The Sun.
London, England, 1858-08-20 00:00:00

THE KIN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, AUGUST 20, 1858.

LAW IN2'ELLIGENCE.-(711.15 DAY.)

SECONDARIES COURT.

(In Common Pleas, before Mr. Secont,ary Potter and a
Special Jury.)

EXTRAORDISAEY CASE OF LIBEL.---MACKAY V.

BULLOCK.

This was an action to assess damages in a case of libel,
published in a pamphlet, eutitlei " A Letter to tre Lord
Chancellor," in Much plaintiff was charged with wilful and
corrupt pErjury by defendant.

Defendant hai sufficed judgment to go by default.
Plaintiff is a solicitor of considerable practice, and defen-
dant a Major-General in the East India Company's service.
Mr. Slade, Q.C., for plaintiff' stated the case as follows :
—That plaintiff was a highly respectable s dicker, who was
much in favour with all who knew him, with the exception
of defendant, who was FON his persecutor. Defendant was
a gentleman of high standing in the East India Company's
service (Major-General), and had married a sister of the
Lord Chancellor, and the jury would see that the fact
of such a letter being addressed by defendant to
his father-in-law would be of considerable weight against
plaintiff. Now, in the election of 1852, Sir Alex. Cockburn
and another candidate were returned for the borough cf
Southampton, and Bullock was unsuccessful. A peti ion
was presented to the House of Commons, and a person
named Marston, who was examined as a witness, was
charged with perjury, and tried at the Queen's Bench and
convicted. Plaintiff was solicitor to Marston on that occa-
sion, and upon his conviction defendant charged plaintiff
with having delibera.ely and scandalously sold his client.
If Mr. Mackay had done this thing be deserved to be struck
off the rolls. An action was brought, and plaintiff recovered
at Westminster a verdict of £•2llodamsge.. Instead of
apologising for his libel, General Bullock repeated the libel
in a pamphlet to the Lord Chancellor, in which he charges
Mr. Mackay with perjury. A second action was brought
in the Court of Queen's Bench, in which plaintif received
damages X5OO. The matter then slumbered for 18 months,
and then defendant published a second pamphlet against
plaintiff; addressed to the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Camp-
bell. The pamphlet contained the foulest abuse of every-
body concerned in the second trial. From Lord Campbell
down to the crier of the court, every one came in for the
vilest abuse. Even he (Mr. Slade), who was counsel for
plaintiff; came in for his share, and was charged with a sub-
ornation of perjury; and Mr. Sergeant Shee, defendant's
own counsel, came in for a share of vituperation. No one
escaped. This pamphlet, with another, was sent to South-
ampton, and distributed among all the local antnorities. In
the present year a third pamphlet, which gave rise to the
present action, was published, addressed to the Lord Chan-
cellor, upon Mr. Justice Byles' presentation to the bench.
In this letter is the matter complained of. Defendant as-
serted that " Lord Campbell cautioned the jury against
Mrs. Bullock's evidence as she was an interested witness,
but he had not cautioned them against receiving plaintiff's,
who had uttered the vilest and most scandalous perjury."
Now that was whA a jury:had to try, and they did, and gave
tVr plaintiff £5OO. Mr. Slade passed over the attack upon
himself. Lot d Campbell passed over the attack upon him-
self. They laughed at it as idle abuse. Mr. Mackay was
bound to take notice of the attack upon himself. It was
deliberate persecution, and unless he came into the court
could not keep his head above water. These accusations of
perjury, printed and published and disseminated in p Biotin
native town, was d. all to plaintiff; and the jury must now
step in between Mr. Mattkay and his persecutor.
James Joel Bennett—ls a printer and publisher of South-
ampton, and knew defendant. In 1857 the defendant brought
the 1857 pamphlet to him, and requested him to publish it.
Witness mentioned that there was some strong language in
it, and defendant said, " I will indemnify you a;ainst ail
prosecution." We are liable to the excise. It is usual.
Mr. Slade—lt is not usual. It is the law.
Witness—One hundred and fifty copies were printed, and
two sent out by witness—one to Lord Campbell, and the
other to Sir Frederick Thesiger. My name is to the first
edition. I did not print the second edition, and there is no
name to it.
A portion of the second edition was read, and charged
plaintiff with deliberate false swearing. There was also an
attack upon Sergeant Byles, who cuuld not defend him,
being called to the Bench. It also abused Mr. Sergeant Shee
for neglecting his cause. Constant charges of perjury were
made in the pamphlet.
Mr. Hawkins, Q.C. (for defendant)—That was disposed
of in the first action.
Mr. Slade—lt was published since.
Mr. Bennett, cross-examined—l have been a printer in
Southampton two years.
By the Jury—lf the author's name appears there is no oc-
casion for the printer to put his.
A Juror—l believe it is requisite.
Witness—Oh ! no.
Mr. Slade—You will find it so.
Mr. Weston—l am a town councillar of Southampton. I
first saw the pamphlet addressed to Lord Chelinsford in the
White Hart at Southampton. It was in the smoking room.
Mr. Hawkins objected to this as evidence of pub:b•ation.
The learned Secondary
thought he could receive the evi-
dence.
Mr. Sparks was then called.
Mr. Slade—You were called before ; why were you ab-
sent ?

Witness—l was sent for.
Mr. Slade—Who by?
Witness—GeLeral Bullock.
Mr. Slade—l thought so.
Witness exatuiced—l am a lawyer's clerk. I am clerk
to Messrs Page and Lee, of Southampton. Messrs. Page
and Lee are not the defendant's solicitors. They may have
been. They were. (Here the witness was cautioned.) I
distributed the pamphlet "A Recapitulation of Facts." I
distributed a quantity in Southampton. (A list was then
handed to witness, who admitted sending all in the same
except one.) I left one at the police-station. I saw Mr.
Mackay, who threatened to proceed against me if I did not
desist arid give up the name of my employer. Under that
threat I gave up the name.
By the Jury—l was not paid anything. I merely felt an
interest in the general question.
The list was then read. The witness then said there were
high and low in it; more low.
Mr. John Styles said. he received the pamphlets from the
last witness. They were generally canvassed.
Cross-examined—l am town sergeant of Southampton.
I bave transacted business with Mr. Mackay. I oace en-
dorsed a bill for him. I execute process for him. _

Other witnesses were called, N.vho stated that they had
seen the pamphlet, and that the witness Sparks had given it
to them.

Mr. Slade—ls it necessary for me to address the jury ?
The prisoner—Not at all necez,sary.
Mr. Hawkins having replied on the part of the dereldant
The jury found a verdict for the plaintitf—Damages ±A.'5OO.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.-Aug. 20.

OLD COURT.
(Before fir. Justice Willes.)
RAPE.

Charles Slatter, a young man, a baker, lately residing
in Greenwich, was inoicted for a rape committed on a girl
named Cotterel.
The case was proceeding when we went to press.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE----(THIS DAY.)

MARLBORO EJG H. STREET.—SnAm LING FITS.—A
miserable-looking fellow named Angus 111` Lead was charged
with shamming fits for the purpose of exciting. charity.
From the evidence of a constable it appeared that, seeing
a large crowd assembled round the prisoner in the neigh-
bourhood of Oxford-street, he went up, when he saw him
lying on the pavement apparently in a fit, from which, how-
ever, he soon recovered on seeing him, and, basing ascer-
tained that he had been practising a similar trick very much
of late, he took him into custcdy. Oa the previous evening,
in Lancashire-court, Old Bond-street, he pretended is have
a fit, when sonic persons kiully gave him tome tea and
brandy, after which ke said he was better and would go.
Mr. Bingham—l should think so. I shall send you for
ten days, and make an endorsement that you may be lurked
viler by the surgeon.
POSSESSING SKELETON KEYS.—Henry Ball, of 12,
Harriet-street, Pimlico, blacksmith, was charged with
loitering is Backville-street, with the intention of cimmiti ing
a felony.

Charles Coles, 317 A, a detective officer, proved watching
the prisoner, in company with another man, about Sack-
ville-street and the llurliogton-gardenQ, for nearly au hour
late on the previous night, and taking him into custody,
and on searching him be found seven keys on him, three of
th^tn lrirg kc,}s. On a,k,rg l.i•n to act:onnt for
ttair possession, he sail they all opened his doer. lie bad
known him for a long time, but was not at present prepared
to say he bad been convicted.
Remanded for a week, for inquiries to be made as to the
prisoner's address and antecedents.

TII A M ES.— Tn E MILE• END TOLL NUISANCE AGAIN.
—A tradesman applied to Mr. Selfe for a summons againt
Matthew Gooden, lessee and collector of tolls at the Mile-
end-gate, who was recently fined 30s. for an assault, for
unlawfully demanding and taking more than the legal toll.
Mr. Selfe—Why, lam hearing about the Mile-end toll-
gate every day.
The applicant—l don't wonder at it. There has been a
good deal of insolence, extortion, and abuse at that gate.
Mr. Yardley decided on fining Gooden for an assault on Mr.
Punt, a licensed victualler. The toll was only 3d. for one
here and a cart. Gooden charged me 4d. for my horse and
cart yesterday. I told him I should complain to a magis-
trate, and he said he cared not for that, he should put
magistra!es at defiance.
Mr. Selfe—The lessee is a sharp fellow—are you sure lie
is not right ?
The applicant—l don't knew, sir; I want your advice.
Mr. Stoddart, who had appeared against the lessee in the
assault case, said the morning after Mr. Yardley's decision
three persons came to that court for summonses against
Gooden, for charging 4d. instead of 3d. He found Gooden
was right in each case. A business horse and cart had to
pay a toll of 4d.; a pleasure van, or a cab drawn by one
horse had to pay 3d. only. In Mr. Punt's case, he was only
liable to a toll of 3d., for he drove a pleasure chaise cart—a
four-wheeler drawn by one horse.
The applicant—Then I must take out a summons.
Mr. Selfe—Before you take out a summons study the Act
of Parliament for a week or two.
THE DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACT.
—Mr. Stoddart, solicitor, of Arbour-street, East Step-
ney, applied to Mr. Selfe for an order of protec-
tion under the recent Act of Parliament to protect the pro-
perty and money of Mrs. Henrietta Wright, wife of Ben-
jamin Wright, who bad deserted her.
Mr. Stoddart said that Mrs. Wright was entitled to pro-
perly under the will of her late father, and it was to protect
this property he now sought the order.
Mrs. Wright was sworn, and s;iid that she lived at No. 3,
James-street, Devonport-street, Commercial-road East,
and that she was married ten yews ago to her present hus-
band. Her husband deserted her seven years last June.
She was entitled to property under the will of her late
father. Her husband was a gentleman's butler. He went
into service four years ago, and promised to pay 10s. per
week for the support of herself and children, but bad not
done so.
Mr. Selfe—Does he know where to find you ?
Mrs. Wright—Yes,
sir.
Mr. Selfe—Where was be when you lest heard of him ?
Mrs. Wright—ln Manchester, idr ; he is there now, I
believe.
Selfe—Take the order, Mr. S toddart, you have proved
enough.

„
DUNDEE TRADE REPORT.--The flax market has
continued very firm throughout the week, and the better
descriptions find ready buyers at gradually improving
prices. There is also some inquiry for medium and lower
qualities, but in prices of these there is not much change to
notice. A good many arrivals have taken place during the
week from different Baltic ports,but without having any effect
in depressing the ket, as the accounts from abroad give
no indication whatever of lower prices, but the reverse.
Fine tows and codillas continue in fair:demand, at full rates.
Jute Moves off freely, and prices are well maintained. There
is a good demand fur yarns at full prices. In linens there is
fair butinees doing.—.Dundee Courier Of WtchlfsdaY•

GREAT NORTILE Witt:

The ordinary half-yearly meeting of the shareholders in
this undertaking was held this morning at the London
Tavern, Bishopsgate-street. The chair was taken by E.
Denison, E-q., chairman of the Board of Directors.
The usual routine business having been gone through,

The CHAIRMAN said, before moving the adopti na of the
report he intended to make a tea; observations. He said the
revenue of the Great Northern Railway hail been seriously
affected by bad trade and competition. Their expenses had
also been increased by that competition, and this was the
cause of the dividend being lower than it would have been.
With respect to the competition, he beggei to say, in the
most public manner possible, that no man more disapproved
of it than he did, and if it had rested with him it should not
have lasted a single day. But, as the chairman of a great
company, be had a duty to perform to the shareholders, and
as soon as it was possible, with a due respect to the
interests of their property, it would be put an
end to. The competition that had been carried
on had no doubt arisen from an arrangement
entered into with the Manchester, Sloffield, and Lincoln-
shire Railway, which he mentioned to the shareholders in
August last. The directors I, ad renewed that agreement,
and that had been hooked upon with distaste by one great
company in particular, the London and North-Western.
It was not for the directors of the Great Northern to look
into the quarrels that might exist between that company
and others—it was not for them to know the exact posi-
tion of the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire
with the Landon and North-Western. The directors
finally determined to lay the whole of the correspondence
before Parliament, and no body of persons more strongly
opposed the bill promoted by the company than the London
and North-Western in committee, but after a contest of
twenty-one days the committee unanimously passed the bill,
having declared that the agreement of 1854, made between
the Londonand North-Western and the Manchester and Shef-
field Companies, by which the traffic between the London
and Manchester by the Great Northern route was ob;
structed, was at variance with public policy. The bill re-
ceived the support of all parties, and the passing of it ought
to convince the London and Nerth-Western that they
would not be allowed to monopolise the entire Landon and
Lancashire traffic. Parliament had declared that the Greet
Northern and Sheffield Companies were fully justified in
establishing a second through traffic between London and
the Eastern Counties and Lancashire, as suggested by Lord
Dalhousie, in his report on railways in 1845. Under
the aereement with the Manchester and Sheffield they were
entitled to receive out of the earnings arising from through
traffic such a sum as would with their other receipts make
up the gross sum of £lO,OOO per week subject to being re-
paid when their gross receipts exceeded £ll,OOO per week.
The Great Northern company had advanced to t tem £25,000
in respect of the earnings of 1858. He looked upon the
outlay of such a sum as nothing compared to the benefit of
seeming the traffic they were endeavouring to do. (Cheers.)
A SHAREHOLDER said be could not find the sum of
£25,000, which had been advanced, set fern in the accounts.
He wished also to know whether it was to be taken out of
the revenue of capital account?
The CHAIRMAN said it would be found amongst the
"money advanced to other railways." It had been ad-
vanced as a loan.
The SHAREHOLDER—You have not answered the last
part of my question.
The CHAIRMAN said it would not be taken out of revenue.
It had been advanced to the Manchester and Sheffield,
as a loan out of the capital, and would be repaid back to that
account in the course of two or three years. He would con-
clude his observations in moving the adoption of the report by
trusting that for the future competition and inadequate
rates might be avoided. The gross receipts for the half-
year ending June 30, 1858, were £587,027, being an in-
crease of £9,396 over the corresponding period of last year.
The total expenditure for the half-year was £327,193,
showing an increase over the corresponding period of
£30,238. After providing for preference shares and
other charges, a balance of £81,320 remained, which
would yield a dividend at the rate of £3 7e. 6.1.
per cent. upon the original stock, and £3, 7s. 61 towards
the 6 per cents. for the year to the holders of the B
Stock. (Hear, hear, and slight marks of disapprobation.)
The motion of the chairman having been seconded,
Mr. HUGHES saLsl the chairman had given a very plau-
sible account of the state of affairs of the company, and had
attributed the falling off to depression in trade and the
opposition of rivals, but in his address he had not satis-
fied them that he was not the original promoter
of that most shameful competition. (Loud cheers.) He
looked upon him as the instigator of the monstrous hostility
which had been shown them by the London and North-
Western—(hear, hear)—and he maintained his damaging
opinions in defiance of both shareholders an directors.
Great as had been the loss occasioned by competition, be
thought there was another thing to which great loss was to
he attributed. He would not detain them by entering at
length on the point, but would in one word tell to what he
attributed their great losses, that word was misrnanagemens.
and cries of " No, no.") From beginning to end this liti-
gious spirit had been fostered and cherished by the chair-
man. He wished to discriminate between she actions of the
other directors and those dthe chairman, so he looked upon
Mr. Denison as the autccrat of the concern. (Hear, hear.)
Indeed, he thought the company was "Denison-rid."
(Immense cheering.) He thought the law expenditure of
the board had been shamefully extravagant—so extravagant
that its parallel in railway affairs could not be fumed. Again,
the salaries given to their officers were enormous. (Hear,
hear.) Mr. Seymour Clark received no less a sum than
£2,500 per annum, exclusive of patronage. (Cries of
shame.) However great Mr. Clark's ability might be, he
did not believe any body of persons in the kingdom would
be inclined to give him so extravagant and enormous a
recompense for his services. Then again, the locomotive
manager at Doncaster received £l,lOO. (Shame.) He
thought that that was a great deal too much. Then again,
he had to complain of the sum of 50 guineas being paid to
the chairman's son for certain legal opinions, after he had
said he would not expect payment. (Cheers.) The chair-
man had treated very lightly the Redpath frauds, and said,
let bygones be bygones; but, immediately after such an as-
sertion, blame was attributed to Mr. Mowatt, the secretary,
and he was discharged. He believed the true cais'e
that led -to his dismissal was, that he was too
honest; that he bad attempted, as far as be
could, to prevent the squandering of money in law
expenses. (Hear, hear.) He looked upon the directors as
tieing solely responsible for the frauds that had been perpe-
trated on the company, and if they had not been guilty of
the greatest negligence, such a circumstance could not have
occurred. The v, ry Let that they did not exact a guarantee
of security from Reelpath, was, of itself, great negligence
(Hear, hear, and cries of "yes, yes." There had been a.
very large outlay of money for the purpose of defending the
company from the action of Mr. Mowatt, and at the proper
time he should move a resolution that the directors indi-
vidually bear the cost of that action instead of its being
taken out of the revenue of the company. (Cheers.)
A PROPRIETOR deprecated the competition that had
been carried on by the two companies. He had no doubt
many of the sharehold rs stood in the position that he did,
namely, holding shares in both—(hear, hear)—and he
did not see why one part of such shareholder's
property should be allowed to ruin the other. They
had been told that when they carried passengers
from Edinburgh to London for lls. they would have
no dividend, but tt.e directors had been doing the same
thing, they had carried pass engers from London to Man-
chester for se. He hal a resolution in his hand which it
was his intention to propose, namely, that the directors
should not enter into any competition or lower the rates of
fares without the sanction of the sharehohlers. (Hear.)

A diFeussion then ensued upon the payment of certain
sums of money to Mr. Denison, jun., and the altering the
reports sent in by the short-hand writer's notes.
The CHAIRMAN then defended the salary paid to Mr.
Seymour Clarke, and said no amount of money could repay
that gentleman ir his exertions in promoting the prospe-
rity t,f the undertaking. With respect to the payment of
50 guineas to his son, he believed Mr. Leech, the legal
adviser of the company, had a veifect riAbt to obtain the
advice of any gentleman lie thought proper. (Hear, bear.)
After same discussion, the motion for the reception of
the report was put and carried.
Mr. HUGHES said be tdought now was the proper time
to put his resolution concerning the cost of the action with
Mr. Mowatt. He therefore proposed a motion to the effeet
that the costs arising out of the action brought by Mr.
Mowatt against the company be not paid out of the funds
f the company, but be delayed by tli, directors indivi-
dually, (CLeers.)
The motion having been seconded,
The CHAIRMAN said if the motion was carried he could
simply say he should refuse to pay. (Cries of " Oh, cli,"and
as a
vote
of ccii_uro on the directors.
Toe resolution
"Of eatin,e.") He looked upan the resolution, iu paint of
fact,
was illegal, and if carried Would doina,4, thr, properly .1
shareholdirs. (Cries of" Oh, oh," and great uproar.)
Mr. LEECH said the chairman was legally justified in
refusing to put the resolution. (Uproar.)
Mr. HUGHES said he intended his resolution as a vote of
censure, and as the chalrinan refused to put it to the meet-
ing he would do it. The hon. proprietor then put the
resolution amidst great uproar, hut it seemed to be the im-
pression that the majority of hands held up was rgainst the
motion.
A SHAREHOLDER then moves a resolution to the effect,
that the conduct of the directors in dismissing Mr. Mowatt
was highly reprehensible.
The CHAIRMAN said he should refuse to put that reso-
lution also.

A SHAREHOLDER-If the chairman would tell the
meeting that be refused to put any motion from the chair,
but of which notice bad been given, he might as well tell
them so, and then they could go home.
The CHAIRMAN said the directors had no objection to
meet a vote of censure brought forward in a proper manner.
If the shareholders desired to discuss such a motion, let them
give notice. A meeting should be called in time.
After a short discussion a resolution for the payment of
the dividend mentioned in the report was agreed to, and
the proceedings terminated.