The Sun.
London, England, 1858-08-06 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—GUILDFORD, AuG. 4.
(Before Mit. Justice Willes and Special Juries.)
EASTWOOD V. HOLMES AND ANOTHER.

This was an action of libel.

The plaintiff is a dealer in antiquities, and the defendants
are the proprietors of the Atheneum newspaper, and the'
action was brought to recover damages for a libel published
in that paper on the Bth of May last. The defendants pleaded
that the statement which was alleged to be a libel was true.
Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., and Mr. Hawkins were for the
plaintiff; Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Lush, Q.C.,
appeared for the defendants. •
Mr. James, in opening the case, said that the plaintiff
had for more than 20 years carried en the business of a dealer
in curiosities and antiquities, and he brought the present'.
action with a view to vindicate his character from a very •
serious imputation that, had been cast upon it by an article
which appeared in the defendant's journal, and which charged
him with defrauding the public by selling counterfeit anti-
quities. The learned counsel then stated that in the course
of last year a large number of ancient relics were dis-
covered le an excavation at Shadwell, and these relics,
a great portion of which turned out to be what were
known among antiquaries as pilgrims' signs, he should
show without a doubt were perfectly genuine, and came into
the possession of the plaintiff as such, and he paid for them
a considerable sum of money. The article that was the sub-
ject of the present action appeared in the Atheneum cf the
Bth of May in the present year, and it purported to be a re-
pert of what took place at one of the meeting; of the
British .Archmolngical Assreiation, and it repr;:sented that
the proceedings concluded by Mr. Curving reading a paper
on the subject of the" Recent Forgeries in Lead," and in
that paper he stated that certain leaden articles which
were represented to be pilgrims' signs, and to have
been discovered in. the course of an excavation upon the
banks of the Thames, for the purpose of making a new
dock, avers forgeries, and that Mr. Coming had himself
examined 800 of them ; that Mr. Planehe had also seen a
great many, and that the number of these forged articles,
in the aggregate, was supposed to be twelve thousand. The
partnerterfeeintt
andon ttohasttatte
ie
mca
that _these
of
heseartictes were entirely
counterfeit, which they were com-
posed appeared to have been rubbed with some strong acid
to give it the appearance of age, and that they hail then
been smeared with river mud. The paper concluded
by expressing a regret that the law would no'
punish parties who were guilty of such a disgraceful fraud.
The learned counsel said there could be no doubt that this
article referred to the plaintiff; although his name was not
mentioned, as he was the only pereen in possession of such
articles, and who had purchased them from the parties who
1 had actually found them at the place that had been men-
tinned. lie should call these persons to show that these
relies of antiquity actually were fmnd in the manner
stated; and he should also call several eminent antiquaries,
who would state to the jury their opinion that they were
1 genuine relics, and that there was consequently no
1 foundation fir the allegation that they were fraudulent
imitations, got up for the purpose of deceiving and
j imposing upon the public. He then said that the
plaintiff, in bringing the present action, only sought
to clear his character, and he did not ask for vindictive
damages, but by the verdict cif the jury to free himself from
the serious charge that had been made against him.
Mr. George Eastwood, the plaintiff, was then examined.
Ile deposed that he had carried on the business of a dealer
in curiosities and antiquities between 20 and 25 years, and
he said he believed he was one of the best judges of such
things in the United Kingdom. In June, 1857, a Mr.
Edwards, whom he knew as a dealer in antiquities,
called upon him and showed him 40 articles made
of lead, which comprised different subjects, and were
known among antiquaries as " pilgrims' signs." He
examined them, and made up his mind immediately
'hat they were genuine articles of antiquity and he pur-
, chased them, and aftcrwar•ls he purchased other articles of
the same kind of him, in number amounting to 1,100. He
was told that they hal been found by the men who were
employed in excavating for the baiAn of the new London
dock, and he went to the spot and examined the soil. He
afterwards purchased a number of the same description of
artichs from two young milt named Smith and Even, who
iindertitood were the patties that had found them oil-
! eine), and sold them to Elwart!s. He paid Edwards ;Ceetti
for those he purchased of him, and tee gave the young men
£5O ror the portien they sold him. A small quantity
of the " signs" were of ersa,ds s 11tf to Mr. Freaks fir
the Museum, and a gentleman named Wigan
p1.e.AA(..1 a great many fir them. Ile then explained
that pilgrims' ,4gns tees a term that had enty recently been
made it 4! of among antiquarians, and that they were sup-
' posed to h^ art mint by the moils in the religious prc-
ces,tons the time, and also when they made a pil-
j grit-nage to the Milian of any particular saint The whole of
the articles were made (1 lead ; and in addition to those
which he said would come under the dem iption of pilgrims'
I signs there were oiler antiquities, such as hells, dagger
sheaths, the hssses of shields, and also reliquaries, the whole
of which, he said, he had no doubt were genuine antiquities,
and had really been found at the place mentioned.
In answer to questions put by Mr. Chambers in cross-
, examination, the plaintiff said that at the time this article
appeared lie was the only person who had so large a number
as 800 " pilgrims' signs" in his possession ; but he said that
at one time he had so many as 1,100.
A box, containing a large number of the alleged valuable
articles of antiquity had been placed upon the table, and a
• good deal of amusement was created by the extraordinary
1 character of some of those that were produced. There were
warriors, and females fashioned out in lead in the most rude
manner, and in all sorts of attitudes, one of them, as the
learned judge observed, looking very much like 7eatniel.
One of the things that was produced appeared sorely to
. puzzle every one. It had somewhat the appearance of a
chimney-pot, about eight inches long, hut no one seemed
to be able to give tie least guess what its original object
possibly could have been, and Mr. James suggested that
possibly it might have been the model of some ancient ex-
tinguisher.
In answer to further questions, the plaintiff said that he
had heard of such articles as erepundia, or children's toys,
having been found en the banks of the river, but these, he
said, were to'ally different things, and be believed them to
be genuine ancient pilgrims' signs.
Mr. W. Ede ards, the person from whom the plaintiff
had purchased the articles in question was then exa-
mined, and he stated that he had been a dealer
in antiquities for 20 years, and he considered he was
well acquainted with such matters. He purchased the
whole of these that had to en produced of two boys named
13111 and Charley, of whom lie had been in the habit of
purchasing such things. Bill, be said, was in attend-
ance to give evidence, but Charley had got married, and
his wife would not let him come. (1. laugh.) He was
aware that these young men were in the habit of being
about the river, and that they also purchased things that
were found by excavators in the soil. They brought these
articles to him eight and ten at a time, from June, 1857, to
June, 1858, and he paid them altogether £2OO.
In cross-examination this witness said that he might have
sold old coins to navigators, but he did not know what they
did with them, and he had not the least idea that they ever
buried them, in order that they might afterwards dig them
' up and cell themi as antiquities. He should not have been
such a fool as to buy hie own coins again if they had been
brought to him. He paid Billy and Charley for the articles
as they brought them to him. He had had dealings with
Billy in the saute way for 13 or 14 years, but he had not
dealt with Charley quite so limes. (A laugh.) lie was
nnabla to farm any opinion as to what particular age these
pilgrims' signs belonged—he left that to the Archocologhcal
Society to decide. (Laughter.)
Win. Smith, a rough-loeltieg young man, who described
himself as a "shocleraker," was then examined. He said
that he and Cbarley were in the habit of seeking for
articles such as those. that had been produced, and sell-
ing them to the curosity dialers. lie then said that the
first time he found any of the articles in question was in
June, 1857, and be did not find any after March, 1858.
They were found in thee excavation for the new dock at
Shad well, and very near the place where the swing bridge
now was. They found about 2,000 altogethe-. Mr. Edwards
sometimes paid him as much as £2 in a day, and he re-
eeieed £lOO from him altogether during the year. They
used to buy the articles as the navigators discovered them,
and used sometimes to give them a shilling and a pot of beer
for them,
Iu erose-examination this witness said that no strangers
or about the works, and
were Allowed to go iota the dock,

the navvies were not permitted to take anything cut, not
even ant old bones tilt), might find, but still, he said, he
menaced 'o get access to the place, and to purchase all
these articles. He also said that he found a great many of
thrill Mins!lf by raking over the earth after it was dug out,
autl_he managed to ,Aet a rake into the dock for that pur-
pose.
.Mr. C. Roach Smith, a fellow cf the Society of Anti-
quaries, was then examined, end he stated this belief that
the articles in question were genuine relics of antiquity,
and that a great many of them came under the designation
of pilgrims' signs, but he attribute i them to a later date
titan tee 16th century. It was difficult to say what actual
use was originally made of such articles, because
they were a new class altogether, but they were all
evidently connected with some religious proceedings ;
and he had no doubt that when the subject came
to be considered, antiquarians would be able to assign
some origin to them. He added that he firmly believed
them to be genuine, but at present he really could not say
what they were. When lie read the article in the A thenwum
he had no doubt that it referred to the plaintiff, and to the
pilgrim's signs that were in his possession.
Cross-examined—The pilgrims' signs with which he was
acquainted, and to which he had first given that desig-
nation, were very different to the things now produced. A
good many of these articles are certainly incolsistent with
each other, and evidently relate to different ages.
The Rev. Thomas Hugo, also a fellow of the Society of
Antiquaries, attd who has written several works upon the
subject of antiquarian researches, was the next witness, and
he gave similar evidence to that of Mr. Smith. He also ex-
pressed his opinion that the articles in question were un-
doubtedly genuine relics. He said he believed they be-
longed to the fifteenth, or the beginning of the sixteenth,
century, bet he could not give any other description of
them than that they appeared to he "leaden objects."
Cross-examined.—lle was unable to give any reason for
coming to the conclusion that these things dated from the
fifteenth or sixteenth century; all he could say was,
the ladies reason—he thought so because he did think
so. (A laugh.) He was then asked to look at
some of the articles, and to state whether he did not
think that the sharpness of their edges, and their fresh
appearance, did not indicate that they could not have been
in the ground for three centuries, but he replied that he
was of opinion that it did not; and he said he believed it
was possible for a piece of metal to be in the ground for
many centuries and still present sharp clear edges. He
also said that, in expressing the opinion that these were
genuine ancient relics, he bad no facts to ground his opinion
upon, but merely judged from the general appearance of the
articles.

Some other evidence of a similar kind was then given,
and this closed the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Chambers then submitted to his lordship that there
was no case to go to the jury. He contended, in the first
place, that the evidence failed to affect t'le case of the
plaintiff as laid in the declaration; and also that, even sup-
posing the article in question to be a libel, which, however,
lie submitted it clearly was not, there was not a tittle of evi-
dence to show that it applied to the plaintiff, and that con-
z,equentiv there was nothing to go to the jury.
Mr. James, in reply, urged a good many ingenious
arguments to show that at all events the opinion of the
Jury ought to be taken. The plaintiff was really charged
with a very serious rffence, and he was desirous to clear his
character. _ _ _

Mr. Justice Willes, after a brief consideration, said he was
of opinion that the article complained of was not a libel
in the eye of the law. It had been laid down by one of
the sages of the law that what a man said honestly and bond
fide, in the course of a public discussion in matters concern-
ing the public interest, no matter even if he spoke ra,hly,
and what he said was not true, still, any statement wade
under such circumstances, would not be a libel. It had also
been equally clearly laid down that before any plaintillcould
ask redress for a libel, he must show distinctly that the libel
cemplained of applied to him, and to no other person. It
would be a new doctrine, indeed, if it were to be held that
any person who said that all lawyers were rogues, might be
sued by every individual lawyer in the kingdom ; and
it appeared to him that the anicle now complained of
seemed to apply to the particular trade of dealing in
antiquities rather than to the plaintiff personally. It
appeared to him, therefore, that the plaintiff must be non-
suited.
Mr. James suggested that his learned friend Mr. Cham-
bers ought to withdraw the plea which alleged that the
plaintiff bad been guilty of fraud in the transaction.
Mr. Chambers said it was never intended to impute any
fraudulent intention to the plaintiff, and he was not in-
structed to make such a suggestion. He had bought the
articles no doubt under the impression that they were
genuine.
The jury then returned a verdict for the defendants.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—MONSIOUTII, AUG 5.
CIVIL COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Hill and a Common Jury.)
HARRIS V. MORGAN.
Mr. Srnythies and Mr. Barrett appeared for the plaintiff;
Mr. Skinner, Q.C., and Mr. Scotland for the defendant.
The plaintillin this action, Ann Harris, was a poor old
widow, aged 77, who got her living by keeping one or two
cows and carrying butter and eggs to market, and she sued
the defendant, Howard Morgan, who was a butcher at New-
port, to recover damages for injuries sustained by the negli-
gent driving of the defendant's servant. It appeared that
en Saturday, the 12-h Dec. last, the plaintiff went to New-
port market with baskets of butter and poultry to cell in
the market there. She stated that when ecii.g duwu the
High-street from the railway station to the market she saw
the deft ndont's cart coming down the road, which was on a
declivity, at a quick trot. The cart was driven by the de-
fendant's brother, and at that time was on the near side of
the road. The plaintiff presentiy stepped into the road to
cross, but without at that time looking to see where the
cart was, and she was ;immediately knocked down and run
over. There was no doubt that when the poor woman was
knocked over the cart tr.'s on its wrong side, and within 18
inches of the kerb. The wheel passed over the poor woman's
leg, inflicting a severe wound three inches in leng h, and
injuring the bone to a considerable extent. She was con-
fined to her bed for 10 weeks, and had incurred consider-
able expense in getting cured, and was still suffering from
the efiects of the shock.
The defence was that the cart wasdriven only at the rate
of four or five miles an hour, and that it was necessary to go
on the qft side of the road to avoid a scavenger's cart which
isiai standing some yards ahead on the near side. The-dts-
fendat.t's witnesses attributed the accident to the old woman
weppiug into the road. without looking to see if anything
was corning, and when there wls not time for the deftn-
dant's brother to pull up and avoid the accident.
Mr. Justice Hill summed up the evidence, and told the
jury that if they believed that the accident was owing to the
negligence of the driver, they ought to find for the plaintiff;
but if they believed she had contributed to the accident by
her own negligence, they ought to iind for the defendant.
Tile jury retired to consider their verdict, and ultimately
they found a verdict for the defalant.

CRIMINAL COLRT.
(Before Mr. Justice Byles.)
Geo. Pas.smore, 27; sailor, and Alfred Borham 20,
sailor, were charged with the manslaughter of Edward
Thomas, at Newport, on the 18th of June, 1858.
Mr. Vaughan appeared for the prosecution; Mr. Powell
defended the prisoners.
It appeared that on the day in question the deceased,
who was a ship's apprentice, was on board his ship in
the Newport docks, when the two prisoners came alongside
in a boat, and pulled him overboard against his will, and
put him into the boat. One el' the men,- in what is called
a "lark," endeavoured to duck hiert in the water, but the
boy resisted so much, though he was a weakly boy, that the
attempt failed. The other man then came and assisted, and
the two prisoners together put the boy overboard into the
water, holding him by the hands, and dipped him
over head and ears several times, as deep as they
could reach. They then took him hack into the boat, and
he sat there recovering himself for about five minutes, and
put on his boots and jacket, which had been taken off
before he was put into the water. While he was sitting in
the boat the men continued "skylarking" and slapped
him on the shoulder. When the boy had put on his flange he
wished to go hack to his ship, and one of the prisoners took
Lehi • f hint behind by his breeches, and put up the ship's
d left, hold of him, just as the boy put his !lairds on
the ship's rail. Whether the boy had not time to get a firm
hold, or,
.being exhausted by the ducking, was unable to
rt tuo his hold, was uncertain, but it unfortunately hap-
lewd that as so m as the man let go the poor boy fell into
the wat,r, which was upwards of '2O feet deep, nil did tof
r 43 any mere. D. ago were sent for, and he was got out of
tine water in abet', .20 minutes, but he was considered to be
deed, nod no t.tttnpt was tnade to restore ;mime:ion.
Mr. Pow(11, for the prisoners, contended th ;t, however
improper the conduct of the prisoners might have been in
dipping the boy into the water, the putting the boy up the
ship's side was not an unlawful net, and the death must
therefore be considered as accidental.
Mr. Justice Byles, in summing up the evidence, told the
jury that if the boy fell from the ship's side in consequence
of exhaustion from being dipped in the water, they ought
to find the prisoners guilty.
The jury retired, and were absent a considerable time, but
eventually found both the prisoners guilty.
Mr. Justice Byles, after a suitable admonition, sentenced
the prisoners to be imprisoned in the House of Correction
far two ealerdar months.
Jane ilarris, 25, servant, was charged with the wilful
murder of her infant child by exposure on the 4th of July,
1858, at St. Mellon's.
Mr. Granville Somerset appeared for the prosecution.
The prisoner was undefended by counsel.
It appeared the prisoner was confined of a male child in
the Cardiff Union Wtekhonse on the 17th of June last, and,
at her own request, she left the workhouse with her child
on- Fridny, July 21. On Sunday, July the 441, she Js.ent
to the public-house of Mrs. Jenes, near St. Mellonle, and
asked tors some gin and water fir the child. Mrs. Jones
said that was a bad thiug for.so young an infant, and gave
her some peppermint and water. At between Fenn and
eight the same evening a witness named Ann Williams saw
her in the road near a farmhouse of a Mr. Davies, at a
place called Tyn-y-Pwl, five miles from Cardiff; when
she was seen dandling something in the skirt of a gown,
which resembled a baby in form. The next morn-
ing, at between six and seven o'clock, Ann Francis,
went into Mr. Davies's rickyard, and hearing a noise com-
menced a search. After some little time she found a child
between the rick and the Ledge, wrapped up in a skirt of a
gown which was identified by the witness Wiliams as having
been in the prisoner's possession the previous evening: -Mrs.
Francis washed, dressed, and fed the child, and the next
morning
took it to the Cardiff workhouse, when it was
ttisurco and died
orie .., 28th
e
identified as the child of which the prisoner was confined on
ot the
July, el7th
n of
Julie.,
f Ii 'ne The
ep
death was exposuren g and want of Itshe e n tkh
nawturall food.,
the cause o lt
The prisoner was apprehended en the 14th of July, and ad-
d
mitted that she had left the child in the road near St. Mel-
a inciCtiiii lingered,
ja,c4, and had done so because the father had refused to
r
The prisoner, in her de.ence, male the same statement.
Mr. Justice Byles very carefully summed up the evidence,
support it and she was unable to do se.
anti said that if the prisoner's statement was true she was
guilty of manslaughter.
Mr. Justice Byles sentenced
her t six months' imprison_
The jury found the prisoner guilty of inanslanger.
i
tncnt with hard labour.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—WARWIC3K, AUG. 3.
(Before DMA Chief Jus:icc Corkbarn.)
A heavy spzehl jury CRUSC invcll Lig disputed matters r,f
fact and of account between two old and intimate friends
having teen referred, at the sugeestion of ti,, Judge (only
the s(cond case reftrred throughout the circuit), the
reinaicing corniticn juries were proceeded with.
SALMON V. MITCIIELL.
Mr. Field appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Mellor, Q.C.,
and Mr. Wills ter the defendant.
This was an action of trespass brought by the occupier of
a hovel and a pigstye against the owner and cccupier of
some adjacent land for pulling them down. The plaintiff
was a very poor man, whose father and grandfather had
"squatted" upon some waste land adj)ining a footpath in
the pari,ll of Upper Eatington. Toe hovel had been erected
within some 26 years; the pigstye was antecedent to living
memory. The land of one of the defendants extended on
each side of the footpath, and it was sugge,tted that the little
buildings' occupied by the deeceudant of the " squatters"

excited in his mind the same feelings that Naboth's vineyard
did in the breast uf David ; accordingly he gave notice to the
plaintiff to remove the buildings on his land, or else " he
should p7oceed as far as the law would allow him." Tlie
buildings were not removed, whereupon the defendants took
the law into their own hands, the pig was ejected from the
sty, and the Irvel (the va'ue if which was variously esti-
mated, according to the elite ( n which the evidence was
eff,red, at 10s. and £10) laid low. Damages were sought for
what is technically termed the "conversion" of the p'g ;
but it was clearly proved that the on'y conversion
w W
the pig underent !„.13 into bacon, which had been
eaten by the plaint Ht. The defendants attempted
to justify the trespasses on the ground that the
land was his properly au!,if not, that the spot where
the buildings stood had once been used as of otway by the
public. In the opinion of the jury, however, both grounds
if defence failed, and a verdict was returned fur the plaintiff
—damages S•2O.