The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

was being delivered to him, was then removed in custody of
Mr. Kean, the governor of Horsemonger-lane gaol.
James Horsted, George Bragger, Mary Ann Ash, Rosetta
Bragger, Richard Bragger, and Alexander Nicholson, were in-
dicted for the manslaughter of Luke Williams. The particu-
lars of the case have been very recently reported. The de-
ceased went into a house of a disreputable description in
Limehouse, and, while there, was robbed and beaten to such
an extent as to cause his death on the following day. The
evidence was of a very conflicting nature.
The jury found Horsted Guilty, and acquitted the other
prisoners.
The COURT sentenced Horsted to two months' imprisoment.
Richard Bragger, Mary Ann Ash, and Alexander IViehol-
son, were then indicted for robbing the deceased, but the
Counsel for the prosecution stated that, as he had no addi-
tional evidence beyond what the jury had heard in the
former case, he should not, after the verdict they had just
returned, call any evidence in support of the present iadict-
ment ; and
The Learned JUDGE thereupon directed the jury to acquit
the prisoners, which they accordingly did.
John Thomas Williamson, aged 21, was indicted for felo-
niously killing and slaying Robert Harrison Thurlow and
Julia Lane, by carrying them and thirteen other passengers
in a boat on the river Thames, which boat was constructed
to carry four persons only,
Mr, RYLAND stated the case on the part of the prosecu-
tion, and called several witnesses, from whose evidence it ap-
peared that on the evening of the 18th May the prisoner
took a number of very young persons into his boat, amount-
ing to 15 altogether; and that when the boat was some-
where near London-bridge it got foul of a steamer, and was
consequently upset, and precipitated the whole party into
the water, by which means five of them lost their lives, and
the rest were saved with great difficulty.
The Beadle of the Watermen's Company proved that the
boat in question was not a licensed one, and that from its
small size, it was one that would not, under any circum-
stances, be licensed to carry more than four persons.
The jury acquitted the prisoner.
John Curtis, alias Johnson, Sarah Bennett, and Lucy Groves,
were indicted far a robbery, attended with violence, on the
person of Boulanger, a Frenchman.
It appeared that the prosecutor had been induced by a very
young girl to enter a house of ill-fame in the neighbourhood
of St. Giles's, and that he had no sooner done so than he was
attacked by the female prisoners, who demanded his money,
watch, &c., and on his refusing to part with them they called
the male prisoner to their assistance, and the whole party
then fell upon him, knocked him down, robbed him of his
watch and 51., and on his calling for assistance the male
prisoner attempted to cut his throat with a knife, which
was handed to him for that purpose by ore of the women,
and that, in his struggles, his (prosecutor's) hand was cut
severely.
The prisoner Curtis, in defence, said that he desired the
prosecutor and the girl he brought with him to leave the
house, and on his refusal to do so he tried to put him out, and
in the struggle that took place between them the prosecutor's
hand got cut by his having dashed it through a pane of glass.
He denied having asked for or used a knife.
The jury found Curtis and Bennett guilty, and acquitted
Groves.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, June 15.
SMITH AND WIFE V. THE REV. E. PAGET.
__ _ _

Mr. Platt and Mr. Miller were counsel for the plain-
tiffs, and Mr. Wortley and Sir John Bayley for the
defendant.
This was an action to recover compensation in
damages for a libel, published by the defendant, of and
concerning the female plaintiff.
Mr. PLATT stated that he had the honour of appear-
iar for Mr. and Mrs. Smith, who were compelled to
place this case before them, for the purpose of clearing
Mrs. Smith's character. Mrs. Smith carried on a very
considerable establishment, as a milliner and dress-
maker, in Hanover-square, where she was well known
and respected. The defendant, he regretted to say, was
a clergyman, and the nephew of the Marquis of Angle-
sey, and he was now called upon to answer before a
jury for the publication of a false and malicious libel,
one of no ordinary kind. It was particularly pointed
to the business and calling of the plaintiff,
and was calculated to do her very serious injury. It
seemed, whether for the purpose of pandering to some
morbid feeling, or from higher motives, the Rev. Gen-
tleman employed himself in publishing a book, entitled
" The Pageant." He would not discuss the merits of
the book; he would only call their attention to the
general outline of it, for the purpose of showing them
what had been introduced into the preface, that they
might see the mischievous tendency of that publication.
Facts and conversations were introduced into it with a
view of laying before its readers the sufferings of young
females employed in these occupations. No one could
view their condition without feelings of compassion; but
he would beg to ask the jury what calling there was in
which there were not sufferings arising from labour?
How many were there in his own profession com
plained of the labour they underwent ? How many
who had arrived at the highest honours who
dropped almost into the grave?—the bodily powers
were worn out by the working of the mind. There
was no trade or profession in which there was not
great labour and risk to health, and it was not to be denied
that in the business of a milliner in this great town
those employed in it had to submit to considerable
hardship, and if there was a proper case to be laid before
the jury and the public, in which a charge could be made
against any individual of the mode in which the trade
was carried on, he should not complain of the charge
being made ; but that was not the case here—the estab-
lishment over which his client presided was not only
most extensive, but carried on in the most humane
manner. If he could go into the question, he had per-
sons here who could state to them the mode in which
the establishment was conducted, for this action was
brought for the purpose of challenging inquiry, to show
that it was an infamous calumny. In the preface
of the book it would seem to have been published
for the purpose he had mentioned, which, after
relating a slip-slop story, ended with a desecration of
the Scriptures. There was nothing, so disgusting as
this cant, which, after giving a story as prefaced by the
introduction, in which the defendant pretended that he
had received from a correspondent, in whom he could
confide, information, which he gave, but was grossly
libelous, and then ended with a quotation from the
Scriptures. The clergyman, whose duty it was to
preach charity, should at least practise it. In the pre-
face it was stated that the writer would not mention any-
thing for which he had not the warrant of good autho •
rity, either from the Parliamentary report, or from in-
formation obtained from private sources; and he then
stated that he had received information from a lady that
she had seen a young woman who was apprenticed in
the establishment of Mr. and Mrs. G., in B— S—.
The premium was 40/., and there were seventy appren-
tices. The meat was contracted for in Newate market,
and was so bad that they could not eat it. The bread was
so sour that it disagreed with them. Beer they had none.
The tea was as poor as possible. Each of the apprentices
was forced to pay 3d. a week to the housemaid, who
had no other wages, and did not therefore take much
care of their rooms. For three weeks they were only
allowed to lie down on their wretched flock beds for two
hours without undressing. At last one poor girl, who
had often complained of illness, left the room, and in
the course of the evening she died, and Mr. G. after-
wards hushed up the matter by giving her friends 200 L
The apprentices worked in a room at the top of the
house with a glass roof ; that in summer they were al-
most burnt up, and in the winter were almost frozen
with cold. All this, it would be said, was bad enough;
but there was a Mrs. S—, of ll S—, who had eighty
apprentices in her establishment, and who treated them
a little worse than Mr. and Mrs. G. Did they not
think that when any one ventured to publish such a
charge against an individual lie should have ascertained
whether it was true or false? In common fairness he
ought to have done so ; but he had done nothing of the
kind. The plaintiff, had desired this gentleman to la thin
know who his correspondent was, as he had stated that in
this correspondent he had the highest confidence, but he
would not give up the name of the party, and, therefore,
it was to be surmised there was no such in existence, but
that it was all produced by the Rev. Gentleman himself.
What was Mr. Smith to have done, knowing the utter
false-hood of the imputation ? He could do no more
than challenge him to the proof. If an action were
brought against a person fur publishing a libel for the
purpose of recovering damages, the defendant, if he
could prove it to be true, might state upon the record
that it was well founded, and if he proved it to be so, he
could defeat the action. A party could not succeed in
• action for libel, if the defendant could prove that that
whico'• he had written was true. An action was the only
mode itt which a party maligned could challenge the
roofof L.tiA aspersion, and the law did not allsow
~
person t
recover damages if the defendant came
forward boldly
and proved the truth of the arti-
cle he had publisher. Before the present action was
brought a letter was wrft:sm by the plaintiff's attorney,
stating that he was instructed on behalf of a lady, whose
name began with S, and to whom the initials were
applicable, to request the defendant to favour him with
a line, stating who the correspondent mentioned in his
book was. bio answer being returned to this application,
it was repeated, trusting, as a clergyman and a gentle-
nun, he would not hesitate to state whether Mrs. s—, of
S—, meant Mrs. Smith, of Hanover-square, and to
request he would furnish him with with the name and
address of the lady who furnished him with the informa-
tion. He (Mr. Platt) should have thought, that if the
Reverend Gentleman had not meant Mrs. Smith, he would
at once have said that it did not allude to Mrs.
Smith, but, on the contrary, he had written a
letter of a most shuffling character. It was
this :—" In reply to your note, just received,
I beg to say, with every desire to meet your wishes,
I cannot give up the name of the person alluded
to as my correspondent. There are so many streets in
London commencing with the initial H, and so many
persons whose names commence with S, that I can't feel
that the public is furnished with the slightest clue to
the party alluded to. As however, your note seems to
itnply, and I most deeply regret it, that some respectable
lady has been made uneasy, and as I trust I need
scarcely say my remarks were not directed against indi-
viduals, but against a system, I beg to assure you I shall
be most happy, in a second edition, to withdraw the
initials altogether ; but I must decline saying
who was or was not alluded to by them." In his
book, he (Mr. Platt); found this passage :-
4, I would much rather you would spit at me
than throw dust in my eyes. I can see little difference
between equivocation and downright lying." He (Mr.
Platt) could go along with him in that observation; and
he should like to have had a little truth here. He pub-
lished his book, but he did not dare to come forward. It
was not one of those cases in which there would be any
difficulty in proving the case, if true, because he might
have called all these eighty young ladies. It was plain
the whole was a foul fabrication manufactured for the
purpose of oppressing an individual carrying on a re-
spectable establishment, merely to gratify some feeling
of this Rev. Gentleman. He therefore called upon the
jury to give such damages as would be a lesson to this
gentleman not to publish that the truth of which he could
not establish.
Several witnesses then swore that they believed the
initials had reference to Mrs. Smith, of Hanover-square.
Lord DENMAN summed up the case. The fact of the
defendant having no knowledge of the party would not
exempt him from responsibility. All persons were
liable for acts they deliberately did which were injurious
to others. There was no doubt of the defendant's
general feelings of benevolence, but they must see
whether the defendant had not taken the means of doing
a most irreparable injury to one of his fellow-men. It
would have been well if Mr. Paget had determined not to
say one word upon the subject until he had inquired
Into the facts, and satisfied himself that they were true;
and, if true, it would have been highly proper to have
brought them forward; but he should hold that no man
was justified in publishing anything' unlessnit the time
of publishing it he was fully prepared to prove the truth
of that which he published. They would say whether
2 party had not a right to expect an explanation when
so maligned.
The jury retired for some time, and then gave a ver-
dict for the plaintiff—Damages, 100/.

Mr. Baron GURNEY said that robberies, attended with vio-
lence, such as the prisoners had used towards the prosecutor,
would always be visited with the severest punishment. He
then ordered sentence of death to be recorded against Curtis
and Bennett, accompanied with an intimation that their
sentence would be commuted to one of transportation for the
term of their natural lives.

Charles Hall was indicted for the murder of his wife,
Charlotte Hall, at Wimbledon.
It will be recollected that, a short time since, the wife of
the prisoner was found dead in her bed, and that he imme-
diately absconded. This conduct on his part gave rise to a
suspicion that the deceased had met her death by foul means ;
but on the coroner holding an inquest on her body, the me-
dical gentleman, who had made a post-mortem examination
of the body, gave it as his opinion that her death had been
caused by apoplexy, and the jury thereupon returned a ver-
dict of natural death. The same gentleman having now
repeated his evidence, the Judge directed the jury to acquit
the prisoner, and which they accordingly did.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(SATURDAY.)
MANSION-HOUSE.

A decent, hard-working man, named Mitchell, was
brought before Sir John Pirie, charged with having de-
serted from the 61st Regiment eleven years ago. The
circumstances excited much interest in the justice-room,
in which a number of persons, who were acquainted with
the prisoner, attended to hear the particulars of the
accusation.
Florence Driscoll, a native of the South of Ireland,
presented himself t') the Alderman, and said that he
was the accuser. He knew the prisoner to have been
a deserter, in the year 1833, from the 61st Regiment, of
which Lieutenant-Colonel Burnsides was the Colonel,-
Sir J. Praiz—Are you a policeman or constable?
Witness—No. I was in the same regiment myself, and
I was discharged Ia 1840, and I know he deserted from
the regiment in 1833. He told me he was discharged ;
but I know I am right in saying he is a deserter.
Sir JOHN RIRIE—What motive have you for thus ac-
cusing. this man of being a deserter ? Is there any re-
ward attached to the information ? Prosecutor-1
be-
liere there is, please your Lordship ; but that an't my
object. I consider it my duty, whenever I see a deserter,
to take him into custody. Sure, I'm sworn to do my duty.
Sir Jolty PIRIE—Do you know the man ? Prose-
cutor—l know him to be a deserter; and 1 charge him,
because I am bound by law to do so.
Sir JOHN Prnie—Why did you not apprehend him
before ? It is several years since he deserted. if he de-
serted at all. Prosecutor—l had nobody to help me till
a little while ago ; and that's the reason I didn't do it
before. I now charge him with being a deserter, and
I'll prove it upon oath.
Sir Jody PIRIE—What has the prisoner to say to
this ? The prisoner—My Lord, he is perfectly ac-
quainted with me, for my daughter is married to his son.
All this has arisen from a quarrel which took place last
ni,-,ht between his wife and my wife.
Prosecutor—l have nothing to do with my wife's
quarrels. I come here fbr the sake of the public, and I
have nothing to do about my wife and his wife. What
has my wife to do with my duty to my country—Eh?
Sir JOHN PIRIE—This is evidently a malicious and a
vindictive movement of yours, Mr. Driscoll.
Prosecutor-4 am sworn to take up persons of this
kind. He got my son to marry his daughter, to prevent
me from apprehending him, but I know my duty to my
country too well, and here I have him accordingly.
The prisoner—My Lord, I am now in the employment
of Mr. Hayward, of the Minories, a gentleman who be-
longs to the Court of Common Council, in whose service
I have been these two years and a half. I have been in
the employment of other gentlemen of high respectability
in the City, who will readily come forward to bear
testimony to my honesty and industry, and have brought
up a family of fourteen children. My prosecutor has
accused me merely on account of the disagreement be-
tween our wives.
Prosecutor—He must appear to answer this at the
War-office.
Sir JOHN PIRIE—As the prisoner is charged upon the
oath of the prosecutor with being a deserter, I have no
alternative but to send him to the War-office, but I
shall take care that the circumstances shall be repre-
sented to the proper authorities, and I shall certainly do
all I can for the poor man at the bar. I cannot dispose
of the matter without declaring that nothing can pal-
liate the conduct of the prosecutor in volunteering at
this time, and under such circumstances, to arraign the
prisoner, when he could have done so years ago.
The prisoner expressed himself most gratefully to Sir
John Pirie.
Several very decent men declared with one voice that
they had long known the prisoner to be a man of most
unexceptionable character, and in answer to Sir John
Pirie, who desired to know whether his family were
provided for in his absence, the prisoner replied that his
master, upon being informed of the occurrence, would,
he had no doubt, take care that they should be supplied.
Sir JOHN PIRIE—Very well, I shall see your master,
and I shall write to Lord Fitzroy Somerset upon the
subject.
The above scene was frequently interrupted by ebulli-
tions of feeling from the crowd.
WORSHIP-STREET.
Mr. Sowerby, a pawnbroker, was summoned by a
common informer, named Charles M'Callan, formerly
a policeman at Birmingham, who charged him with
having exacted a farthing beyond the lawful interest.
The informer's witness, Richard Moor, a discharged
policeman, proved that on the 6th of February he re-
deemed a waistcoat pledged for 45., and was charged 2d.
interest, which was a farthing too much. He was cer-
tain of the date, because he redeemed two pledges on the
same day, and made a memorandum of it for the purpose
of information, and he said that upon the second pledge
a farthing too much interest was charged also.
Mr. Humphreys, who appeared for the pawnbroker,
said the fact was that upon the second pledge a farthing
less than the lawful interest was taken, and he produced
the ticket in proof of it ; but Mr. Bond found the writing
upon it so imperfect that it could not be made out.
The informer's witness produced his memorandum
book, to show that his statement was correct.
Mr. BOND convicted, as it was admitted there had been
a farting overcharged upon the first pledge.
A second summons, for a similar offence, was then
brought forward ; but Mr. Humphreys admitted the
fact of overcharge in that case.
Mr. BOND fined the defendant 40s. and costs, upon
each summons, but he directed that the costs only
should he paid to the informer, and no part of the
penalty.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT. LAMBETH-STREET.
(Before Mr. Baron GURNEY and Mr. Justice WILLIAMS.)SENTENCE UPON AUGUSTUS DALMA S. Mr. Christopher. Mealing, who had been an officer in
At a few minutes after ten on Saturday the Judges entered her Majesty's Customs for nearly forty years, and was
thq Court and took their seats upon the Bench, and Augustus on the eve of superannuation on his full salary, was
paining, who was on Friday found guilty of the murder of brought before Mr. Henry for final examination, on a
Sarah Eleanor M`Farlane, upon Battersea-bridge, on the night charge of stealing a head of tobacco, the value of which
of Monday, 29th April, was brought up to receive judgment. did not exceed 6d., the property of the London Dock
The unfortunate man appeared very self-possessed, although Company.
the nervous working of the muscles of the mouth exhibited From the evidence of the different witnesses, it ap-
the strong agitation which he tried so SURR_eiessfully to subdue. peared that on Wednesday the prisoner, who was on
On being asked the usual question what I . had to say why duty in the tea department of the London Docks, on
1 passing by a cask of leaf tobacco, which some men were
sentence of death should not be passed against him, the pr
along, took a he d f l b h. h
sour, in a very firm tone of voice, said—" My Lords, God, 1
a o t eto acco, w ie pro-
-1 jetted from the end that had given way, and concealed
the great Judge, before whom I must next apppear, knows
that I am quite innocent. I was not with her (the de-
it behind him.
had done, desired nci of the labourers perceiving what he
ceased) on Battersea-bridge, nor in Duke-street, nor in the
tehnperishcemer to give the tobacco back,
beer-shop. I was not with her, nor near her, on the night
and
told him at thet
when she was injured. lam now quite ready to receive my
self for taking it, and the s h oul d be ashamed of him-
sentence."property was returned.
.The
The Learned Judge, Baron GURNEY, then put on the black circumstance coming to the ears of some of the dock
tap, and in the most impressive manner said—" Augustus i officers, the prisoner was taken before the surveyor of
Dalmas, you have been tried and found guilty of a most Customs and superintendent of the dock, and ordered by
heinous offence, that of murder—and murder, too, of a per- 1 them to be sent before a magistrate.
*en whom you have declared that you fervently loved. What ! When before examined, the prisoner said, in reply to
were the motives which could have induced you to have the charges, that he had observed the tobacco falling
committed such a crime is best known to your own con-
-1 from the cask, and he had merely taken it for preserva •
science and to Almighty God. That you are a man of strong
mind and passions, no one who has seen your self-command tion. and intended handing it to Mr. Dooley, a locker of
in this Court can doubt. You have had a fair, patient,
and impartial trial, and upon the evidence adduced, twelve . On Saturday, by the directions of Mr. Pelham,his soli-
Customs.
unPrejudiced men have rcturnedyouconvicted. Let me, there- citor, the prisoner declined. , saying anything, and was
fore,mosteamestly implore you to apply to Him who can alone fully committed to take his trial
forgive lyoulyourcrimes. .1 have no power, neither can I I
hold you out anyhope,UNlON-HALL.
therefore let me hat your sentence will be commuted ; 1 Joseph Cross, a cab proprietor, residing at Brixton,
few remaining day sg:r earnestly implore you to pass the ' was
your life in applying for mercy from brought before Mr. Cottingham, charged with steal-
that Power which is
extend it. It now becomes
well able to
upon you the
my duty to pass
final sentence; whichof Mrs.
I ing a purse containing a 51 Bank of England note, five
1 sovereigns, and three gold seals, the property
that you be taken to the gaol from
there be hung by the neck
until you are
whence you came, and
i''' Carr, of rosvenor-street, Grosvenor-square, the lady of
dead, and may the Captain Carr, of the East India Company's service.
Lord have mercy upon your soul." 1 Policeman Radcliffe, 27 L, stated that on the 3d inst.
The unfortunate man, who wept while the Judge's addre,s.s Airs. Carr engaged the prisoner's cab at Kennington, and