The Sun.
London, England, 1861-08-13 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—CROYDON, Aug. 12.
Before Mr. Justice Williams and a Special Jury.)

HUMPHREY V. STILWELL.

This was an action of slander.
Mr. Bovill, Q.C., and Mr. Garth were for the
plaintiff; Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Joseph
Browne, were counsel for the defendant.
The cause was commenced on Saturday, and ad-
journed until: yesterday. The plaintiff carries on
the business of a butcher at Epsom, and the de-
fendent is a medical gentleman living at the same
place, in extensive practice, and who it ap-
peared, was also medical officer to the Royal
Medical Benevolent College at Epsom, an institu-
tion appropriated to the reception of the children of
decayed members of the medical profession, and
others, and generally averaging about 150 pupils.
The plaintiff, it appeared, had obtained the con-
tract to supply the college with meat, and the
slander complained of consisted in a statement made
by the defendant to Mr. Gibbs, the steward of the
establishment, which was to the effect that the
plaintiff supplied the establishment with exceed.
ingly bad meat, and that " he bought his legs of
mutton by the yard, and was almost hooted from
the market in consequence of the description of
meat he was in the habit of purchasing." The
steward, it appeared, expressed his opinion that the
meat supplied by the plaintiff was exceedingly good
and the plaintiff himself was called as a witness,
and he swore that there was no truth in the allega-
tions that he had supplied bad meat to the college,
and asserted that the whole of it was according to
his contract. It should be explained that the de-
fendant was not alleged to have made the state-
ment complained of, of his own knowledge, but he
merely stated that the fact had been reported to
him, and he therefore, having regard to his position
in connection with the establishment, felt it his
duty to mention the matter in order that it might
be investigated.
The defence set up to this action was, that the
statement complained of was a privileged commu-
nication, and the defendant in his evidence stated
that he was informed by a gentleman named Steele
who was a governor of this college, that he had
heard that the meat supplied to this establishment
was not according to the contract, the communica-
tion being made in the exact terms in which he
afterwards stated to the steward, and he felt it his
duty to mention the subject in order that some
change might be made if the complaint was
well founded. He also said that he was the
more induced to take this step from the fact
that there had been a few cases of illness
among the boys, which he could not account for
otherwise than by the meat that had been supplied
to them not being so good as it ought to have been,
but he at the same time explained that he did not
suggest that the meat was in itself bad or unwhole-
some, but that it was rough and coarse, and these
boys being delicate were unable to eat it. Mr.
Steele, the gentleman referred to, confirmed the
statement made by the defendant.
Mr. Chambers submitted to the court, at the close
of the case for the plaintiff that there was no evr
deuce to go to the jury, and that the defendant in
his position as medical officer of the establishment
in question was perfectly justified in bringing such
a matter before the proper authorities of the insti-
',ution.
Mr. justice Williams said he was of opinion that

the objection was a good one, but in ()icier to ob-
viate further expense he would take the opinion of
the jury upon the question of malice; and he would
also, if he should turn out to be wrong upon the
point of privileged communication, ask them what
amount of damages they considered the plaintiff,
under the circumstances, was entitled to.
The jury, on this result, expressed an opinion
.that no malice had been established on the part of
the defendant, and they assessed the damages of
the plaintiff at 40s.
Mr. Justice Williams then said that he should
give the defendant leave to move to enter a verdict
in his favour, if the court above should think that
he was right in regarding the statement complained
of as a privileged communication.
(Before Mr. Justice Blackburn.)
TYACK V. RUSSEN.

This was an action to recover the sum of £3 10s.
the value of a suit of clothes belonging to the plain-
tiff, which it was alleged were spoiled through the
negligence of the servant of the defendant.
Mr. Burnard was counsel for the plaintiff. The
defendant was represented by Mr. Joyce.
The plaintiff in this action, it appeared, was a
journeyman tailor, and the defendant is a carrier
between Croydon and London, and according to the
case for the plaintiff he was passing by the Elephant
and Castle, at Newington, on the evening of the Ist
of May, when a man in the service of the defendant
was in the act of carrying a vessel containing nitric
acid from one of his carts to another, and in so
doing he carelessly struck against the shaft of one
of the vehicles, which broke the vessel and sprinkled
its contents over the clothes of the plaintiff, and
damaged them to the extent mentioned. A London
attorney it appeared was employed to write to the
defendant to ask for compensation, and the reply he
received from him was that he must be insane to
make such an application, and he (defendant) would
be equally so if he paid any attention to it, and the
attorney therefore was at liberty to take any pro-
ceedings he pleased in reference to the matter.
The plaintiff endeavoured to show that there had
been some negligence on the part of the man who
removed the acid, but it clearly appeared in the
course of the.case that the vessel had exploded quite
accidentally, and that the plaintiff had sustained
the damage to his clothes by rushing in among the
crowd to see what had happened.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.
CROFT V. STEVENS.—The letter of the solicitors
to the plaintiff in this cause has been referred to
the reporter, who states in reply that the report
was correct in every particular, and that nothing
whatever was omitted that in any way had refer-
ence to the question at issue between the parties.

OXFORD CIRCUIT—GLOUCESTER, Aug. 12.
(Before Mr. Justice Keating.)
MURDER.—Catherine Evans was indicted for the
wilful murder of Matilda Olive, at Bristol, in May
last.
The prisoner, on being arraigned, pleaded guilty
to the charge. She was pressed to withdraw the
plea, and to plead not guilty, but she refused, say-
ing, " I am guilty of murder before God, and ought
to suffer death. I hope I shall suffer the penalty.
His Lordship directed that the case should stand
over until next day, and that the gaoler at Bristol,
in which prison she had been confined, should be
sent for in the meantime. He also directed that the
plea should be taken as not given in the meantime.
1 She will therefore be brought up to-morrow.