs. Morris—not arm in arm, we were a little
apart—when defendant rushed past us from behind,
and turning round upon me, struck me across the
head with a stick, and the blood spurted over my
wife's dress. After the insult in the Royal Academy,
I took legal advice—consulted with Mr. Hawkins,
the counsel—and upon his opinion I acted. I was
advised that' had no legal remedy. The defendant's
pamphlets were sent to my wife just before she
died.
Sergeant Ballantine—Now, before the jury, and
by the solemn obligation of your oath, was there
ever any criminality between you and Mrs. Capron
Mr. Morris—Never.
Sergeant Ballantine—Did you ever take her outs
or-see her, or drive her about, up to June, 1853,
during the time you dined with the defendant ?
Mr. Morris—Most certainly not. I never was
anywhere with her without her husband before
that time. On one occasion we had been to Chob-
ham, and after we had dined Mr. Capron sug-
gested to his wife to go to bed, as she was tired ;
but she did not, and he muttered, " You d--
-." On the following day she made a verbal
communication to me, and I then learned thatthere
had been two separations for cruelty and miscon-
duct on his part. (This was objected to, but
allowed by the court.) She said she wished to be
separated from him again. She made a communi-
cation respecting her own mother and other rela-
tives, and gave that as an excuse for consulting
me. I told her I was not the proper person to
advise her ; she ought to go to her mother. She
reiterated her reasons for not seeking her advice.
I told her that out of respect to my own character
and her own I could not do anything in the matter
unless all Other means had been tried and failed.
There was nothing in whatever passed of which
either Mrs. Capron or myself need be ashamed,. in
the least possible degree. She consulted me as
a friend. I recommended her to Laurence,
Crowdy, and Bowlby, and a suit was commenced
for divorce. That was when Mrs. Capron
refused to live with Mr. Capron. Mr. Nelson, a
proctor, was consulted, and Mrs. Capron put in her
own statement of Mr. Capron's conduct to and
treatment of her.
It was proposed to put this statement in, but
defendant's counsel objected.
Mr. Chambers then proceeded to address the
jury. He said it was a most extraordinary case,
and he should have abandoned his duty if he had
not accepted the challenge to have these matters
fully investigated, and the result had been, that by
the oath of Mr. Morris Mrs. Capron had been re-
lieved from all imputation of having broken her
marriage vow, but she had been imprudent to a
degree which could not be too much regretted.
Nothing could be charged against the defendant
but a common -assault, yet two serious counts had
been put into the indictment, and he much com-
plained that documents which had been confiden-
tially placed in the hands of an attorney should
have been shown, and openly produced and read in
court. Mr. Morris was engaged in the matter of
the separation, and the defendant, in a moment of
indignation and in the excitement of his affection
for his wife, and under the provocation of what
had taken place, had been induced to commit what
he could not but say was an assault, but surely not
so serious a one as to require three counts of an in-
dictment to define it. It was well, perhaps, how-
ever painful, that this inquiry had taken place, as
an explanation had been afforded which exculpated
Mrs. Capron. The learned counsel then commented
upon the evidence at some length, and urged that
the effence was one of a very trivial nature.
The jury found the defendant guilty on the third
count.
The Assistant-Judge and the magistrates retired.
On coming into court,
The Assistant-Judge, in passing sentence, observed
that the prisoner had been convicted upon the third
count of the indictment, on evidence which could not
be questioned or contravened. Although the sentence
of the court now would restrain the liberty of the
defendant only for a short period, yet it ever he
should be brought before that court again for a
similar outrage, or for any, breach of the law
amounting to an indictable misdemeanour against
Mr. Morris, he would be looked upon as a person
requiring—not for his own reformation merely,
but as a warning to all ill-disposed persons likely
to break the peace—a punishment not at all to be
measured by his present sentence, but totally of a
different kind. In the hope, therefore, that the
defendant would abstain from any such conduct,
and at once submit to the necessity of keeping the
peace as long he lived in this country, the court
would pass on him the lowest sentence which, in