The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-17 00:00:00

"A scene' at Wansford.—' Fire ! fire ! ' is at all times
a cry of terrible import ; but it was doubly significant when
raised at Wansford on the evening of the 12th inst., which
day—but for the matrimonial contretemps referred to in our
last impression—ought to have been a red-letter day in the
history of the place. Between 8 and 9 o'clock in the even-
ing named hurried footsteps were heard in the village
streets, and the exclamations of Fire ! ' brought from their
dwellings numbers of the householders to gaze upon what
turned out to be the burning of the effigy of the faithless
swain. So quiet had everything been only a few minutes
before, and so unconscious were the majority of the in-
habitants that anything of the kind was projected, that
many had retired to rest and were not cognizant of the
reality until they had been roused from their slumbers in
the manner described, and had turned out to look upon a
gibbet, m the centre of which hung by the neck a lay
figure, as like—or rather unlike—a gentleman (in the
strictest sense of the word) as could be supposed. Under-
neath this effigy, which had previously been well tarred,
were piled more than a waggon load of faggots and other
firewood ; and a lighted match being applied, the mob
laughed and jeered while the flames leaped upward amid
the execrations of the bystanders with a vigour which
almost betokened that the fire, too, enjoyed the
sport. The scene of this extraordinary event
was a field occupied by Mr. Samuel Clipsham, situate
about 150 or 200 yards from the lawn in front of the villa
of the proprietor of the Stamford Mercury, and from the
front window of the said villa the inmates could, if they
had been so pleased, have obtained an excellent view of the
burning lay figure. The demolition of the effigy did not
occupy above half-an-hour ; nevertheless, the ceremony
was most significant, and enough was done to show that a
very indignant feeling was abroad, and that it merely re-
quired some outward demonstration to mark how unmis-
takeable was its existence. That it has had the desired
effect is surmised from the fact that very great pains have
since been taken in certain quarters to find out the ring-
leaders. We are told that a lawyer from Stamford has
visited the spot for this purpose, but his inquiries have
failed. Unfortunately the rural policeman resident in the
village was absent on the night in question, and although
this individual has, with all the 'cuteness characteristic of
the better class,' been exceedingly persevering with his
interrogations, the only answer he has hitherto been able to
obtain is, ' Don't know,' and, when his back is turned, a
significant wink, with an elevation of the thumb to a par-
ticular portion of the countenance, raises a laugh at the
expense of the functionary. The affair is still talked of as
a capital joke,' but in the midst of the merriment which
has been evoked expressions of anything but goodwill
towards the person aimed at are freely indulged in by the
people of Wansford and the surrounding villages."

Mr. Newcomb had, it appeared, contemplated mar-
riage with a lady, and that marriage had not taken
place. He appeared in the witness-box with letters
from both the affianced bride and her father. These
were not put in evidence, but it transpired that they
had assented to the engagement being broken off.
Sergeant Hayes, on the part of the defendant,
addressed the jury. As to the first paragraph, he
contended that it was no libel, and the other one
so slight that he thought the plaintiff would have
done well had he followed Mr. Field's advice
to pass it by, as he was not likely to obtain
more than one farthing damages. He was
sorry that Mr. Willison, the defendant, had un-
happily been prevented from attending by in-
flammation of his eyes. He proceeded to com-
ment severely on the conduct of the plaintiff,
who, with the enormous fortune his uncle had
left him in 1841, took advantage of the opinion of
counsel to keep a sum not less than £20,000,
which the testator, who had made so munificent a
bequest, had intended for the benefit of the poor
children of Stamford, in the hope of doing for them
and for posterity some little good, as an acknow-
ledgment of the many bounties that had been
showered on himself. The only real sting in the
alleged libel was that part relatin6 to the schools,
but of that they did not complain. Oh, no. It
was for the unfair attack upon private life. Could
such a perversity of intellect be conceived as that
of the plaintiff, who complained of these para-
graphs, and yet thought (as he stated in his evi-
dence) that an imputatioß on a gentleman that he
is about to be made a co-respondent in the Divorce
Court is a fair matter for remark by a journalist ?
He had been advised by his counsel to pass the
matter over, as he could well afford to do so. That
he certainly could in one sense—he had money
enough. He might keep his money in his pocket,
but he could not stop people's mouths. There was
no great hardship in being called " a faithless
swain," nor in an effigy being said to be " not like
a gentleman in the true sense of the word," as the
paragraph complained of had described it.
Evidence having been adduced as to the cause of
Mr. Willison's absence, which was stated to be an
inflammation of the eyes and an abscess,
Mr. Macaulay addressed the jury, remarking
strongly on the absence of the defendant, and
pressing upon them that the plaintiff, who had
been the subject of a most unjustifiable attack, was
entitled to heavy damages.
The learned Chief Justice, in his summing up,
remarked that although the conduct of the plaintiff
respecting the provision in his uncle's will for
establishing schools was a fair subject of comment
by the editor of a journal, yet the imputation that
the plaintiff had improperly broken off his matri-
monial engagement was unjustifiable ; it was a
matter belonging to private life, which should. be
respected and held sacred, and it was for the jury
to consider what should be the amount of the
damages.
The jury found for the plaintiff—Damages, £2O.
His Lordship expressed his very strong reproba-
tion of the conduct of the defendant in printing
and publishing the opinion of Mr. Field. It was
most unjustifiable. The opinion of counsel should
be regarded as sacred. His Lordship certified for
the costs of a special jury.

THE CITY OF CANTON.—Canton is claimed to be
the oldest city in the world, its records dating back 4,000
years since; but there is not perhaps a single brick of the
origindl town in existence, as the place was several times
partially destroyed. Its entire circumference is about six
miles English measure, but including the suburbs outside it
exceeds ten. The number of streets within the wall is 600, but
they are all narrow tortuous lanes, with the exception of two.
The population is about a million and a quarter, of which a
quarter of a million live together in boats upon the river,
and seldom or never go ashore. For the general population
there are some 2000 medical practitioners—all physicians
and apothecaries, surgery being comparatively unknown
among the Chinese, in consequence of the prejudice agagainstdissection. The worst element of the Canton population is
the pirate element. It is said that an organised baud of
these villains—some 20,000 strong—exist in the city, and
iDlegt the river and the vicinity of the Urn,

WORSHIP-STREET.—Mr. William Newton,
printer and publisher of Backchurch-lane, Com-
mercial-road-east, appeared in answer to a summons
granted under the 6th and 7th of Victoria, chap.
96, sect. 5, charging him with maliciously printing
and publishing a false and defamatory libel upon
Dr. John Godfrey, the well-known physician, who
was recently the defendant in a case of " Gardner
v. Godfrey."
Mr. Tindal Atkinson appeared for the prosecu-
tion, and the defendant, wholwas unrepresented by
counsel, pleaded not guilty.
The defendant, at starting, took an objection to
the magistrate's jurisdiction, conceiving that the
charge ought, if at all, to have been decided on at
the Thames Police-court, within which district his
printing premises were situated, but the objection
was overruled, the magistrates having, of course, a
concurrent jurisdiction throughout the whole me-
tropolis.
Mr. Atkinson then said—l appear in this case
for Dr. John Godfrey, a physician of great eminence
who is obliged to come here and complain of a most
atrocious and calumnious libel uttered against him
by the defendant, Mr. William Newton, as the
publisher of a local paper named the East London
Observer. It is unnecessary to go through the par-
ticulars of the truly painful case of " Gardner v.
Godfrey," heard at the Nisi Prius sittings at Guild-
hall, but it is imperative that I should draw atten-
tion to the fact that the verdict in that action was
given for the defendant, after a very patient and
lengthened investigation, and by, I must say, a
very intelligent jury. Fair play is the acknow-
ledged principle of the press of this country, but
the defendant has gone very widely from that hon-
ourable course by the publication of an article so
defamatory to the character of my client, so cruel
in its nature, and tending to such fearful results,
that it is imperative upon Dr. Godfrey to adopt
these proceedings, as the only means of reinstating
himself in that honourable position he had previ-
ously filled, and regaining that confidence he had
previously enjoyed. My client's health has already
suffered severely from the baneful effects of this
libel, his wife is now lying upon a .sick bed, the
confidence of some of his patients is nearly de-
stroyed in him, and unless he by this course, for
there is no other open to him, clears himself from
the ignominy thus heaped upon him, his head will
be bowed in sorrow to the grave. The injurious
matter complained of is not contained in a fair re-
port of the case I have mentioned, but is contained
in what is known as a leading artitle, printed in
large type, and, after some prefatory remarks, runs
as follows :—" She (the daughter of Mr. Gardner)
gave her evidence with great circumstantiality, and
it did not seem to be shaken by the cross-exami-
nation." Now, this portion, relative to the girl's
evidence being unshaken, is not a fact, and the con-
cluding lines I particularly point out as constituting
the principal part of the first libel, which were—
" Some corroborative testimony was given, and the
whole case appeared to exhibit the most revolting
conduct on the part of Dr. Godfrey." This, sir, I
hold to be the first libel, and the second runs thus :
—" He appears to have taken advantage of a child
little more than 14 years of age, just returned from
school ;" and this was followed by another remark,
which appears to be even stronger than the pre-
ceding :—" These statements excited the most pro-
found indignation, which was greatly heightened
by the correlative rumours which arose in all quar-
ters of the general grossness of character and
bestiality of conduct known to possess Dr. God-
frey." Now, sir, I think it impossible to conceive
anything more likely to blast the reputation of a
physician—a reputation resembling the bloom upon
a peach, which has only to be touched to be de-
stroyed, than such a republication as this ; the shaft
so levelled has certainly gone direct to its mark,
and he who levelled it has made a once happy home
nearly desolate. There are also two other portions
of this leading article to which I must direct your
attention, and which are these :—" People viewed
with abhorrence the idea that a medical man, the
trusted and confidential of families in sickness and in
grief, should abuse the trust reposed in him by
corrupting the mind and debauching the person of
a child, the daughter of afflicted parents, and
in the sane tuary of her own home." The other was
—" The case of Mr. Gardner sacrificed. Dr. God-
frey seems to have been treated as a prisoner, and
got the benefit of the doubt, but, with all deference
for the opinion and decision of the jury, and with
all faith in their thorough conscientiousness, we
cannot help saying that the inclination of our
opinion is opposed to that indicated in the verdict."
Mr. John Bride, assistant-surgeon to Dr. God-
frey, deposed to purchasing a copy of the defend-
ant's paper at the shop of a newsvendor named
Kirby, at the corner of a street opposite the doctor's
residence, and also a second paper at the same shop
a few days afterwards.
Mr. John Staunton, the defendant's acting
printer, deposed that the paper produced was com-
posed and issued in Backchurch-lane but printed in
the city, and that papers were supplied by them to
Mr. Kirby, of whom those produced were pur-
chased.

Mr. John Godfrey, solicitor of Liverpool, deposed
to calling at the defendant's premises and seeing
Mr. Staunton, whom he asked' if he was about to
insert another article on this subject the next day,
and that he replied in the affirmative, said the copy
had been sent off to the printer, and that it was
a
stronger article, but shorter. Witness told him it
was a pity they should iterate such articles when
they knew the verdict which had been returned,
and that the answer to that was, that there was a
great difference between the verdict of a jury and
public opinion. Witness, while addressing him,
held the paper before him, with the objectionable
parts underscored, and after his last remark warned
him that if there was a repetition of such matter he
should bring an action against the paper.
Mr. T. Atkinson said that this was his case, and
after the defendant's asking the magistrate whether
he thought the publication had been proved, and the
magistrate's answering that he thought it had been,
the defendant then contended that no malice, which
was most essential,had been proved against him. Both
the plaintiff and the defendant in the action were
totally unkn own to him,an d he had had no correspon-
dence with either. He admitted the publication but
he had carefully expunged from his articles all details
given at the trial, and he thought he deserved
commendation for so doing. If it was to be held
libellous, as a matter of law, to express a different
opinion from that arrived at by a jury, the news-
papers were were daily so committing themselves. The
observations in the article impugned were un-
doubtedly strong, but the trial had lasted four days,
great indignation did certainly possess the public
mind before the defence was entered upon, and he
conceived himself entitled to make froe comments
upon such a trial, and under such circumstances.
Mr. D'Eyncourt, holding that if the matter in-
serted was libellous, malice was to be inferred, said
it was quite clear to him that the defendant had
used observations which were libellous, and he had
virtually stated that the jury had given a wrong
verdict. He had no option but to send the case for
trial, and he should therefore order the defendent
to put in bail, one surety in £5O, and his own re-'
cognisances in the sum of £5OO, to appear and an-
swer an indictment at the next sessions of the
Central Criminal Court.

The bail was immediately tendered and accepted,
and the defendant thereupon liberated.

CHARGE OF HOMICIDE AGAINST THE ENGI-
NEE'RS OF THE SCREIVSTEAMER BOGOTA.

LIVERPOOL, TUESDAY EVENING.

John Buchanan, chief engineer, and Archibald
Mitchell, second engineer, of the Pacific Screw
Steam-ship Company's steamer Bogota, recently
arrived at Liverpool from the Pacific, were yester-
day, charged at the Liverpool Police-court with
having caused the death of a fireman named Lan-
don, under circumstances of the most disgraceful
nature. The case has been before the court on two
former occasions, when it was remanded for the
production of further evidence, and for instructions
from the Board of Trade. In order to make the
case more explicit to our readers we again repeat
some of the facts. The Bogota left Bahia early in
the month of January, for Liverpool, but, as cus-
tomary with the steamers of the Pacific Company,
they call at different ports on the South American
coast and Brazil; and on the 25th January, when
within several hours' sail of Rio Janeiro, the de-
ceased (Landon) complained of exhaustion, occa-
sioned, he said, by the excessive heat of the stoke
hole, and went on deck for fresh air. To this the
chief engineer objected, accused the deceased
of " skulking," and eventually ordered Mitchell
(the second engineer) to lower Landon down with
a tackle into the stoke-hole, and, if he would not
" stick to his work," to tie him to the ladder.
Mr. Aspinall, instructed by Messrs. Lowndes
and Co., appeared for Buchanan ; and Mr. Deigh-
ton, instructed by Mr. Snowball, for Mitchell. Mr.
Tyndall appeared to watch the case T
on behalf of
the Board of Trade, and with him Dr. Inman, a
physician of local eminence, appeared to give
evidence.ivm
ma,sc
ahne
w asprobablethe causeflrst
witnesso death.
all
eed
by
Mr. Tyndall.—He said he was a seaman on board
the Bogota, and joined the vessel at Valparaiso.
Knew the deceased, Landon; he was a stout,
able-bodied man. He frequently complained of
being unwell, and offered some of the men £lO if
they would take his place, as he was unable to work.
Deceased had told witness that he was a miner from
Chili, and was going to England for the purpose
of seeing his family. On the day the Bogota left
Rid, this witness saw the second engineer drag the
deceased by thelegq towards the stoke hole. 'feud