The Sun.
London, England, 1850-04-01 00:00:00

Santiazo, Linares, and Australian shares have alio
1, changed bands.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME ClRCUlT.—Kingston, March 30.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Lord Chief Justice WILDE
and a Common Jury.)
THOMPSON V. NYE.

This was an action to recover compensation for
slanderous words spoken by the defendant.
Mr. Hawkins was for the plaintiff, and Mr. Parry
for the defendant.

The plaintiff in this action is a beer-shopkeeper
in Walnut-•tree-walk, Lambeth ; and defendant is
groom to a medical gentleman living in the same
neighbourhood. The slander alleged against the
latter was that he had upon several occasions, and in
a most public manner, charged the plaintiff with
having committed unnatural practices, but upon the
present occasion he did not attempt any justification,
and judgment was allowed by default.
Mr. PARRY addressed the jury for the defendant,
and urged upon them that, if they were to give
heavy damages, it must inevitably ruin the defendant,
as, from his position in life, it was quite impossible
for him to pay heavy damages.
Chief Justice WILDE, in summing up, said that in
cases of this sort the jury had no right to consider
what `►ere the circumstances of the defendant, but
all they were called upon to decide was the amount
of injury that was likely to have been occasioned to
the plaintiff by the slander of which he complained.
There could be no doubt that a charge of this descrip-
tion was calculated to ruin a man entirely, and to drive
him fur ever from society, and if they should be of
opinion that such a charge was made maliciously and
without any foundation, it was their duty to give
such an amount of damages as would be likely to
show to the world that the charge was false and
malicious.
The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a ver••
diet for the plaintiff—Damages, 501.
CROWN SIDE.

➢lr. Justice Maule was so severely indisposed after
the conclusion of the business on Thursday that he
was compelled to have medical advice, and found him-
self utterly incompetent to proceed with the disposal
of the criminal business. Mr. Sergeant Gaselee was
in consequence requested to preside instead of the
Learned Judge, and he accordingly sat to-day in this
court.

William Trigg, drayman, 36, was indicted fur the
manslaughter of Thomas Phillips.
The coroner's jury in this case had returned a ver-
dict of wilful murder against the prisoner, but the in-
quisition was not proceeded with, the prisoner being
arraigned upon the finding of the grand jury, for
manslaughter only.
Mr. Clarkson prosecuted, and Mr. Ballantine de-
fended the prisoner.

It appeared from the evidence for'the prosecution
that the prisoner
.was in the service of a brewer at
Kingston, and on the 25th of last August he was at
Ditton, on his way home with a dray, when, meeting
with two young women on the road going in the
same direction, he invited them to ride, and they ac-
cepted the offer and got upon the dray. The deceased
came up at the time, and he also insisted upon riding,
and, after some demur, the prisoner allowed him to
do so. It would seem that the deceased was very
drunk at the time, and he began to abuse the pri-
soner, and made use of very bad language, and
called him a liar three times. At length, after a good
deal of angry altercation, the deceased jumped off the
dray and challenged the prisoner to come down and
fight, and after some hesitation it appeared that he
got off the dray, and when he had done so he observed
that the deceased had a large flint stone in his hand,
which he appeared to be in the act of throwing at hies,
but before he did so the prisoner snatched one of the
iron pins from the dray, and struck the deceased with
it and knocked him down. lle remained insensible
for some time, and when the prisoner saw the conse-
quence of his act he expressed great sorrow, and
washed the deceased's face, and did all he could to
restore him. The deceased was ultimately removed
to Kingston, where he was attended by Mr. Ellis, and
also by Mr. Ruote, two medical gentlemen living in
that town, and he died on the following Thursday
from the effects of the injury inflicted upon him by
the prisoner. These were the main circumstances
under which the charge was preferred, but from the
facts that were elicited by Mr. Ballantine in his
cross-examination, it was made still more apparent
that the unfortunate man who met his death in the
way described had been the first aggressor, and that
the prisoner had received very great provocation be-
fore he struck the deceased.

Mr. BALLANTIND in his address to the jury charac-
terised the decision of the coroner's jury, that the case
was one of wilful murder, as a most absurd, ridiculous,
and ill-advised one; and he said that although it was
impossible for him to deny that the prisoner had
caused the death of the deceased, yet he should con-
tend that from the provocation the prisoner had re-
ceived, the act he had committed hardly amounted to
the offence of manslaughter, and if it did it was of the
mcst mitigated character.
Ssveral witnesses gave the prisaner an excellent
character for general humanity and good conduct.
Mr. Serjeant GASBLEE summed up; and
The jury found the prisoner Guilty of man-
slaughter, but at the same time strongly recommended
him to the merciful consideration of the Court.

The Learned JUDGE said, in passing sentence, that,
taking into consideration the imprisonment he had
already undergone, he should only order him to be
further imprisoned, without hard lablmr, for one calen-
dar month.

Henry Strugnell, 21, sailor, was in aided for assault-
ing and robbing Elizabeth Bird won the Queen's
highway.

Mr. Knapp prosecuted.
The prosecutrix deposed that on the 21st of March
she was walking on the road between Guildford and
Sutton, when she met the prisoner„ who seized her
and threw her down, and asked her if she had any-
thing to give him. She replied thist she had only a
penny, and he said that would not d)O, and if she had
no more than that be should do something else to her,
and she then, being alarmed at his threats, took out
her purse, and emptied its contents (one shilling and
three halfpence) into his hand, and 11)e then ran away.
It was about five o'clock and quit o) daylight when
this happened, and she was sure the prisoner was the
man who assaulted her.

Jeremiah Campbell, a constable of Guildford, de-
posed that he took the prisoner into custody in that
town, and on his first questioning him about the rob-
bery he denied all knowledge of it, hit admitted that
he had passed the place about the time. He took the
prisoner to a person at Sutton, who identified him,
and upon their return he said, " It's no use my tell-
ing you any lies about it—l am the man who com-
mitted the robbery."
The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and he was
sentenced to be imprisoned and kepit to hard labour
for twelve months.

NORTHERN ClRCUlT.—Liue;rpool, March 30.
NISI PRIUS COURT. (Beiore Mr. Baron
ROLFE.)
NOLAN V. PETTIGE,EIR.

In this case his Lordship had just commenced
summing up last night when our report was for-
warded.

His LORDSHIP proceeded to say, that during the
ten years and upwards which he had: had the honour
of sitting upon the bench he did not think that he
ever had to come to the consideration of a case so
painful in every particular as the present. The
action was brought by Edward Henry Nolan, called
Dr. Nolan, a Dissenting minister, t tgainst the de-
fendant, Mr Pettigrew, complainiteg of a slander
uttered by him, and contained in Di'ord's evidence,
which his Lordship read. Dr. Nola a complained of
the charge as a scandalous reflectioi i upon his cha-
racter, that he had committed adults ry and fornica-
tion, and endeavoured to cloak it fi coin the eyes of
the world by giving a prescription, to one of his
victims to procure abortion, whertaby she had been
caused intense suffering. The ansi ver of Pettigrew
was, first, that he did not say it ; secondly, that he
was justified in saying what he dlid, because Dr.
Nolan did commit fornication with two persons,
namely, with Elizabeth Towneley and: Mary Gilchrist.
It had been said that this was no defeiace ; but it was a
complete defence to one part of the ch2.rge, that he had
committed adultery ; it did not purport to answer the
charge of procuring abortion. To :sustain the action
the jury must not only be satisfied'. that the words
were uttered, but that they were ut tf Ted maliciously
against the plaintiff. If he said of a n ian that he was a
thief and a murderer, the presumption was that he was
actuated by malice ; but even then itlae words uttered
might not sustain the action, as it might be what was
termed in law a privileged communication. For in-
stance, if he asked, " Do you know such and such a
man ? He has applied to me to come ;into my service ;
he lived with you--what was his chi i 2 actor ?" and the
person addressed was to reply, " I la alieve him to be
an abandoned thief," that would lie, no doubt, a
gross slander—still the interests of society required
that people should have the liberty of answering
questions of that sort without being liable to an ac-
tion ; and that was what was called ai privileged com-
munication. So he took it to be clear that if the
ineinlo:rs of a Dissenting congregati on entertained
doubts as to the moral conduct of th eir pastor, and
one said to another, " I really believe :he has commit-
ted a felony, and endeavoured to proQu re abortion"—
if that was said merely with the view of putting the
other on his guard, he thought it was perfectly
lawful ; but still privileged commala ications were
not to be made the medium of incau dolls slander.
The Learned Judge concluded—Youl have now the
whole case before you, and I must et id as I began,
with an expression of an opinion th at it is a most
painful case, because you must con se to one of two
conclusions—either that a man who h as been for many
years the minister of a large congre, tion in Man-
chesterto
the factbeenas
that tft if the
(fur we cannot shut our
Eyes
the plaintiff is guilty in the two