The Sun.
London, England, 1835-02-14 00:00:00

IN THE MATTER OF NESS.

Mr. TAMLYN stated that in this case his client, a lady
named Ness, had been confined for three years in York
Castle, for not putting in an answer to a bill of review filed
by parties who had no right to do so ; and he had, there-
fore, to apply to the Court that she might be permitted to
take the necessary proceedings for the purpose of clearing
her contempt, without depositing the usual sum, in conse-
quence of her poverty.
The LORD CHANCELLOR had no power to make such an
order, but recommended the learned Counsel to bring for-
ward a motion, for the purpose of discharging the lady from
her contempt. _ _

Mr. TAMLYN said he would adopt the suggestion of his
Lordship.

KINGS BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

LIBKL.--EVANS V. ROCKLIFFE AND ANOTHER, PROPRIE-
TORS OF THE LIVERPOOL JOURNAL.
Mr. B. WILLIAMS having opened the-pleadings,
Sir JOHN CAMPBELL stated the case. In introducing
to them his client, Mr. Evans, he had to state to them,
that his case was a most lamentable one, and that he was
the most unfortunate of human beings. His sufferings had
been severe, and had been long-continued, although no one
had ventured to impute to him any degree of criminality.
His father had been an eminent solicitor, carrying on busi-
ness at Caernarvon, and had treated his son with great
kindness and attention, until he had formed an illicit con-
nexion with a woman who had been living in his service.
On discovering this, his father had turned him out of doors,
and that bad been the origin of all the misfortunes that
had befallen his client. He had been thrown destitute upon
the world, and there was no doubt that on account of the
ill-usage and provocations he received, he displayed, on
some occasions, a great degree of irritability and eccentri-
city, which made some persons suppose that he was insane.
He had, on this account, been on several occasions in con-
finement. But in May, 1831, he obtained his liberty, and
then resided at Liverpool with his wife, and until the
month of September 1833, when the occurrence took place
which gave rise to the action, he conducted himself in a
quiet and harmless manner. He might have been eccentric
in some degree, but there was no pretence for saying that
he was dangerous. Those who WO induced his father to
turn him out of doors, instead of.treating him with kind-.
ness, became his most persevering persecutors. L the
month of September a great agricultural dinner took place
in Liverpool, which was attended, arrtiig other distin-
guished characters, by the present Lord Stanley, then Mr.
Stanley, Secretary of State for the Colonial department..
The plaintiff wished to present a paper to Mr. Stanley, and
was directed to Lucas's Repository, where the dinner took
place. He found the company at dinner, and presented his
paper, and was about to withdraw, when he was violently
laid hold of by a man named Derbyshire, who dragged him
into the yard, and struck him with a pole. The plaintiff
pulled out a pistol which he carried about him, as he was in
the habit of exercising at a shooting gallery, but did not
attempt to fire it. He was taken bfore the Magistrates,
and committed in default of bail, for an assault upon Der-
byshire. The defendants, Messrs. Rockliffe and Duckworth,
are the proprietors of an extensively circulated newspaper,
called the Liverpool Journal, and if they had merely given a
simple account of the transaction, or had merely fallen into
one of those unintentional eiras Which all journalists are
liable to, the present action would never have been brought.
They, however, thought it a capital opportunity to excite
public interest, and extend the sale of their paper ; and, in
order to stimulate public curiosity, they posted a placard
all over Liverpool in these words :—" Our next will con-
tain an account of an attempt at assassination on the Duke
of Richmond and the Hon. E. G. Stanley, at the late Agri-
cultural Dinner." This was signed by the defendants. The
object of this libel evidently was to sell the newspaper, by
imputing this monstrous crime to the plaintiff. On the
28th September, the next day for publishing the newspaper,
the following article appeared. The Learned Counsel
here read the article, which was headed—" Presumed At-
tempt to Assassinate two Cabitet Ministers," and proceeded
to state that, during the Agricultural Dinner, John Grif-
fith Evans presented himself at the side door opposite to
which Mr. Stanley and the Duke of Richmond were seated,
and inquired what part of the room they sat in, and at-
tempted to force his way in, but was stopped and searched,
and a horse-pistol and two large knives found on him.
That the prisoner stated before the Magistrates that he
merely wished to present a paper to the Colonial Se-
cretary, having a claim (on his f'ather's account) on the
Government amounting to some hundreds of thousands.
The article concluded by stating that they understood
the plaintiff was deranged, and had been in confinement.
Not content with this, the friends of tbe plaintiff called at
the office of the newspaper, and requested that other state-
ments and libels would be published respecting him. It was
not until repeated libels were published, and all explanation
and apology refused, that the present action was brought.
On-the 12th of October another article appeared, which
was also calculated to injure the character and hurt the
feelings of the unfortunate plaintiff. There was a third
publication
on the 2th of October, which was also com-
plained of. The plaintiff having obtained legal advice (as
all apology had been refused) his attorney, previous to the
action being brought, wrote to the defendants again, re-
questing that some explanation would be given, but no an-
swer was returned. Under these circumstances the rl,a'io..
tiff had no other resource left him but to seek re:tress for
the injury that had been inflicted upon him, The defen-
dants averred that these publications werc., true. He chal-
lenged them to prove a single fact—lei them prove that his
client had any intention to inflict the slightest injury upon
any individual, and he would give up the case. Under all
the circumstances he would leave it to the Jury to say,
after they had heard the evidence that would be submitted
to them, whether the plaintiff was not entitled to a verdict,
and to ample damages, for the injury inflicted upon him.
William Orme, a watchmaker, residing at Liverpool,
knew the plaintiff for some • years, and believed him a per-
fectly harmless man. Recollects plaintiff's being brought
before Mr. Horsetail, the Mayor, the 25th of September,
1833, the day after the great agricultural dinner. Derby-
shire was there, and stated that Evans came to the door,
and wished to present some papers. Derbyshire refused to
admit him, and when he attempted to force his way, Derby-
shire pulled him forcibly back, and then that Evans pulled
out a pistol. He was taken into custody. Derbyshire ad-
mitted that he struck Evans with a coach pole. Witness
saw plaintiff after be was removed to the Lunatic Asylum,
and he exhibited not the slightest symptoms of insanity, nor
up to the present time.
Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL.--Tho
printed and written document now handed him is in the
hand-writing of plaintiff. (The document was read by the
Attorney-Gneral, which purported to be a record of the
plaintiff, and was a most extraordinary farrago of nonsense.
Its reading created great laughter.) Witness could not
say whether the person who wrote that was sane or not,
but he formed his opinion from the plaintiff's general con-
duct. (The horse pistol and the two knives which were
found on the plaintiff's person, were here produced.) Wit-
ness cannot identify them. • He did not think the plaintiff
had any intention of harming any person. although he might
have carried them about his person.
Mr. Hallows, a surgeon, visited the plaintiff in the Bo-
rough gaol of Liverpool, on the 14th of October, 1833.
Saw him every day up to the 21st., and witness considered
him perfectly sane and harmless. Is about 20 years in the
profession, and it sometimes occurs that a madman might
be sane for a week. A man who had been treated as
Evans was, might write such an absurd paper as that put
into his hand, and yet be sane.
Andrew Gillon, a surgeon, practising for the last 16
years at Liverpool, saw plaintiff when in gaol in October
1833. He appeared to be at that time perfectly
He should not form a favourable opitilou of the tniiid of the
person who wrote such (Aileufilent as that read by the
learned coupset The plaintiff suffered under no delusion
whatever, bui was excited as much as a, man ought to be ,

when speaking of the manner in which be had been (IP-
prived of his father's property.
Doctor Whalley, physician to the Lancashire Lunatic
Asylum for the last three years.—Saw the plaintiff on 22d
October, and visited him till the 3d December, and never
saw any symptoms of insanity or excitement about him.
He was then discharged. Thinks the mind of :a man who
would write such a document as that alluded to could
scarcely be souud.
Doctor Wm. Mason, a physician residing at Caernarvon
—Knows the plaintiff's father, who was an attorne:, and
believes the plaintiff was articled to him ; has known the
plaintiff from boyhood up to. 1827, and never observed anY
indication of insanity.
John Roberts, a surgeon, residing at Bangor—Has known
the plaintiff for the last 30 years, and never observed the
least symptoms of insanity about him.
Mr. Williams, son of Captain Williams of Liverpool—
Knows the plaintiff, who resided for some years there, and
believes him to be perfectly sane.
Edward Blackburne.—The plaintiff lodged in his house
in Liverpool, and he never knew a quieter or better behaved
man.

The case for the plaintiff having closed,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL addressed the Jury for the
defendants. It was quite plain, looking at all the circum-
stances connected with the plaintiff's conduct, that there
was reasonable ground for supposing that the plaintiff me-
ditated the assassination of some person, and therefore
there was nothing stated in the defendant's newspaper hut.
what was fully borne out by the fact. It was the height of
insanity in the plaintiff to bring such an action, well know-
ing what his conduct and demeanor had been for many
years past. He regretted that be had been thus made the
dupe of others, and that he should

(The trial was not concluded when our reporter left.)

NAVAL COURT-MARTIAL IN Tire:

WEST INDIES.

Yesterday we laid before our readers miieulars which
had been forwarded to us by the proprirAor of the Devon-
port Independent of a court-martial 'geld at Kingston, Ja-
maica, on Capt. M'Causland, of Majesty's sloop of war
Cruiser. To-day we are in rec,eipt of the Jamaica Papers
of the Bth of December last, containing a full report of the,
trial. Having, however, yesterday given an outline of
the case, it is unnecer.sary for us to copy the report from
the Jamaica papers, We will only transfer the sentence,
which, it will bg perceived, contains not merely the deter-
mination of t!4e Court, but also in the shape of a preamble,
the whole of the charges :

" SENTENCE.
" The Court having carefully and deliberately weighed and
considered the evidence in support of the charges, as well as
wind the prisoner had to offer in his defence, and also the evi-
denced adduced in his behalf, and very maturely considered
the whole, the Court is of opinion that the first charge, of hay-
ing charged several individuals certain► sums of money for
their passage in His Majesty's sloop, Cruiser, under his com-
mand, from San Juan de Nicaragua and Chagres, to the island
of Jamaica, is not proved, it appearing in evidence that Com-
mander M'Causland did, under the circumstances in which be
was placed, by carrying the mails, render himself liable for the
expenses incurred in entertaining at his table the individuals in
question, and that he was justified in receiving a remuneration
for the outlay which they occasioned to him in being accommo-
dated at his table.

" That the 2d charge, of the passengers on board the Cruiser
having been shamefully treated, is not proved, the cjinplaint.
of the said passengers being vexatious and unfoun'Argi.
" That the charge of having minutely exam!ined the pas'
sengers' luggage previous to its leaving the pis proved, he*
was justifiable under the circumstances ir, evidence, but that
there was no indelicate exposure of thq, ladies' clothes, and
that the imputation to that effect, by 4,:ne passenger who was
present, is false and malicious, and 'she Court do therefore ad-
judge the said Commander John 'M'Causland, of his Majesty's
sloop Cruiser, to be fully accr.itted of all the said charge'
and he is hereby fully acqui!.,ted accordingly.
" CHARLES B. STRONG, Captain of his
Majesty's ship Belvidera.
" WILLIAM JONES, Captair, of his Me'
jesty's ship Vestal.
" THOMAS BENNETT, Captain of his Ma'
jesty's ship Rainbow.
" PETER AP QUIIA.E, Captain of his Ma'
jesty's ship. Fly.
• " W. A. IPARINGHAM, Captain of his
Maje;"cy's ship Forte.
" RICH GOODRIDOE, Deputy Judge
Advocate.

" December 5, 1834."
We will close our. notice of this important matter With
one extract from the above papers.
" The result of this trial is most gratifying to the merest+.
tile community ; the character of the accused is not only not
impeached 'oy it, but more exalted, if possible, in the esti-
mation of his friends. It has also established another point—:
that w'uile ships of war are employed in conveying mails, their
commanders are entitled to receive a remuneration for the out-
lay occasioned by passengers, who are accommodated at the
captain's table."