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

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME ClRCUlT.—Kingston, March 30.

CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Lord Chief Justice WILDE
and a Common Jury.)
TrIOMPSON P. 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-shop-keeper
in Walnut-tree-will, 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 thst in
cases of this sort the jury had no right to consider
what were 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 apan 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.

CIOWN SIDE.

Mr. 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 for the
manslaughter of Thomas Phillips.
The coroner's jury in this case bad 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; iur
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 25:h of last August he was at
Dittoo, on his way home with a dray, when, meeting
with two young women on the road going in the
same direction, be 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 oti 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 hint,
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. He 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. Root?, two medical gentlemen living in
that town, and he died on the following Thursday
from the effects of the injury inflicted upon Min, by
the prisoner. These were the main circumstances
under which the charge wa's 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. BALLANTINE 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 h© 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
most mitigated character.
Several witnesses gave the prisoner an excellent
character for general humanity and good conduct.
Mr. Serjeant G.isELErt 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 labour, for one calen-
dar month.

Henry Strugnell, 21, sailor, was indicted for assault-
ing and robbing Elizabeth Bird upon 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 wet the prisoner, who seized'her
and threw her down' and asked her if she had any
thing to give him. She replied that she had only a
penny, and he said that would not do, and if she had
no more than that he 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) intor his hand, and he then ran away.
It was about five o'clock and quite 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, but admitted that
he had passed the place about the time. He took the
prisoner to a person at Sutton, who identified'hini,
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 kept to hard labour
for twelve months.

NORTHERN :ClRCUlT.—Liverpool, March 30.
NISI PRIUS COURT. (Before Mr. Baron

Ror.rE.)
NOLAN V. PETTIGREW.
In this case his Lordship had just commenced
summing up last night when our report was for-
warded. •.

WS 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, against the de-
fendant, Mr Pettigrew, complaining of a slander
uttered by him, and contained in Ford's evidence,
which his Lordship read. Dr. Nolan complained of
the charge as a scandalous reflection upon his cha-
racter, that he had committed adultery and fornica-
tion, and endeavoured to cloak it from the eyes of
the world by giving a prescription to one of his
victims to procure abortion, whereby she had been
caused intense suffering: The answer of Pettigrew
was, first, that he did not say it ; secondly, that he
was justified in saying what he did, because Dr.
Nolan did commit fornication with two persons,
namely; with Elizabeth Towneley and Mary Gilchriit.
It had been said that this was no defence ; but it was a
complete defence to one part of the charge, 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 uttered maliciously
against the plaintiff. If he said of a man that he was a
thief and a murderer, the presumption was that he was
actuated by malice ; but even then the 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 character ?" and the
person addressed was to reply, " I believe him to be
an abandoned thief," that would be, 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 a privileged com-
munication. So he took it to be clear that if the
members of a Dissenting congregation entertained
doubts as to the moral conduct ct their pastor, and
one said to another, " I really believe he has commit-
ted a felony, and endeavoured to procure 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 communications were
not to be made the medium of malicious slander.
The Learned Judge concluded—You have now the
painful anexpression
se of
an
whole case before you, and I must end as I began,
with
hcase, bee
opinion that it is a most
years the
has minister
been
foro f you must come to one of two
conclusions—either that a man who has been for many
a large congregation in Man-
chesteryears (for we cannot shut our
eyes to the fact that if
the plaintiff is guilty in tbe,t wo