The Sun.
London, England, 1850-08-09 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

Ajia.meehea'mber.s, Q.(3* H 8 V. ILYSTEIL
HOMER uCyls 1E INCN
AUx/: ' .
(Before Mr. Justice ERLE---aGndui
aidfceLd,e3Aonug.
Jury.)B.
justification.
Mr. damages for a ibel.
ThTehdiesfewndasanatlipleaacdteiTa
Lush were for the plain-
tiff;Adrian Ruysenuaers, was
MM rrA..IJEr.IIIIES, in opening
Q.e,and Miscati°n.
e case, said that the plaintiff,
establishment in London, a foreign merchant, having an
Lions with both those placqesl..
th , was fort he defendant.
and
he
I,llladnd also others at Rotterdam
serious injury
j:nryd hhaavdi,ughebeben
and Alexandria,
Oursuits; and the plaintiffl?ye
Thed defendant was also a
exmnaive business transac-
tions
having published statements
engaged in mer-
cantileinfli inflicted upon him by the
complained of a most
the most extraordinary deScriptietsi
calculated entirely to ruin his characteroin three letters of
andaswahmicehrewhaenret
aid a man cif honour. The plaintiff, who carried on
his business in the city of London, had a private
donee at St. John's-wood, and his family consistedmlyiferesi-
t of
his wife and three children; and, to hi
appeared that during last year he had intrroudnue,ce itd
the defendant into his family as a tutor for his children
and he sat at his table, was treated as one of his f imlY,
and thus had an opportunity of becoming
with his affairs. He would endeavour to refrain a' much
as possible from referring to the painful circumstances
shat were involved in the present inquiry, but_ he felt
compelled to inform the jury that .the plaintiff ver) soon
after the introduction of the defendant to his family bad
too much reason for believing that ho had sunceeded in
seducing from bim the affections of hia wife, and she
eventually quitted her home, and he believed was at the
present time living with the defendant in open adultery.
Not satisfied, however, with the infliction of an injury
of this deep and deadly character upon the man who
had befriended him, and who ' bad placed confidence in
his honour, the defendant bad, if possible, aggravated
that injury by committing the acts upon which the pre-
sent action was founded, and, after destroying for ever
his domestic happiness, he had sought to destroy his
reputation as a meichant, and thus involve him in inex-
tricable ruin. The libel of which the plaintiff com-
plained was contained in three letters, which be would
now read to the jury. The first was dated " April 14,
1850," and was eddressed to M. Mendez St. Leon,
banker, at Paris." It was as follovvs :
"It is known to me that you are in relations of credit
with M. A. Ruysennaers, of London, Alexandria, and
Rotterdam. I ought not to leave you in ignorance that
the scandalous disorder and immorality of Ruysennaers,
of London, have had the effect of bringing him into the
most complete insolvency, after having ruined his family,
tries in my:presence to assassinate
and attempted several ti
madman, has been obliged to
,Faonrdtheef
defrauding
his wife, whose life I saved; and who, in order to escape
them,
f avoid-
the il!-treatment of tLii
take refuge in the midst of the family of his noble, re-
itti;ctthaeblpe,urr.siitdlitvionftuhoisuse
pet haps, this wretch has made a pretended sale to a
person named Henry Hinckes, his clerk, who is known
to be without pecuniary means. There is now in my
possession a dccument emanating from this same clerk,
proving that he is nothing but the clerk, with a salary,
to M. Ruyseemaers;his principal, whose orders he pas-
rveidetiituol;
sively executes. I reserve it to produce the document
in a court of law,' when the time shall be found to be
Proper, and when I shall be regularly required to pro-
_

duce the tame. You will please to make such use of
this letter as you may thing proper, and communicate
the same, if necessary, to the creditors of Ruysennaers,
who are known to you, and accept my cordial salutations.
"J. HAYSTEK, 27, Norfolk-street, Fitzroy-square.
" P.S. It appears that his brother, of Alexandria,
disguised as a Turk, is at this moment in London or at
Rotterdam. It is said—but I know not whether the
statement is true or not—that he has sold, lent, hired,
or given to you his negro, who, as well as his noble
master, has been -Ix some time on foot. If tee said
Atrican is really with you, interrogate him respecting
the facts mentioned by me,• and you will not be long in
acquiring the conviction that these statements are much
below the truth."
The Learned Counsel then proceeded to state that on the
same day the defendant sent a letter of a similar eescrip-
Lion to another of the correspondents of the plaintiff at
Antwerp, and on the 18th of April he sent a third letter
to his correspondent at Itiiihelmstadr, And he read them
to the jury, but as they were precisely to the same effect
as the one above given, it will be unnecessay to repeat
them.. ll° said he should satisfy the jury that the foul
and malicious statements contained in these letters were
entirely without foundation. So far from being insol-
vent, he was carrying on an extensive and respectable
business as a merchant of the city of London; and the
statement with regard to Hinckes, his clerk, was utterly
untrue, and had no other foundation than this:—The
plaintiff, suspecting the improper nature of the intimacy
existing between the defendant and his wife, thought it
right, during his absence abroad on his mercantile af-
fairs, to give his clerk some additional influence in his
establishment, and being ignorant of the laws of Eng-
land, he thought that by subletting him his house and
furniture during his absence he should effect that object,
and that was the only ground for the slanderous
imputation that the plaintiff had assigned his pro-
perty to him in. order to cheat his creditors. lie said
that unfortunately, a few days back Hinckes, the person
referred to, had taken poison, and he was now in the
charge of his friends, and be should therefore not be
able to produce him as a witness, but the agreement that
was made with him in was court, and should be produced,
if his Learned Friend desired to see it. The Learned

Counsel then remarked upon the serious consequences that
were likely to ensue to a, gentleman in the position of the
plaintiff by such an attack being made upon his charac-
ter, and observed that it might have ended in his total
ruin; and he concluded by saying that he felt assured
that when the whole case was before the jury they would
give such an amount of damages as would show to the
world the groundlessness of the charges that had been
made, and would re-establish the reputation of the plain-
iff, which bad been so grievously assailed.
Miss Sophia Ruysennaers, a very intelligent little girl,

was then examined. The original letters written by—the
defendant were shown to her, and she identified his
handwriting. She then deposed that she accompanied
her father and mother from Rotterdam to England about
twelve months ago, and they resided in Elmtree-road,
St. John's-wood. About nine weeks after they came to
England the defendant was appointed tutor to herself and
her sisters, and he remained in the house until some time
in the present year.
Mr. CHAMBERS then proceeded to cross-&xamine the
witness, but upon his asking her where she was hying at
the present time she declined to answer, because she said
her mother and Mr. Haystek wanted to get her to be
with them.

Mr. JANES interposed, and said he believed an at-
tempt had been made by the wife of the plaintiff and
the defendant to obtain forcible possession of the child,
and he trusted that under these circumstances his
Learned Friend would not press the question as to her
present residence.
Mr. CHASIBERS said he must insist upon his right to a
full cross-examination in this case.
Mr. Justice ERLE said he must leave it to the discre-
tion of the Learned Counsel, and he was sure that he
would not enter into any inquiries that were not abso-
lutely necessary.
Mr. CHAMBERS said he should certainly not do so.
The inquiry was one of a very painful character, and he
should not enter into any matters that he did not consider
absolutely essential.

The witness then, in answer to questions that were
put by the Learned Counsel, said that she and her
mamma were living at Rotterdam for some time before
her papa fetched them• to England. Ile was
carrying on his business as a merchant at that time
and frequently travelled to transact his affairs. The
defendant was appointed as tutor atter they had been in
England about nine weeks, and he remained until he
. was turned out of the house by Mr. Hinckes. Her papa
and mamma used to quarrel sometimes, but she said she
never saw her papa beat her mamma, arid when there
was a quarrel her mamma always began it.—(A laugh.)
She bad seen her lather twice in a Turkish dress—once
after he had returned from Egyp`, when he put it, on to
amuse some company at their house. He never wore the
dress out of the house.

Re-examined by Mr. JastEs—The house in St.
John's-wood bad been prepared for their reception when
they came from Rotterdam. The quarrels between her
pspa and mamma were much more frequent after Mr.
Haystek came to the house. After they had had break-
fast he would say that he was going to teach her mamma
English, and they would go into another room, but this
only occurred when her papa was from home.
Mr. Coventry, corn-merchant, deposed that he had
known the plaintiff for several years as a foreign mer-
chant, and he had had business transactions with him.
He had establishments at Amsterdam and Rotterdam,
and carried on an extensive business.

Mr. H. L. Cradle gave similar evidence.
Mr. Francis Dart, a clerk in the Post-office, proved
that the letters containing the libels bore the English
and foreign postmarks, and had regularly passed
through the different post!offices.
Mr. H. Child, the plaintiff's attorney, deposed that he
was acquainted with the plaintiff and his wife, and ho
had been consulted upon the subject of their4unfortu-
nate differences. About ten days ago he said Mrs. Buy-
sennaer called at his office, and upon his going down
stairs be saw the defendant waiting for her, and they
went away together.
The letters were put in and read, and this closed the
case for the plaintiff.
Mr. CHAMBERS then proceeded to address the jury for
the defendant; but, as no evidence was offered in sup-
port of the plea of justification, and it appeared, in point
of fact, that no answer was to be attempted to the plain-
tiff's case, it will be unnecessary to go at any length
into the topics urged by the Learned Counsel. He com-
mented with some severity upon the conduct of the
plaintiff in instructing his counsel to destroy the reputa-
tion of his wife, and he contended that there was no
proof of the existence of any guilty connexion between
her and the defendant, and said that the accusation was
only introduced with a view to prejudice the inquiry and
induce the jury to give heavy damages. He contended
that if there was any ground fur the charge of criminal
conversation the action ought to have been brought in
that form, and that the plaintiff had no right to
charge the defendant with having libelled him, and
then, in order to induce the jury to give heavy damages,
introduce another accusation against him of having
seduced his wife. He called upon the jury not to
sanction such a course of proceeding, and said they
had no right to regard any other question than the one
actually before them, which was the thane of libel, and
all they were entitled to do was to consider what amount
of injury the plaintiff bad sustained by that libel. The
Learned Counsel concluded by urging upon the jury that
under the circumstances it was impossible for the plain-
tiff to have sustained any real damage, the letters being
addressed to persons abroad, who very probably locked
them up, and took no further notice of them until their
production was required for the purposes of the present
action.

Mr. Justice Ent ,in summing up, after having briefly
explained the nature of the action, said that the impu-
tation which was cast upon the plaintiff in the letters in
question was o.te undoubtedly of a most serious charac
ter, because it must be apparent to everybody that in
the case of a person transacting mercantile affairs with
foreign countries his position entirely depended upon his
credit, and, if once suspicion WbS cast upon him, it
might cause his utter ruin. The jury would dismiss
from their consideration all that had been stated with

r..gard to the unwed mit•conduct of the wife of the
plaintiff with the def-ndaut. If it was true it should form

the ground for a different description of proceeding, and
thejury would merely look at the case of libel, which
was the only one they now had to consider. His Lord•
ship then said that he could not help considering that
the conduct of the dtfendant, in placing a plea of justifi-
cation upon the record, and persisting in retaining that
plea up to the very last moment, probably for the pur-
pose of intimidating the plaintiff from proceeding with
the action, was an aggravating circumstance in the case,
and one which the jury ought to take into their con-
sideration in estimating the amount of damages to which
the plaintiff was entitled.
The jury, after a very short deliberation, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 600 L

WESTERN CIRCUIT —Exeter, Aug. 6.
NISI PRIUS COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice COLE-
RIDGE and a Special Jury.)
THE QUEEN v. LATI3IER.

Mr. Crowder, Mr. Butt, and Mr. Coleridge were coun-
sel for the prosecution, and Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Tap-
rell, Mr. Phiun, and Mr. Collier for the defendant.
This was a criminal information which bad been filed
by the Rev. George Rundle Prynne, incumbent c f St.
Peter's District Church, Plymouth, against the defend-
ant, as the publisher of the Plymouth Journal, for a libel
inserted in that paper on the 24th 01 January last, re •
fleeting on the character of the prosecutor. The follow-
ing is the alleged libel.
" Increase ofPopulation.—Like priest like people is an
old axiom, and rather a truthful one. It the blind lead
the blind, said the Head Of tt e Church, the ditch is their
destination. Not a hundred miles from Eldad Chapel,
where the abhorrent doctrines and practices of Puseyism
are being carried out, report says (and truly so) that a
certain young lady, ❑ot too modest in her behaviour,
and certainly not over nice about her honour or profes-
sion, re ceived a new-year's present in the character of a
son or a daughter. Before this strange arrival, the priest
(who cares evidently a great deal less for his own wife
than for certain other females, and on whom greet sus-
picion rests touching the origin of the stranger above
alluded to) declared the mother's situation to be a deli-
cate one, and discrimination to be needful as to the

author of her situation and guilt. One designated her
situation a dropsy, end scouted the idea of anything
criminal. To rebut the charge of guilt, a marriage of
long or short duration with a certain gray-head was
blown about. But, lo! at the appointed time nature
moved, and the dropsy was cured. Nature's laws re-
ves.h d the guilty secret, though not the guilty accom-
plice. And now what is to be done? A church meet-
ing mutt be called. It is convened, and with what re-
sult? The judge end jury present, the question is put,
• What have you to say to this charge, tdr. —?' 'I
swear by this book (the Bible) the child is not mine.'
' Right,' said the jury,' Right,' said the judge. and the
supposed culprit was liberated as innocent. There is a
dark secret here, about which public indignation must
be stirred to its depths. When men profess to teach
the judgment nigh, their own lives ought to be indeed
eft cent."
Oa behalf of the prosecution it was urged that this
was only a series of articles which the defendant had
published, and which reflected on the prosecutor.
The Rev. George Rundle Prynne, incumbent of Eldad
Chapel, was called. He was instituted to St. Peter's
Eldad in September, 1848, and was married September,
1849. to a daughter of Sir Thomas Fellowes, and resides
at Wyndham-place, adjoining the chap 1. In January
last his attention was directed to a paragraph in the
Plymouth Journal. There had been publications re-
specting him previously in that paper. On the 24th of
January, 1850, when he read the paragraph, be un-
doubtedly thought it was meant to apply to him, but
there was not the least foundation for the imputation
contained : first, from the language he could scarcely in-
fer any other; and, "by the abhorrent doctrines " being
mentioned, that it seemed bad doctrines were to be car-
ried out. He had preached sermons applicable to ad-
vent and on the second judgment. On the Saturday
Billowing he applied to his solicitor in the morning,
and on the some day, about 2 or 3 c'clock in the
afternoon, Mr. Latimer called on him. When
the defendant called on him, plaintiff's curate,
the Rev. George Hettling, was with him. He
said he had called with reference to an article in
the paper—first having asked for a private inter-
view, which he declined, and that was the reason of the
curate being present. Plaintiff replied that if he had
called with reference to that article, he must refer him
to his solicitor, in whose hands be had placed the matter.
The defendant replied, he did not wish to interfere with
any proceedings witness bad thought fit to institute, but
to emplain that the article was meant to apply to Mr.
Burgess, and not himself. Witness remarked be had
been attacked so many times by him, and in so gross a
manner, that he was compelled to place it in the hands
of his solicitor.
Cross-examined by Mr, GREENWOOD —He was not
living at Eldad at the time of his marriage, but after-
wards he came there. He had been living with his wife on
terms of the utmost affection. He never heard the smallest
rumour of want of affection between him and his wife
before the publication of this article, or affecting his
moral character in any respect. He could not recollect
who first pointed out to him the article of the 24th of
January. He might have purchased it. It was not Mr
Joseph Beer, who was one of the lay secretaries to the
Church Union Society, which promotes those forms and
practices called Puseyism. It was composed of a mixed
body of churchmen, and not Puseyites as they were
termed. He supposed they would promote the
Anglican Catholic Church, His chapel aud congrega-
tion were not commonly called a Puseyite chapel and
congregation. They would be very indignant at its
being done so. Mr. Latimer commonly called it so.
His affidavit for the Queen's Bench Ras made
the Monday following the publication of the
libel. He knew of a chapel called Second Ad-
vent Chapel, in a straight line with St. Peter's
Church. He knew Mr. Burgess by sight, and believed
he lived in a house next to the Second Advent Chapel.
It was about 100 yards from plaintiff's chapel. He sup-
posed from their title they preached the advent of
Christ and the second judgment. The chapel was
built before the prosecutor went to Eld ad, and Mr. Bur-
gess also resided there. He did not know an old man
named Stoodleigh in the same house with Mr. Burgess.
He never heard before the publication of this article of a
young lady residing near Eldad Chapel being delivered of
a bastard child, and never declared the situation of such
a mother a delicate one, nor took a part in it. Had any ono
stated such, it was false. He had never heard any
suspicion or rumour of a child having been so born
near Eldad Chapel. No church muting was ever
called at St. Peter's Church with reference to
that or any other transaction. No question was ever
put to him as to his denying the question. He was never
asked by any one to deny that or to abjure the Bible,
nor anything like a declaration required of him; and if
not for the referring to the "priest of Eldad Chapel and
Puseyito principles" in that article, he should not have
applied it to himself. The libel iu his judgment elided
with the word " daughter." That part of it referring
to the marriage he could not understand, and could not
apply that to himself. The matter wav taken up warmly
by his friends, but he had never had a penny for costs
paid him. He was answerable for ell, and nothing had been
promised him. No doubt his relations and friends would
help him in the matter, to pay that which was not al
lowed by the Queen in such a case as this. Ile might
have seen Mr. Joseph Beer on the Sunday at Sr. Peter's
Church. The paper he first saw in his own house. He
did not consider he had been told of the publication, and
although he did not habitually read the paper, he could
not recollect how he came by it. He could not understand
the meaning of the church meeting nor that with refer-
nce to the exculpation. Mr. Latimer might have said at
the interview that he was misinformed if he applied it to
lumself. The defendant did not say there should be as
ample a denial to it as possible, so far as he could re-
collect. A handbill, similar to the one produced, was
left at witness's house after they were posted about the
neighbourhood, dated the 4th of February, after the
criminal information had been obtained. Other readers
would have their conviction strengthed that it was meant
for him by reference to previous articles published in this
journal. If they had not seen them, they might have
applied this article to himself. He was the only priest
at Eldad, Mr. nettling being in deacon's orders. Lati-
mer had designated Hettling a " priest," although he
(the plaintiff) was the priest par excellence. He applied
it to himself from the previous attacks. Speaking of
" the priest" would make the incumbent the subject of
attack rather than the curate. (The Learned Counsel
handed the witness a paper containing an article headed
"The Mormonites," of December 27.) Ho had not read
that before the article in question. To-day was the
first time. It seems to refer to similar facts as that in
the libel. Had he seen this paper, he might have thought
it to apply to Mr. Burgess as well as himself—to himself
with regard to the " abhorrent doctrines of Puseyism,"
and to Burgess as the father of the child.
A vast number of witnesses were called, who all ex-
pressed their belief that the article applied to the pro-
secutor.
On behalf of the defendant it was stated, first, that he
was ill in bed at the time the article was sent to his of-
fice, and had never seen it until it was published, and
then it was urged that it was not intended
to apply to the prosecutor, but to a Mr. Burgess;
and this the defendant had explained to the prosecutor,
and had placarded the town of Plymouth with hand-
bills, asserting that this article had no reference to Mr.
Prynne.

Witnesses were then called, who stated that Mr. Bur-
gess was the preacher at one of the " Second Advent"
chapels at Eldael, Plymouth, and that a young lady had
been staying at his house who was in a state of preg-
nancy, acid was confined of a child there. A meeting of
the deacons of the chapel was called, and Mr. Burgess
was spoken to on the subject, but Mr. Burgess still con-
tinued to preach there. It was the opinion of many
persons that Mr. Burgess was the party referred to in
that libel.

The following evidence is rather curious:—
Mr. E. Micklewood, the :alleged author of the para-
graph, was then cared. He preached at one of the Se-
cond Advent chapels in Wilson-street, Plymouth, about
three parts or half a mile from the one at Eldad. He

had pteacbed there two years. and was acquainted with
Mr. Bufgess. The doctrines taught were different. The
chief topic, common to both, was the near approach of
the Saviour's second coming. He had been on terms of
intimacy with Mr. Burgess, who is a married man. and
separated from his wife. In January last witness had
corresponded with the wife. Shortly before the 24th of
January he furnished the article produced in MS. to Mr.
Latimer. It was in his own writing, and was his own
composition. It was sent to him in an envelope, and the
first time he had any conversation with Mr. Latimer on
the subject was the week following its publication and
these proceedings talked of. He had heard of the mat-
ters referred to by him in his manuscript, and were ex-
tensively circulated and bringing scandal on the sect by
parties hostile to them. On the 27th of December he
saw an article in the Journal, headed "Mormonites," in-
tended to apply to Mr. Burgess.
Cross-examined—Witness: and Mr. Burgess did not
come to PI) mouth together,
and the latter got the best
of it. Burgess had had the largest congregation. He
did not the first time he went to Plymouth "set up for
himself ;" there was an arrangement with the congre-
gation for Burgess and himself to change, but which he
afterward refused, and witness then sent in his resigna-
tion. The first article be wrote was the one complained
of. He did not write the " Mormorkite " article, neither
did lie know who did. He disagreed with Puseyism, and
believed the ceremonies and practices both "abhorrent
taid objectionable."
What did you mean by tbat?—That I disliked it be-
cause it was unsctiptural, and abhorrent is a term ex-
pressive .of that in my mind.
Why did you not write to Mr. Burgess stating that he had
committ-d a gross scandal by g(ttieg this young woman
in the family way—have stated it plainly ?—I wished if
possible to correct his eJnduct through the means of pub-

Did you not this lc that you could better correct
his conduct by exposing him at ouce?-1 might have
done so.

Were you afraid of being prosecuted ?—I wag not.
Did 3ou think you might be sheltered by the paper
from prosecution?—l had no fear of making known my
name in the matter, nor of making use of Mr. Burgess's
name. lie adopted this mode of correcting Mr. Burgess's
conduct, understanding the matter was so extensively
circulated that it could not but be generally understood
who vi as meant; and that was his reason for not refer-

ring to him etraightfoi ward like a man.
Awl is that part of your preaching, this sort of gc-

• :\
fix.ne
ie. it?—No, Sir, I regret to frW.ifiat-tIiAW iiko.
exeoption to my general and ungfeherii2oltiON,- •
How came you to make that re4e: tit*
Mr. Burgess?—Because there was a r =rte 41:4 ' -
feeling existing.
Did you think that ill-feeling would bilifjetriated or
mitigated by publishing this anonymously, and not di-
rectly mentioning Mr. Burgess's name?—Nut if my name
was known.
Without your name being known that you had pub-
lished it?—l did not anticipate the ill-feeling would affect
it either one way or the other.
And was that your reason for so doing 2—Certainly,
Writing anonymously you thought would not aftiet
either one way or the other the ill-feeling that existed?
—So long as my name was withheld.
When you wrote this article, did you concoct it alone?
—I did. I had been in the habit of seeing the defen-
dant from time to time since the publication, but not he-
fore; I saw him once a feu days before this appeared,
with reference to an advertisement being inserted in the
Pal:".•r!

Had you then framed this article?—l had not.
You bad not completed it. Had you at all suggested
it 7—No.
You had it probably in your mind?—l am not aware
that I had.
When did you first determine on writing thir article?
—I cannot remember.
Was it a few days before going with
_the advertiae-
ment ?—I had been thinking of the circumstances con-
nected with it for some time; it had been in my mind
from the time I first heard of the matter, and aas
well
in toy micd when I took the advertisement from Mr.
Latimer. The advertisement was headed •' An appeal
to the Christian public on behalf of Christian worship,"
and iu a paragraph of that I felt it my duty to stato that
" I stood entirely aloof from every sect or union." I
paid for the insertion of this advertisement. At the
time I called on Mr. Latimer respecting the advertise-
ment, I had not thought of writing the paragraph in
question on Mr. Burgess; it was quite at the time of my
sending it, that I wrote it. This apieel to the public was
dated the 17th of January. 1850.
Are you aware that the day after this is dated the
article in question was in the hands of the compositors?
This being.datel on the 17th, and the article in the office
by the 18th or 19th, I want to know whether, when this
advertisement was taken to Mr. Latimer, you had not
contemplated this article?—l believe not; this advertise-
ment was in three times.
Was the 17th the first insertion? —I cannot be certain.
You cannot' undertake to say it was not?—No. I
have not denied writing this article in question to a Our-
aort-Pprnari.lnitu Esoott, saying, that " now Latimer has
got into a scrape he must get him out of it the best way
he could." I had not said any such thing to any per-
son. Witness did nut write the article of "the Mor-
monites," but bad read it. Mr. Latimer did not call his
attention to that article until after proceedings were
commenced in this prosecution.. Ile did not communi-
cate with Mr. Burgess on his misconduct with reference
to this particular charge; but he had before in relation
to au unrighteous breach of an agreement entered into
-between them. He thought it was no use to communi-
cate privately to Mr. Burgess to improve his conduct,
but =that the better way was to publish this in the
paper, and that was the real and main object he had in
view.
And with a really good Christian view and nothing
else, I have no donbt?—l can swear to that.
Re-examined—With reference to the abhorrent prac-
tices of Pussy ism, he had seen many articles from
time to time in the journal, disagreeing with those
practices.
Had you ever had any communication with Mr. La-
timer, or furnished any article on that subject before?--
lam not aware of having done so; I believe not. Wit-
ness had been on bad terms with Mr. Burgess for three
years. He thought he had seen Mr. Latimer once only
before the insertion of his advertisement, but be was
not certain of that fact. He was not aware that at that time
he had any communicasion with Mr. Latimer with refer-
ence to the article which he afterwards furnished, and he
fe!t assured that he did not know at the time that he was 4
about furnish the article in question.
By Mr. CROWDER—The letter now produced was in
his handwriting. He did not exactly write in the same
handwriting at all times. His handwriting varied re-
peatedly. The handwriting of the libel and the letter
produced were as different as they well could be.
There area couple of hands; do you write many dif-
ferent hands?—lt is likely I writs differently the whole
I write.
How many do you write—five or six?—l am not
aware. Sometimes I write the backward way:
When you write a libel, I see you write different from
your ordinary hand ?—I was not aware that I was writ-
ing a libel. I write more commonly in the style of that
of the libel.
This seems an ordinary letter, and one wrote in your
own etyle?—l believe it is.
Will you swear to that 7—According to the best of my
knowledge, when writing slowly and cautiously it is not
the way I write, but on writing more hastily, such as
letters, I write more in a running style.
What do you mean by cautiously ?—I mean to say
when my thoughts are not so hurriedly digested or in
order for writing.
Do you mean to swear that you did not make a foul
copy of the libel before putting it in its present form?—l
du not always do so.
Cannot you recollect whether this article was written
in draught or No. 2?—l would not venture to assert
anything on oath. I do not consider that I had a draught,
and looking at the bottom of the manuscript libel, which
appeared to be written close, as if to get it into the sheet,
that I was copying it, but rather that I was confining my
remarks to the two small sheets of paper on which it was
written.
Br the JUDGE—Was there any signature to the libel?
—.No.
It went in en envelope?—Yes.
Anonymous ?—My signature was there in another way.
I perceive you have written it on one side of the paper;
was that done with a view to printing?—Yes.
You are aware that this is the practice adopted?—Yes.
After the Learned JUDGE bad summed up,
The jury retired for about ten minutes, and then re-
turned a verdict for the defendant.
This announcement was received with loud cheers.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
Thomas Matthews, a young man of colour, who said
he was interpreter and bear-leader in the employment of
several foreigners in London, was brought bel.re Alder-
man Gibbs, charged with having refused to pay two
cabmen their legal demands for cab hire.
The defendant, who is a very tall young man, with
long arms and a curly sugar-loaf head, appeared at the
bar with a laugh from ear to ear. The crowd sympa-
thised with him the moment he appeared in the loudest
manner.

Thomas Love, cab proprietor and driver, said—Last
evening, at six o'clock, while I was on the Whitechapel
stand, the defendant came up and hired my cab to take
him to the Haymarket. We were to go to Leadenhall-
street to take up some friends of his to whom ho was
showing the beauties of London; but when we got into
Leadenhall•street and met his friends, they refused to
accompany him, and so he got off the box and wanted to
cut away without paying me a halfpenny. I told him
my demand was Bd., but he swore I had no claim upon
him, and when I insisted upon my being paid my fare,
he punched me in the most awful way, with his bead.
Alderman GIBBS-With his head? Cabman—Yes,
your Lordship, be butted ut mp like a bullock. There was
no standing against it.
Alderman GIBBS—What ! he did not find any occa-
sion to use his hands? Cabman—Not at all. lie did
not want hands. He went in head foremost, and there
was no use in hands against him .—(Laughter.)
-Alderman GIBBS—Was he sober ? Cabman—Per•
feetly sober.

William Sims, cab-driver, said the black gentleman
hired my cab as well as the last witness's, on tne White-
chapel stand, to take up some of his friends in Leaden-
ball-street, and when I drove there he told me to go to
the —, and rf fused to pay me my lure. I told him I
must have my Bd. for taking me oil my stand, and he
then equared at me with his lists ; but he went in at me
with his head, and he bullocked me till I was obliged to
give it up. The policeman then came up, and he bul-
locked him too.—(Laughter.)
The policeman said that when he went up to the
spot where the row was, he saw the black man scuf-
fling with the last witness. When he interfered, the
defendant seemed disposed to pitch his head into
him.—(Laughter.)
The defendant said the cabmen had determined to
make a profit of him, and demanded half•a-crown each
for driving him into Leadentiall-straet, and as he re-
fused to pay such a sum, they pitched into him in their
way, and, of course, he bias oblighed to pitch into them
in his.

Alderman GIBBS—Have you any of your friends to
prove that? The defendant—No. They went to look
after the sights, and as they had only a short time to
stay, they left me in the mess.—(A laugh.)
Alderman Grsns—You must pay each of these men
Bd, fare and half-a-crown for his expenses ; and you
must also pay ss. for the assault, or go to prison for ono
month.

OUR COUNTL—A new novel is announced under
this title from the pen of John Mills, Esq., which is likely to
be received with great favour by all who admire vivid
sketches of country and sporting life. Mr. Mills' former
work, "The Old English Gentleman," at once attained an
extensive popularity, and it is said that " Our County" will
add considerably to his literary fame. Mr. Mills' racy and
animated pictures of the various sports of the field, by wood
and water, are always detailed with the fervour of ene fondly
familiar with them in practice, and are full of graphic energy;
but in "Our County" he is reported to have produced a
story of such stirring interest that it will be perused with as
much avidity by the ordinary patrons:of the circulating libra-
ries as by the most confirmed sportsman in the kingdom.
WESTMINSTER FREEHOLD LAND SOCIETI.—The
first adjourned annual meeting of the shareholders of this
society was held at the St. Martin's-hall, Long-acre, on
Wednesday evening; Charles Lushington, Esq., M.P., Pre-
sident, in the chair. The report of the committee was read,
from which it appeared that the society commenced opera-
tions on the Ist of August, 1819, and now consisted of 841
members, holding 1,140 shares, mid the subscriptions received
amounted to 2,569/. 15s. 11d. Meetings for extending a know-
ledge of the principles and advantages of freehold land so-
cieties had been held in the most important towns and lo-
calities in Middlesex and the surrounding counties; it also
appeared that thirty acres of land at East Moulsey, in the
►"estern Division of the county of Surrey, had been pur-
chased, and is expected to create a sufficient number of votes
to change the political position of that division of the county.
The report, which was received with applause, was unani-
mously adopted, and a vote of thanks, carried by acclamation,
was given to the chairman, and the meeting adjourned.

- -
TUE POTATO CROP.—A gentleman of high station
and unduubted accuracy states that " the potato blight is ap-
pearing in the neighbourhood of Ardmore, but not to any
great extent." Our accounts from various placeq are still
generally fayourable.—Cork Examiner.

PITON WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE.

Tan DAY —Morning 36 min. after 2 Evening 1 min. after 3
To-Moasow— Morning 25 min. after 3 I Evening 47 min. after 3