The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-26 00:00:00

STATE OP TRADE.

LEEDS, Jan. 25
in the cloth The-li:s e ha. s been a fair atten-
dancetin! morning,
average amount of businesshal has been or ing and an
done.,
Light
g ht
fabrics continue to sell the
them very remunerative prices are
readily, and for
MANCHESTER, 25th.---In eloththerhas been less
obtained.
animation, but sellers are full oforderse
and prices are very firm. For most
tkind
kinds of for India,
print-
ing cloths the business is quite equal to the
supply,
arid longcloths and T-cloths are in fair request.
For yarns there is a moderate business for India at
full rates, but manufacturers who do not spin have
an advantage in purchasing for the supply of their
looms, prices in thewdescriptions of twist being
rather easier to buy. In yarns for the German
market for business is quite at a stand, owing to
the unfavourable political news from the continent.
There is but little business far the Mediterranean.
Messrs. John Slagg and Co. report :—" There has
been a less active demand for India goods during
the last few days, but owing to the heavy engage-
ments of manufacturers prices are firm at the ex-
treme quotations of last week. Longcloths, T-cloths,
and printers are still in fair request without change
in :prices. On the whole, the market, though
decidedly quieter than forsome time past, continues
exceedingly firm at the higher rates lately current."

SUICIDE BY A DOG.—Some days ago a watch-
dog belonging to David Corsar and Son, apparently being
tired of this world, deliberately walked down to the side of
the River Brothock, where ho coolly leaped in and held his
head below the water until he was drowned.—Montrose
Review.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Tan. 25.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

Sittings in Banco before the Lord Chief Baron,
Barons Martin, Watson, and Channell.)

HARRISON V. PEARCE.-THE SHEFFIELD PRINTERS'

CASE.

This was an action for libel brought by the
plaintiff, who is the proprietor of the Sheffield
Tinzes,'against the proprietor of the Sheffield Daily
Telegraph, for a libel contained in a document
issued by the Printers' Union in the town, and
published in the defendant's newspaper. The case
was tried before Mr. Baron Martin, at the sittings
after last term at Guildhall, and resulted in a ver-
dict for the plaintiff with £5OO damages. During
the present term a rule was moved for by Mr.
Chambers, on the part of the defendant, for a new
trial, on the ground of the improper reception of
evidence, misdirection, and excessive damages, and
their lordships deferred expressing an opinion on
the application until they had read over the short-
hand notes.

Mr. Edwin James now applied to the court to
fix a day for the disposal of the case.
The Lord Chief Baron—ls there any disposition
amongst the parties to come to an arrangement ?
Mr. :James—No, my lord. They have been,
pending this case, publishing other libels on the
plaintiff, on the learned judge who tried the cause,
on the counsel and everyone else. (Laughter.) I
may say, on behalf of the plaintiff, that I will will-
ingly leave any question as to damages to the court.
This case, my lords, is really one of pecuniary con-
sequence to the plaintiff. His men refuse to work
for him, and he is in dread of physical violence.
The Lord Chief Baron then delivered judgment.
He said—l am of opinion that there should be
no rule to show cause why the verdict should not
be set aside. The grounds on which Mr. Chambers
moved for a rule were threefold ; that improper
evidence was received; that the learned judge had
misdirected the jury ; and that the damages are
excessive. We have heard the arguments, and, at
the request of my brother Martin, we have carefullly
read over the shorthand writer's notes that we might
have the benefit of the most accurate information.
We have considered the evidence most seriously,
and we have all arrived at the decision which I have
already expressed. The supposed objection in the
case was that evidence was received of the dimi-
nished success of the plaintiff's newspaper, without
an allegation of special damage, which could hardly
be alleged consistently, for the action was brought
the day after the libel was published. I am of
opinion that this evidence was properly received.
In a case of this description the plaintiff had a right
to claim general damages, and if the time which
elapsed between the commencement of the action
and the trial discloses anything which can throw
light on the question of general damage, the plain-
tiff had a clear right to give that evidence. I there
fore think the evidence was properly received, espe-
cially with the caution that the jury must judge
for .themselves, and not take it for granted that
all the plaintiff had suffered was attributable to
this libel. This case may be compared to an
action to recover damages for a railway accident.
The general inefficiency of a man who had
suffered the loss of a limb to conduct the
affairs of life is not special but general damage.
It would be special damage if he lost a
situation in consequence of injuries he had re-
ceived. The jury could receive evidence prospec-
tively, as they often did. Thus the question would
be put, " Are you of opinion that the plaintiff will
ever get well ?" and the medical man might reply
" No, which would govern the damages. It appears
to me that the evidence was most properly received
as to the alleged misdirection of the learned judge.
We have read the summing up, and we are all of
opinion it was perfectly free from objection. The
learned judge, in directing the jury, laid down the
rule for awarding damages.

Mr. Baron Martin (interposing)—Am Ito under-
stand, Mr. James, that the libels are still being
published in the same paper?
Mr. James—No, my lord.
Mr. Baron Martin—lt was stated that the verdict
would ruin the defendant.

Mr. James—Not at all, my lord. There is no
pretence for such suggestion.
The Lord Chief Baron proceeded to say that the
evidence of damage was very far beyond the amount
awarded, and it could not be endured that because
two persons on the same day publish the same libel,
each was to say, "It was not I who caused the
mischief ; it was the other man." There could be
no doubt that the plaintiff lost much more than
the £5OO awarded by the jury. If they granted
the rule, and they could not bring the parties to
terms, they would have to discharge it, and he
thought it better not to grant it in the first instance.
Mr. Baron Watson and Mr. Baron Channell said
they fully concurred in the judgment.
Mr. Baron Martin, in reference to the rejection

of evidence, said he was of opinion that dparty
must recover all the damages he had suffered in
one action, and that recovery would be a bar to
another action. For his own part, he wished
the jury had awarded a less sum ; but he
quite agreed with the other members of the Court,
that they should not interfere in a matter which
exclusively belonged to a jury. He wished it to
be understood that this judgment had not been
hastily given on the application of Mr. James this
morning, but after a great deal of anxious conside-
ration.

Rule discharged.
BUSINESS OF THE COURT.

The Lord Chief Baron said it would be as well
that the Bar wer• informed that the Court would
take up the Special Paper on Friday.

DIVORCE AND PROBATE COURT.

(Before the Judge Ordinary and a Common Jury.

ESLING V. DIXON.

This was a testamentary suit with respect to the
codicil to a will of Mr. Zachariah Dixon, late of
Bursted, in Norfolk, farmer, deceased. The plain-
tiff was Mr. John Esling, a son-in-law of Mr.
Dixon's, and he relied upon a will executed by the
testator in 1847, and the defendant was Mr. Wm.
Dixon, the eldest son of the deceased, and an exe-
cutor under the codicil bearing date the 7th July,
1853. He admitted that the will was perfectly
good, but alleged the codicil was equally so. The
plaintiff impeached the latter instrument on the
ground that it was not duly executed, that the tes-
tator was not of competent mind at the time of its
execution, and that it was obtained by the exercise
of undue influence.

Mr. Power, Q.C., and Dr. Tristam appeared for
the eldest son, in support of the codicil ; and the
Queen's Advocate, Mr. O'Malley, Q.C., and Mr.
Pritchard, for Mr. Esling.
The deceased, who was a small farmer, residing
at Bursted, in Norfolk, died on the 22d January,
1854, at the age of 79, leaving real property, con-
sisting of about 30 acres of land, and valued at
£1,200, and personalty amounting to a few hundred
pounds. It seemed that Wm. Dixon had lived with
his father as a boy on the farm, but without receiv-
ing any wages, until 1833, when he began to take
an active part in the management, although he still
received nothing in the shape of wages. In 1841
the son entered upon the management of a small
farm on his own accuunt, but at the same time con-
tinued to manage to some extent his father's busi-
ness. On the 22d July, 1847, the deceased made his
will, by which he appointed his eldest son, Wm.
Dixon, Zachariah Dixon, another son, who had
been for many years in merica, John Esling, the
plaintiff, and Mrs. Dixon, the wife of the testator,
sole executors and executrix. With reference to his
real property, he directed that two rooms in his
house should be furnished for his widow, and after
making a provision for her for life, and giving two
legacies of £5O to the children of a deceased daugh-
ter, he directed the whole of the remainder of his
property to be equally divided between his children.
In 1852 his wife died, and in July, 1853, the codicil
now before the Court was executed for the purpose
of providing for the payment of a promissory note
for £l5O, which he had given to his son William,
in consideration of his long services upon, and
management of the testator's farm, and it declared
that he had disposed of his farming stock and agri-
cultural implements at a valuation, the amount of
which had been paid off, and, in conclusion, it re-
voked the appointment of Mr. John Esling as exe-
cutor. After the death of the testator, probate of
this codicil was taken out by the present defendant,
but four years afterwards proceedings had been
commenced in this Court for the purpose of upset-
ting it, on the ground of the testator's incapacity.
In support of the validity of the instrument
evidence was adduced to show that the testator had
expressed his intention of rewarding the present
defendant for the time he had given to the manage-
ment of his affairs, and had himself instructed the
solicitor who drew up the instrument, which
was signed in the presence of the solicitor's
clerk and the surgeon who had attended him for
28 years. The medical man admitted that he had
said the deceased was not in a fit state to make a
will for a short time before his death, but not before
the execution of the codicil. Various witnesses,
however, deposed that, although infirm of body, the
testator's mind was perfectly clear up to the last.
For some time ho was afflicted with hydrocele, and
also with partial paralysis of the face, which atter
affected his manner of speaking, but nothing more.
Wm. Dixon, the defendant, was also examined,
and gave corroborath e testimony, but he admitted
that he had not really paid the sum of money which
the codicil stated to be the amount of the valuation.
He deposed that his brother-in-law, Esling, seldom
met him without quarrelling, and they had even
fought together.
In support of the case of Mr. Esling it was con-