The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-25 00:00:00

~ ~ ~~~~~ ~

//--P
. .
, ' .-4.4 ".•N ''--T!'t-,:.r.'. 4;0 ilvi tliwb
.A. .
,', ......4„,...16.4.
..., .
ci,,,,;,,•vi_,-.
31:. . . :2700, ..
,16:45 i
, 040 s ~!, -v. • ~..laA. . . .
(.."'ln.),\' • ‘ii.'l ....- , ,-!. ,„„, 4-4.
4. ... .... 6.-- "0 - 11416.....;; 1 - , ~. v
~.....,
....,,,,N_,it,...-:y0 bt _,..,....• ,
~,,x, _, Davi, ~_ ~,,..:„,,,, , .1.0.... , ROIT .
~. -.1, N. ~.,,- _
~......2,..7 - - ~.—, L .. „ ..,. . 4..ttr....,t, r.- ' . . .....

a 6 • NEWSPAPER
•vJ
defendant would be enti
substantial part of them I y /Tittg t
greatly to diminish the am
the jury think he was the chaNter fie *its de-
scribed ? His lordship thought he was not, at least
up to the time when he took the benefit of the Act;
but since that time he had been concerned in trans-
actions which his lordship said he would wish a
friend of his rather to avoid. (Laughter.) His
lordship, however, did not find that he (the plain-
tiff) derived any benefit from them, or that he had
defrauded others. He did not rig the market, as
some had done, and then sell his shares. Still it
would have been better for him if he had continued
an inspector of nuisances. His lordship did not
think the case was one for merely nominal damages
—but the jury would take care that they were not
excessive. It gave him (Lord Campbell) great pain
to see a journal which had established a character
of respectability open its columns to the private
enemy of the plaintiff. In so doing it had departed
from the system which gave the journal its charie-
ter, and had done what a journal ought not to do.
But if, under pretence of establishing commercial
purity, the defendant had opened his columns to
the private enemy of the plaintiff he must bear tho
burden. His lordship again cautioned the jury
against giving the plaintiff vindictive damages,
and hoped they would give only what was mode-
rate and reasonable.
The jury, who from the commencement of the
trial appeared to have taken a strong view in favour
of the plaintiff, retired to consider their verdict, and
in a few minutes returned into court and found a
verdict for the plaintiff—damages £2OO.
SECOND COURT.
(Sittings at Nisi Prim, at Guildhall, before Mr.
Justice Erle, and a Common Jury.)
HANCOCK V. SOAMES.
Mr. Rigby Seymour and Mr. Lloyd were counsel
for the plaintiff; and Mr. M. Chambers and Mr.
Raymond for the defendant.
It appeared that defendant was a gentleman of
fortune residing at Lewisham, and the plaintiff was
his footman. On the 7th of September, after dinner,
at which the plaintiff had waited, he went up stairs
to light the lights in the drawing-roam. While
doing so the defendant entered the room and asked
the plaintiff where he got his drink from. Plaintiff
said he did not know what he meant, upon which
the defendant pushed him down. The plaintiff got
up and seized the defendant by the arms, and held
him for some time. The defendant got loose, and
then threw the plaintiff over a chair, and hurt him
very much. The plaintiff then ran down stairs ;
defendant followed him, but did not again strike
him. The next morning he showed his arms to the
defendant, who said he was sorry for it. The plain-
tiff then told him he should get a summons against
him, and left the house. The defendant told him be .
might do what he pleased. The plaintiff swore he
was not drunk. The plaintiff then obtained a sum-
mons, and the parties went before Mr. Traill, and
after hearing the case the magistrate told the plain-
tiff he had better go to a superior court.
In cross-examination the plaintiff said—Mr.
Traill did not say that I deserved what I got on
account of my conduct—not exactly- those words.
He said my violence to my mistress was worse than
my getting drunk. Fwas out with the carriage that
day on the box. My mistress said, " James, are you
asleep ?" I said I was not. She said, " Then sit up
properly." I said, "I am oSliged to shake about as
the carriage shakes," and I said, when she was get-
ting out of the carriage, " I beg your pardon Ma'am,
but if you want another servant you had better get
one made for you." I don't consider that imper-
tinence. I was perfectly sober at the time. I waited
at dinner. I did not stumble at dinner, but I had
a bad toe ; it just touched a chair, and I flinched a
bit. I had only had two glasses of mild ale during
the day. I felt very ill, and spoke to an attorney,
and he told me to go to a doctor. This was the day
after going.before the magistrate.
Re-examined—l handed some onion sauce to my
master, and he said " D—n that stuff." I had a
character of two and a half years.
Mr. Warren, an attorney, said he attended before
the magistrate with the plaintiff. Evidence was

PRICE 4D• STAMPED, 5D

had never been impugned. It was printed without
his sanction, but be said he stuck to it to-day that
the mineral value of the clay was £lOO,OOO an
acre." I know a gentleman named Mingay. I did
not tell him the estate was not worth £lO,OOO, that
the island was not fit to live in, and that the clay
was only fit to make pipes for sanitary purposes. I
did not say that, as to what the mines would pro-
duce, they were almost worthless. I have not said
that by that report I had enabled Col. Waugh
to get money from Mr. Jolly. I was not told that
by that report Col. Waugh had got several thou-
sands from Mr. Jolly. The witness was then cross-
examined as to the Kingston Chemical Works,
another projected company. When Col. Waugh went
to Spain he asked me to sell some copper sent from
Spain. I visited Col. Waugh in Spain, and got
him to make the affidavit for which I charged
£lOO. I after Wards called the attention of Mr.
Isaacs to some Portuguese mines. In 1858 I had
some offices in Birchin-lane. The three mining
companies named by counsel were not carried on
there. lam secretary of one of them. I assisted in
preparing the prospectuses. lam secretary of one
and joint secretary of the other two. Mr. Davis
was a shareholder m one. I did not know he had
been convicted before Mr. Justice Williams. I was
living at Rosemary-cottages Islington. I had given
a bill of sale on my furniture. I. occupy offices at
No. 27, Lawrence Pountney-lane. There are three
companies carried on there.
Mr. Barnard was about to re-examine the plain-
tiff, but
The Foreman of the jury rose and said they were
quite satisfied with the plaintiff's straightforward
answers.

Mr. Hawkins then rose and addressed the jury
for the defendant, and undertook to prove a justifi-
cation of the whole of the libels. He denounced the
plaintiff as a scheming adventurer, who, from his ex-
perience, must have known that the speculations in
which he engaged, and which, brought before the
public, were such as no prudent man ought to em-
bark in. He had prepared schemes which he must
have known to be false and fraudulent. The Sunday
Times, knowing that, would not have done their
duty to the public if they had not come forward
and exposed him.
Lord Campbell observed that the defendant had
a' perfect right to make any fair comments on
the trial; but there was no duty resting on him to
inquire into the whole history of the parties, or to
bring a charge against them like a public prosecu-
tor. At the same time the defendant was at liberty
to prove all his statements.
Mr. Hawkins said his learned friend (Sergeant
Ballantine) had eulogised the conduct of the Times,
Daily News, and Morning Herald for the comments
which they had made on the matters brought for-
ward at the trial in relation to Colonel Waugh,
and, if so, surely the Sunday,Times had an equal
right to comment on the conduct of the plaintiff,
who had been mixed-up in Colonel Waugh's trans-
actions. How was it 'that Colonel Waugh
defrauded the public ? Was it not by putting
forward speculations in which he had been aided
by the plaintiff ? The learned counsel proceeded
to describe the plaintiff, as he now appeared, accord-
ing to his own evidence, and to show that the evi-
dence to-day fully bore out the description given of
the plaintiff in the libel of which he complained.
He became insolvent in October, 1852, and he no
sooner got out of Lancaster Castle than he adver-
tised himself in the Mining Journal as " Stephen
Neal, Esq.,, of No. 23, Charlotte-street, Bedford-
square." He became insolvent, and had no assets
but his ‘! boot and overcoats," and other excepted
articles, worth only a few pounds, and with that
capital he came to the metropolis, and allowed him-
self to be advertised as " Stephen Neal, Esq.,"
living in a fashionable quarter of the town, the fact
being that he had nothing in the world and was
living in lodgings on a second floor. He then
passed himself off to the public as a "civil engi-
neer," with an office in Parliament-street, and then
as a " chcmico-civil engineer," though it was mani-
fest that he was never anything more than the
getter up of bubble companies. The nature of the
plaintiff's principle might be seen from the letter
which he admitted he had written, in which he
ridiculed and sneered at Mr. Beavan as a lover of
truth. The letter was dated March 13, 1856, and
contained these words :
"Mr. Beitvan is probably with us; but he is a very stern
man, and quite immovable from the strict letter of truth ;
he seems not to understand what expediency means. Ho
says the only way for us is, to compel compliance with our
engagements and legal and equitable demands in a bold and
fearless manner. To Mr. Hall his advice and assistance
will be of the utmost value. Oh, how beautiful is truth;
it 'scapcs a thousand snares and entanglements, and leaves
no leeway to be fetched up."
The learned counsel then read an extract from the
letter which the plaintiff had written, addressed to
Colonel Waugh, in which he took credit to himself
for having, by his report on Branksca Isle, enabled
Col. Waugh to get several thousand pounds from
Mr. Jolly, and contended that that fact was proved
by his own written evidence in opposition to the
evidence which he had given to-day on his oath. The
learned counsel then proceeded at great length to
comment upon the various-charges contained in the
libels, and said he should show by evidence that
every one of the charges which they contained was
true ; and he concluded by calling on the jury to
find their verdict for the defendant.
The learned counsel then called the following
witnesses:—
Mr. Braham, examined by Mr. Denman said—l
was attorney for the defendant in the case of "Neal
v. Isaac." I was present at the trial. Mr. Chambers
was stopped in his cross-examination of the plain-
tiff. The plaintiff admitted that he received £25
from Col. Waugh'&agent before going to Spain. In
the plaintiff's schedule there is a claim for £25 as
wages. •
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Ballantine—The
schedule was not read at the trial. I gave up the
papers shortly after to Mr. Isaac. Mr. Acland, a
mining agent, was at the trial. I know nothing of
the writer of this article.
Mr. Freeman, examined by Mr. Denman, said—
I am engineer to the Board of Works for St. Leo-
nard's, Shoreditch. At a meeting of the Delarue
Company on the 30th July, the plaintiff wanted me
to enter the acts of himself and Mr. Montgomery
as those of the board, and I said " No."
The letter of the plaintiff to Hardy of the 13th
March, 1856, was here put in evidence.
Mr. Walter, examined by Mr. Denman, said—l
am a licensed victualler in Shoe-lane. In 1855 Mr.
Hurst introduced the plaintiff to me. They wanted
money—Ll2, on a bill drawn by Neal on Hurst. I
gave them the amount. The bill was paid. Mr.
Hurst had £3B, which he has not paid.
Mr. Neal, the plaintiff, was here recalled, and
asked whether a letter of the 6th April, 1858, and
addressed by him to Col. Waugh, was in his hand-
writing ? He said it was, and that it was produced
at the last trial by Isaac.
Mr. Mingay, examined by Mr. Denman, said—l
remember having a conversation with the plaintiff
in November, 1858, respecting Branksea Island.
I asked him for information respecting Branksea
Island, and he said, "As to the purchase of the
estate, it is not worth more than L 10,000." He went
on to say that the island was not a fit place to live
upon, at least for six months in the year, in conse-
quence of the damp. He also told me the castle was
dismantled, and the mines were not worth anything
to work upon, and that the clay was not fit for any-
thing but to make pipes for sanitary purposes.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant Ballantine--He
did not show me a report that £BO,OOO had been
offered for the estate. I gave information of this a
month ago, to Mr. Stevenson, who was in Mr.
Neal's office. I don't know how it came to the
knowledge of the Sunday Times.
Mr. Grant said—l was secretary to the Glouces-
tershire Coal Mining Company. I wrote the letter
referred to in the third libel.
The bill of sale on the plaintiff's goods was here
produced by the plaintiff.
Mr. H. Stevenson said—l was one of the regis-
tered shareholders of some Welsh mines. I was
promised to be secretary. I do not know that I had
a conversation with the plaintiff on the subject.
Mr. Manning said—l took shares in the CarreF-
hove, Mining Company. I did not know the plaintiff
till two or three years after. I never made anything
of my shares. It came to an end in 1856.
Mr. Hawkins then summed up his evidence, and
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine replied upon the whole
case, and in so doing said he never in his whole life
saw such a miserabl faihire of evidence as had been
exhibited on this occasion. He called upon the
jury to mark their sense of the defendant's conduct
by giving the plaintiff substantial damages.
Lord Campbell, in summing up the e
evidence,
ce said
that on former occasions he had laid it down that
comments ought not to be made upon a trial while
it was pending ; but when itivasover it was a fair
subject of comment. But, though a fair comment
on a trial was permitted, it was not allowed to
make charges on the parties which were not
brought forward at the trial, and about which the
writer could know nothing, unless he was either a
party to the suit or the facts were supplied to him
by other parties. In the present ease the most
serious charges were made on the character of the
plaintiff, and if they were proved 'to be true the

given.
The Judge said where magistrates had heard the
complaint the Court did not interfere. The certi-
ficate concluded that the magistrate had heard and
determined. It was at the peril of the magistrate
not to do his duty. This Court had no right to
interfere with it.
Witness continued—The magistrate examined
the witness as far as he thought fit, and would not
allow the witness to interfere. The certificate was
not mentioned until after the parties had left the
court, but it was granted immediately after the
parties had left.
The magistrate's certificate being put in,
The learned Judge said he should not admit
further evidence for the plaintiff, but held the cer-
tificate to be a bar to the action, and directed a
verdict for the defendant.