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

was of little interest, but it so happened that the
trial excited a great amount of interest, from the
circumstance that the plaintiff had been mixed up
with the doings of the notorious Col. Waugh. The
trial was reported at length in the daily papers,
and was commented upon with great force in the
Dail) News, and Morning Herald. But
the Sunday Times, without publishing any report
of the trial, on the Sunday following, viz., on the
19th.of Dec., 1858—published an article in which
they made their first attack on the plaintiff.
The article was headed "Raising the Wind," and
the learned sergeant proceed-to read the greater
portion of it, passage by passage, saying as he pro.
ceeded that .he should prove that the libellous
portions OW-were entirciy without foundation. !
As the artiW:tfas afterwards read at length we
insert it here entire. It was as follows :

" RAISING THE WIND.
" It is incredible how infinite is the variety of expedients
whereby personal ingenuity draws upon public credulity for
the means of szibsistence—in this Babel of active and ener-
getic life—from the modest inquiry of Jeremy Diddler,
Have you such a thing as 10d. about you ?' —to the mag-
nificent delusions of a Sadleir or a Waugh.
" The recent trial of Neal v. Isaac,' which at this mo-
ment occupies so large a portion of public attention, and
which has elicited the editorial indignation of the Times,
Daily News, and Morning Herald, against the fugitive
colonel. 'of Eastern Bank notoriety, may be turned to
more practical use as a caution against the bubble.mongers
and bubble schemers who infest society. These harpies
exist, and sometimes thrive, upon the weaknesses of their
fellow-creatures. Their business is to delude the" unwary,
that they may realise a golden crop from the seed of im-
pudence which they have sown broadcast upon the soil of
ignorance and greed.
" Thelgentlemsn of the scheming genus are of divers
grades, from the crow to the kite ; and it is amusing to note
the thousand expedients by which they feed themselves
upon the tiny worm as its pokes its inquiring nose above
the ground, in the purlieus of Bartholomew •lane, or upon
the elephantine capitalist, who, obtruding his proboscis
within the sanctum of Capel-court, falls a victim to the
violent designs of more voracious cormorants, and becomes
mere carrion for the fattening. of the ignoble vultures.
" Itecurzing to the trial in the Queen's Bench on Mondtq
last, we would observe that the verdict was found upon evi-
dence which was short of the whole truth; and it is an ano-
maly in our courts of judicature, that when the jury is
sworn to give a verdict upon the evidence, the judge should
presume to interpose his Imperious authority in prevention
of the whole truth (pertinent to the inquiry, and essential
to the attainment of a just verdict) being told by the wit-
ness and heard by the jury.
" In his summing up, Lord Campbell left the question as
one of credibility, and seemed to have forgotten that when
the learned.counsel for the defendant endeavoured to elicit
evidence touching the devices by which the plaintiff sought
a livelihood, he had dictatorially intervened in protection ,
of Mr. Neal from the possible consequences of such inves-
tigation. Without impugning the conscientiousness of the
jurors—for they only formed their conclusion upon the evi-
dence which was permitted to reach them—we think it
extremely possible that, had they been better informed as to
the position and pursuits of Mr. Stephen Neal, they would
have returned a verdict more in accordance with the merits
of the case, and much more conducive to the interests of tee
community."

Mr. Hawkins said he did not intend to justify
that passage. (Laughter.)
Lord Campbell said, he should not complain.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine said, it was impossible
for the defendant to justify that paragraph, for the
fact was that Mr. Isaac's counsel (Mr. Chambers)
never was stopped in his life, and, moreover no ex-
ception was taken to his lordship's ruling, and no
application was made for a new trial. -
Lord Campbell then addressed Mr. Hawkins and
asked him whether he meant to justify the whole
of the article. It could not be said that it was a
fair comment on the trial.

Mr. Hawkins said he meant to rely on the plea
of justification.
Lord Campbell said the learned counsel would
have a formidable task, as he would have to go
through the whole of the plaintiff's life.
The plaintiff, Stephen Neal, was then called and
examined by Mr. Barnard. He said—l am the
plaintiff in this action. I reside at Islington. I
am a mining engineer, and secretary to three mining
companies. lam also London agent for a Man-
chester house, Messrs. Kershaw and Co. I have
been connected with mines and mining transactions
since I was a boy. I was born at Matlock. I left
at 18, and was in employ at Manchester for many
years. I was at first warehouseman, and then
superintendent of nuisances for 12 or 14 years. In
1848 I became chief constable of Salford, and re-
signed that office in 1852, and shortly afterwards
left Salford for London. I was the plaintiff in the
action of " Neal v. Isaac," tried in this court on the
13th of Dec. before Lord Campbell and a special
jury, when a verdict was found for the plaintiff for
£347 ss.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hawkins—At 18 1 had
got my living at mining. - I have been connected
with, I should say, 10 mining concerns. I w.uld
not swear I .have not been connected with 25 or 30.
There was one called the Haslam Pipe and Shining
Rock Company. That was my father's property.
I was a proprietor, and worked at the mine. lam
48 years of age now. In the action against Mr.
Isaac I claimed £2,035, and my verdict was £347
ss. I claimed £l,OOO -for going over to Spain to
get an affidavit made by Col. Waugh. I.swear Mr.
Isaac promised to give me that sum. •Mr. Isaac,
on his oath, denied that he had made that promise,
and the jury, after hearing us both, gave a verdict
for £347 ss. • I was insolvent in 1852. -My debts
were rather over £5OO, My assets were, excepted
articles, " over coats, boots, Bze.,". valued at. £9 4s.
I had some mining shares of no value. My creditors
have all been paid. I married the widow of a
chemist and druggist, and carried on the business
for 12 years. In JunellBs3, I had become connected
with the Delarue Silver Lead Mining and Smelting
Company that was to carry out some mines in
Sweden. My name was advertised in the Mining
Journal as Stephen Neal, Esq., 13, Charlotte-street,
Bedford-square. That company is now in existence
under another title, paying handsomely, I am told.
It only existed five months and was sold. I did
not endeavour to sell shares of the compani. The •
directors never arrived at the stage of paying any-
thing on their shares. The committee paid the
expenses. The shareholders did not threaten to
sue, to my knowledge. Mr. Freebody was the
secretary.. I never. ..to my knowledge asked Mr.
Freebody to record his acts and my acts as the acts
of the board. In 1856 there was a company pro-
moted, called the Gloucestershire Colliery Company.
No annual return was made to the Registrar of
Joint-stock Companies. I was shareholder and
honorary secretary for probably six months. It
was registered in 1855 as the London Coal Con-
sumers' Company. I attended most of the meet-
ings, and paid £250. The name was changed ;
no returns were made under the Act. In
March, 1856, I was in communication with Mr.
Beaven, a solicitor of Bristol, in reference to
this company. This letter is in my hand-
writing. (Read) The letter referred to other
,pro-
perty, intended to be put into another co..mpan3.
That company was never formed. In 1853 there
was a company promoted called the Caiiii•esghliaorNeas
Copper Mining Company. I never dealt in
in that company. I may have asked a person named
Crow to dispose of shares. Its name has been
changed to the Denbigh Mining Company. There
was another company called the Cardiganshire
Silver Lead and Copper Mining Company. I was
printed in the prospectus as the secretary of that
company. It was never registered under the new
name. It was not carried out. My duties as secre-
tary were not light. I was paid secretary. I was
• not (70101(70i 1.1 (1.10,V 11:ly
1 18:d; - • ,
.it the ~cgi,„l;ll{
with Cul. W:tti4ll. foinit,(l mie of a dtputation
11,iia fro.n a railway coinpan:y.-. I ma, him at tlio.
London and Eastern Bank. On Feb. 2, 1857-, I
prepared a report on the Branksea property. My
place of business was at 16, Parliament-street. I
did not pay for the room. I was there as a civil
engineer. It was at Messrs. Toogood's. (The re-
port on the Branksea Alum Works was here put
in and read) The witness said "his • report had
been examined into by many scientific men and