The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-22 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, June 21.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius before Lord Chief Justice TL.NDAL and
a Special Jury.)
Foirrit Z. LAWSON.
_ _ _

Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. James were for the plain-
tiff', Mr. Humphrey and Mr. Peacock were for the defendant.
This was an action of libel brought by the Rev. Nathaniel
Forth, against Joseph Lawson, the printer of the Times news-
paper, to recover compensation in damages for an injury done
to his character as a clergyman, by a paragraph which ap-
peared in the Times newspaper of the 26th July.
The defendant pleaded that he did not publish the libel,
and that the plaintiff was not a clergyman.
The present •action originated in paragraph which was
appended to a report of some observations of Mr. Clive, the
magistrati of Wandsworth Police-office. It appeared from
the evidence on the part of the plaintiff that he Was ad-
mitted into lily orders in 1803, and was ordained a priest in
1806, and that at subsequent periods he officiated as curate
of St. Sepulchre and of St. George's, Bloomsbury, up
to 1813, but had not officiated since that period
as a clergyman. He afterwards became 'reduced
in circumstances, and his case being made known, several
sums of money were sent to Mr. Clive, for the use of the
Rev. Gent:eman. In consequence of something which oc-
curred, Mr. Clive announced in the police court, that as Mr.
Forth bad not appeared to claim the money which had been
sent to him for his use, he would return it to those from whom
he received it, if he knew to whom it belonged; and
would not receive any more donations for him. Mr. Clive
added that he came to this determination in consequence of
information he received from the Rector of Wandsworth, and
would decline having any further correspondence either with
the Rev. Mr. Forth or his family. The paragraph appended
to this was, "We learn from another source that the Rev.
Mr. Field was suspended some time since by the Bishop of
London, and such suspension, as far as we can learn, has never
yet been taken off." For this paragraph the present action
was brought..
Mr. HumPuni,:v addressed the jury for the defendant. He
said that this was an action which should never have been
brought by the plaintiff. He complained that the plaintiff
had not denied the truth of what had been said by Mr.
Clive, which would have given him an opportunity
of calling Mr. Clive and the resident Rector of
Wandsworth. From what had been said by Mr.
Clive, there was nobody -who would not think that there
had been something worse in the conduct of Mr. Forth than
what had been stated in the Times. He called on the jury
to give the least amount of damages they possibly could.
His Loruisritr briefly summed up, and said it was certainly
a question of damages, which he should leave to the jury.
The jury retired at twelve o'clock, and at twenty minutes
to four returned into Court, with the intimation that they
could not agree on their verdict, and that one of the jury wlio
had lately recovered from an illness, was too unwell to re-
main any longer.
The Learned Counsel on either side consented to the dis-
charge of that juryman, and to take the verdict of the eleven.
The foreman said there was no chance of their ever com-
ing to a unanimous decision, and suggested that perhaps the
Counsel engaged could arrange.
Mr 11C3IFREY was quite willing, on the part of the defen.•
dant, to agree to the jury being discharged. -
Mr. Serjeant TALFounn said, under other circumstances,
he also should be willing to adopt that course; but, unfortu-
nately, his client was a poor man, and if no decision were
come to now, there would be no chance of the case being sub-
mitted to another jury, or of the plaintiff obtaining the re-
dress sought.-
The
,fury having been again locked up, at five o'clock re-
turned into court, saying there was not the least chance of
coming to a decision.
,
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE was sorry that he could not'
help them. They had had the benefit of change of air, and
perhaps their reasoning might prevail upon the dissentients.
the difference, he supposed, arose entirely from a matter of
conscience.

The foieman observed, that all reasoning was out of the
question, as it, had already been tried in vain. Obstinacy
was rather predominant.
Another Juryman said that nine of the jury ageed, and the
other two had sent home to their friends to give notice of the
likelihood of their being detained.

The ft roman asked if they might be allowed some water.
Another juryman' requested to be permitted to order dinner.
The Lord Chief Justice said there was no objection to their
being allowed water, as it had been held nut to be in the
character of drink. . . -

Other attempts to obtain discharge failing, they were
again conducted to their room, three= four of them assert-
ig that they were as ill as the juryman who had been dis-
charged.. ' •

AIAYOR V. Kar.Quart.—Clll.M. CON.
Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, Mr. Sergeant Channell, and Mr.
Cardwell, were for the plaintiff; Mr. Knowles and Mr. Ser-
geant Byles appeared for the defendant. •
This was an action brought by Captain Mayor, the plaintiff,
in the present'action, to recover compensation in datnages.
from the defendant, Captain Farquhar, for criminal conver-
sation with his wife.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD stated the case. He said this
was an action to recover compensation for one of the most
bitter injuries which one man could receive from another; and
in the present case, this injury was committed
under circumstances of great aggravation. Both the
plaintiff and defendant were officers in the Indiam army,
and both of them belonged to the same regiment, the 6th Bom-
bay Native Infantry. • The plaintiff went to India, where
he remained for some time, but returned for the sake of his
health, and, met nith Mrs: Mayor, the unhappy subject of the
present action, at Margate, who was stayin,, there with her
mother, who was in illll cal th. An intimacy was7formed between
them, Mr, Mayor being then about twenty-six. anti Miss Crisp,
the maiden name of the lady, about eighteen or nineteen
years of age. They were married in August, 1832, in Mary-.
lebone Church, and in -the mouth following they sailed for
India, where they continued to live on tettfis of the•greatest
attachment and love. The greatest friendship subsisted be-
tween Captain Mavor and Captain Farquar, and on those oc-
casions, when the 'former went upon outpost duty, considered
he had a friend and protector for his wife in the defendant.
In March, 1841, Captain Mayor was ordered on active service,
whom
te wash
which thilowecl
and was sent to the Bolan l'ass, and in the military opera-
tionshe acquired great distinction. In the
rtrha-ougMhtayaordvishabalde
toa son
sendtcoal
Englandk for
aHenry
his education,
and his mother was to accompany him:
Captain Mayor made every
provision for .her corn-
fort that his means would
allow, and he made arrangements
that .she should draw 201. a month, and more if necessary.
When Mrs. Mayor arrived in England she sent her
son to rr
school in'lslington and resided in a respectable boarding-
house herself. Towards the close of 1841 Captain Farquar
left India on leave of absence, and immediately
after arriving in "En gland he called upon Mrs. Mayor.
Mrs. Mayor was living at this time in Langbarn-place, -but
shortly quitted and went to reside at Somers Town with
Mr. Dunn, a friend of her family. Some time after this Mrs.
111-ayor went to Gravesend, and returned on the sth of June,
1843, to Dunn's, and on the day of her return Capt. Farquar
called'on her, and whatever it was that had occurred between
• them, Mrs. Mayorsivallowed a quantity of laudanum which
was sufficient to have produced death, if a doctor had not
been sent for: -Whether this act was caused by any repug-
nance, or from a sense of conscience, he did not know,
but in a short-time they made arrangements to go to Windsor.
'They went there, and-stopped at a tradesman's, alatned,Podds.
Captain Farquar took a front-room and; a bed-room, which
he engaged for the ensuing week, They were believed by