The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-31 00:00:00

THE GALWAY MAIL STEAM PACKET

COMPANY.

Mr. John Orrell Lever, M.P. for Galway, yester-
day appeared before the Westminster Police-court
to a summons obtained against him by Mr. George
O'Malley Irwin, charging him with publishing a
defamatory libel contained in a pamphlet addressed
to Mr. Alexander Murray Dunlop, M.P.
The summons had been granted by Mr. Ingham,
but the case was heard by Mr. Dayman.
Mr. Sturgeon conducted the prosecution ; Mr.
Sleigh appeared for the defendant, instructed by the
firm of Valance and Valance, of Essex-street,
Strand.

Mr. Sturgeon said the complainant in this case
was a gentleman of the Irish bar, who sought redress
for a malicious libel which had been circulated to
his prejudice. His client, Mr. Irwin, had had some
dealings with the defendant, Mr. Lever, in respect
to the Galway Mail Steam Packet Company. A
dispute arose between them which ended in an action
in the Court of Exchequer, brought by Mr. Irwin,
in which he gained a verdict for £l,OOO. The cause,
however, had since been again tried, when Mr.
Irwin, having declined to receive £5OO in liquida-
tion of his claims, had submitted to a nonsuit. After
the trial of this action, it:was to be regretted that
the defendant published a pamphlet and circulated
it freely in the lobby of the House of Commons.
Mr. Irwin was not aware of the circulation of this
pamphlet until, two or three days afterwards, hap-
pening to call on Mr. Butt, M.P., he saw a copy of
it in his room. He was not permitted to take it
away, but only allowed to make an extract, and in
that way he proposed for the moment to show
the libel. If there had been only one pamphlet pub.
lished it would not so much have mattered, but there
had been many. Mr. Roebuck had been placed on
the list of witnesses, with a hope that he might have
a copy of the pamphlet. A notice had also been
served upon detendant to produce it ; there were
also other -witnesses to call, who might have it. All
had been done on the part .of the prosecution to
produce the pamphlet, in the absence of which, if not
produced, he proposed to give at this moment the
best evidence he could to connect Mr. Lever with
the circulation of the malicious libel upon Mr. Ir win
of which he complained. The libel complained of
contained imputations of a very serious character
to a person of birth, education, and rank ; and al-
though he had truly been unfortunate at one period
of life, he sought every means of obtaining redress,
and of being restored to his former position, and
was not the imposter he had been represented.
Mr. Irwin said—l am a member of the Irish bar.
I have had transactions with Mr. Lever regarding
the Galway Mail Packet Company. I first became
acquainted with him in March, 1858. I was not
introduced to him by Col. Ormsby. I sent a parcel
by him to my nephew on board one of his ships at
Gravesend, It was in March, 1858, that I had
dealings with the defendant. I have heard him
libel me repeatedly. I can prove it.
Mr. Sleigh—You, as a barrister, must know, sir,
that what he said is not a libel, but, if anything,
slander.
A discussion arose between the two barristers as
to the production of extracts from the libel tendered
by the complainant.
Mr. Sleigh asserted that the extract was not ad-
missible in evidence.

Mr. Dayinan considered with him that it could
not be received.

Mr. Roebuck, M.P., was then examined by Mr.
Sturgeon, and said—l know nothing whatever of a
letter dated the 20th of August, addressed to Mr.
Alex. Dunlop, M.P. There was a pamphlet and
not a letter written by Mr. Lever. I have a sort
of recollection that Mr. Lever gave me a pamphlet,
but of the contents of that pamphlet I have no
knowledge whatever; I did not pay much heed to
it. It went into my waste-paper basket, or Heaven
knows where. I have not looked for it, and I do
not intend to look for it.

Mr. Sturgeon—You had a notice to produce that
pamphlet, had you not ?
Witness—l had a notice which I thought a very
impertinent one.
Mr. Sleigh—Were you present in the House
of Commons lately when, in the absence of Mr.
Lever, a petition was presented against him con-
taining insinuations of a very defamatory nature ?
Witness—T was, and gave my opinion both as to
the petition and the petitioner.
Mr. Sleigh—That petition I believe the house re-
fused to receive ?

Witness—They did not refuse to receive it, but
they refused to act upon it.
Mr. Sleigh—l believe on that occasion certain
members of the house expressed themselves in any-
thing but a complimentary manner with regard to
the petitioner ?

Here Mr. Sturgeon interfered, protesting against
the importation of any irrelevant matter into the
case.

In cross examination by Mr. Sleigh, Mr. Irwin
said the first interview he ever had with Mr. Lever
was in March, 1858. He did not then introduce him-
self to him on board one of his own vessels. Any
statement that he did was false, indisputably false.
He might have inquired about him, and asked him
to take on board a parcel for him, directed to Gal-
way to Colonel Ormsby, his cousin. He did take
it for him, and it was very kind of him.
Mr. Sleigh—Will you answer the question put P
Did you introduce yourself to Mr. Lever ?
Witness—Yes, I asked him to take the parcel.
Mr. Sleigh—That is an answer at last. Now, did
you not on that occasion proffer your services to
him for the purpose of carrying out the Galway
Mail Steam Packet Company ?

The witness, instead of answering the question,
here became very excited, and adverted to all man-
ner of unintelligible things.

Mr. Sleigh, again addressing him, said—l ask
you once more, did you not proffer your services to
Mr. Lever with relation to this company ?
Witness—Certainly not—that is your answer,
eir. You are stating what is utterly false and untrue.
Mr. Sleigh here reminded the witness that he was
in a court of justice, and added you are described as
a barrister-at-law, and don't know the commonest
rules in giving evidence, but talk all manner of rub-
bish and do anything rather than answer a question
frankly and properly. Pray be a little cool. Now,
subsequently to this introduction to Mr. Lever, did
you at any time proffer your services to him in form-
ing this company ?
Witness (in an excited manner)—No, it's false. I
never did. I asked him, or rather I endeavoured to
induce him to send one of his ships from Galway to
America ; it was the Indian Empire. That had no-
thing to do with Galway-. That was not in March ;
that was in the latter end of April, and anybody
with any sense knows that March is antecedent to
April.
Witness again was travelling into irrelevant mat-

ter and throwing himself almaf in an excited man-
ner, when Mr. Sleigh, Mr. Sturgeon, and the magi—
trate all interfered to get something like answers
from him.
Mr. Sleigh continued—Your counsel has told us
you had a misfortune in early life; was that misfor-
tune a conviction for forgery ?
Witness—l was indicted for forging a resigna-
tion of a Mr. Johnstone in Ireland. They kept back
his autograph letter.
Mr. Sleigh—That is not an answer. Were you in
1834 convicted of forgery ?
Witness—Certainly not ; it's false. I was not
taken into custody for forgery. I deny it. They
kept back my most important evidence. The Irish
Government of that time made out an indictment
against me without taking me before a magistrate.
Mr. Sleigh—Will you answer me, sir. You call
yourself a barrister, and behave like this.
Mr. Sturgeon—Pray answer quietly.
Witness—l won't be lectured by him.
Mr. Sleigh—You'll not tire me out, so do not
think it. Again I ask—Were you convicted in 1834
of forgery ?
Witness—l was not taken into custody on that
charge. I put bail in to any amount.
Here, and again and again, Mr. Sleigh had to put
the question many times in wearying succession
without obtaining a direct answer. The complain-
ant's manner and demeanour at this point, and
throughout the whole of the latter part of the in-
quiry, were most excited and extraordinary. By
turns he laughed, vociferated, gesticulated, and ad-
dressed remarks, occasionally of a very offensive
character, to persons whom he pointed to in court,
and the oft-repeated entreaties of both the magis-
trate and Mr. Sleigh, together with that of his own
advocate, to compose himself were of no avail.
The answer to the last question we have quoted
was, at length—l was convicted on an indictment ;
and in a truckling, dishonourable, perfidious, and
lying manner, they brought an indictment against
me, and withheld the original letter of Mr. John-
stone, the assistant barrister in Mayo, which would
have established my innocence. After they had ob-
tained a verdict, and I was convicted, the Lord
Chief Justice of Ireland wrote to me, saying as he
was a Bencher he could not interfere ; but I had
been convicted unjustly, and those who withheld
the letter ought to be prosecuted.
' Some interlocutory conversation followed, when
Mr. Dayman said—What I understand is, you
were convicted of forgery, owing to the withholding
of a letter which would have satisfactorily excul-
pated you.
Witness—Just so ; and my innocence was clearly
shown by what Si?R. Bethell subsequently wrote.
Mr. Sleigh—Upon being convicted, were you s
• tented to nine months' imprisonment ?
Witness—l was.

Mr. Sleigh—You have sent in a petition of right.
Now, on your oath, did you present that until some
years had elapsed ?
Witness—Not till 1841, and subsequently to that
I obtained an order to commit Lord J. Russell to
prison—(a laugh)—about the autograph letter.
Mr. Sleigh—Did you not, upon a recent inquiry
before the House of Commons, upon being asked a
question as to whether you had been convicted of
forgery, distinctly deny it ?
Witness—Certainly not.
Mr. Sleigh—Now, be cautious, for I have the re-
port before me.
Witness—The report is incorrect.
Mr. Sleigh—Did you not, in answer to Mr. Ser-
jeant Shee, swear that you had not been in Kil-
mainham Gaol.
Witness—Certainly and indisputably not.
Mr. Sleigh—Upon your oath, were you not asked
by Sergeant Shee, " Were you not in Kilmainham
Gaol for forgery ?" and did you not give the an-
swer, " No, this is the petition of right case."
Witness—No, 1 never did.
Mr. Sleigh—Did not the Lord Chief Baron in-
terfere and say, " First answer the question, if you
are minded to answer it ;" and did not Mr. Shee
repeat the question, '° Were you not in Kilmainham
Gaol nine months, on the sentence of a judge of a
superior court in Ireland, for forging the name of
Mr. Johnstone, the assistant barrister of Mayo ?"
and did you not reply, " Certainly not; it was a
petition of right case, in which Sirßichard Bethell
says there was grievous injustice done to me ?"
Witness—Certainly not.
Mr. Sleigh—Will you take upon yourself to say
upon oath that that question was not put to you in
the way I have deseribed ?
Witness, evading a direct answer for some time,
at length replied, " No ; I admitted I was in prison."
Mr. Sleigh—Did you ever give your address at
the Burlington Hotel, Castle-street ?
Witness—l did.
Mr. Sleigh—Did you ever sleep at the house be-
fore on any occasion ?
Witness—No. I had permission to have my
letters addressed there. • --
Mr. Sleigh—Was there anything more than an
arrangement to receive your letters ?
Witness—l asked for permission to have my let-
ters left there and was allowed to do so.;
Mr. Sleigh—Did you ever represent to Mr. Lever
that Baron Rothschild was a friend of yours ?
Witness—l had an interview with the Baron
about the 17th of May, and was introduced to him
by his cousin, with whom I was on terms of inti-
macy.
Mr. Sleigh—ls it true or false that you were
acquainted with Baron Rothschild ?
Witness—lt was on the 17th of May that I was
introduced to the Baron.
Mr. Sleigh—Were you on terms of private inti-
macy with Baron Rothschild ?
Witness—Not of private friendship.
Mr. Sleigh—Had you any correspondence with
Baron Rothschild before the 17th of May ?
Witness—Certainly not.
Mr. Sleigh—Was it then or afterwards that you
told Mr. Lever that you were on terms of intimacy
with Baron Rothschild ?
Witness—lt was subsequent to the 17th of May.
The witness was then asked as to the accuracy of
the minutes of evidence in reference to his acquain-
tance with Baron Rothschild, as they appear in the
printed appendix to the Second Report from the
Select Committee of Packet and Telegraphic Con-
tracts of June 26, 1860, and his ans w er was, " The
report in that instance se( med to be correct."
Mr. Sleigh then examined him upon his action
against Mr. Lever, in which he received £l,OOO,
and asked—Was a new trial moved for, Land a se-
cond trial had ?
Witness—Yes.
Mr. Sleigh—Was not your case concluded, and
Sergeant Shee addressing the jury for the defence,
when your counsel elected to be non-suited ?
Witness—No. I had not all my witnesses there,
and not wishing to allow my lawyer to take £5OO
when I ought to have had £l,OOO, I consented to
be non-suited.
Mr. Sleigh—You have told the magistrate that
you consented to be non-suited, as you had not all
your witnesses. Now, I ask you, upon your oath,
had not all your witnesses been examined, and was
not Sergeant Shee addressing the jury on the part
of the defendant before you consented to be non-
suited ?
The witness, after fencing with the question for
some time, at length answered, " Sergeant Shee
had finished his address."
The witness was here cross-examined upon his
action against Mr. Lever, and said—The case is
still pending. I have moved for a new trial, and
recommenced proceedings. I have instructed Mr.
Digby Seymour to proceed with the case.
Mr. Sleigh—When you were non-suited, were
you not adjudged to pay costs, amounting to £263.
Witness—l was.
Mr. Sleigh—On that very bill of costs were you
not taken in execution ?
Witness--Yes.
Mr. Sleigh—Did you not state in the Insolvent
Debtors' Court, where you have to appear to-day,
that you could not as you were summoned ?
Witness—No. I said I had summoned some one.
Mr. Sleigh—When you petitioned the Insolvent
Debtors' Court did you give your place of residence
as the Burlington Hotel ?
Witness—l did.
Mr. Sleigh—Did you in 1856 petition the Irish
Insolvent Debtors' Court?
Witness—l did, but I did not get my discharge.
Mr. Sleigh—Did not the Commissioners remand
you for another nine months ?
Witness—You are right.
Mr. Sleigh at this stage of the inquiry had some
papers put into his hand by Mr. Valiance, when,
after telling the witness to be cautious as to his re-
plies, said " Did you petition the Insolvent Debtors'
Court in England in 1856 ?"
Witness—Certainly not.
Mr. Sleigh—What ! Did you not petition for
debts amounting to .£7,000 ?
Witness—l did petition, but not for quite so much.
That was the cause of my coming to England. I
was on that occasion remanded for three months.
That was the cause of my coming to England.
Mr. Sleigh—Are you not a debtor to Mr. Lever;
has he not in hard cash lent you above £lOO ?
Witness—Certainly not; he is considerably my
debtor.
Mr. Sleigh—Has he not advanced you certain
sums of money at various times.
Wit ness —Yes, to pay my expenses on his account.
Mr. Sleigh—Has he not lent you money for your
own use ?
Witness—Certainly not.
Mr. Sleigh--Did you not give your acceptance
for £5O lent by him ?
Witness—No, that money Was advanced for his
own transactions.
Mr. Sleigh, producing the bill, exclaimed it was

not likely he wou.d uttve given ttig !weep! ince tn
hill trona which ht. Itdd tiot rt ceived benefit
Mr. Sleigh—Upon your oath, did Sou uot, make
that bill for Loo payable at Messrs. While's in the
Haymarket, when you had not a single farthing in
their house?

Witness—Certainly, and they owe me money now.
Mr. Sleigh—Did not Mr. Lever lend you various
sums of money for your own private purposes ?
Witness—No ; that was to go to various places,
Manchester, Southampton, &c. for him.
Witness here launched out into incoherent invec-
tives, as before, against the defendant, describing
his conduct as hat of a thimblerigger and swindler,
who had sent out rotten ships, and victimised the
unfortunate shareholders in the Galway company,
by which he alone had reaped any benefit, until he
was stopped by Mr. Sleigh's final question, " Did
you not give Mr. Lever this I 0 U for £5 ?" (pro-
ducing it), to which he replied, " Yes, and I paid
him, and he had not the honesty to return me my
I 0 U. He is an atrocious swindler in this as in all
other transactions."
In re-examination witness said that his only debt
to Mr. Lever was the £263 before alluded to, the
costs for which he was now going through the
Court, and if that were deducted from £5,000 owing
him by the defendant, it would leave the latter con-
siderably his debtor.
Mr. Sturgeon having solicited an adjournment,
Mr. Sleigh briefly addressed the Court for the
defendant. He thought it most disgraceful that a
gentleman like his client should be dragged there
that day to answer a charge totally unsupported by
a tittle of evidence that would justify such a pro-
ceeding.

Mr. layman observed that the case for the pro-
secution had not even been launched by evidence.
There was nothing before them to ground any case
on, and the summons was therefore dismissed.